Gartner Says Delay Linux Deployment Due to SCO

Sridhar writes "SCO's legal threats have prompted Gartner Group to recommend that companies delay deployment of critical Linux applications, determine "whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments", and take a "go-slow" approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems."

Comments

This is what I've been saying.

[FreeLinux]

Regardless of how the SCO lawsuit turns out, SCO is giving Linux a black eye. In fact, with the constant barrage of "news" regarding the SCO case, I'd say that Linux has a whole bunch of black eyes from this and it will still be a few years before it gets to court.

Re:This is what I've been saying.

[mjh]

simply change the OS to BSD and call it good until the whole thing blows over. It shuts up the clueless CTO/CIO/CEO and makes the lawyers happy.

Ok, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. Whether SCO is right or not, they've uncovered a problem with Linux and Microsoft has already leapt to remediate that problem with their products. The problem is indemnity.

If you are the user of a Microsoft product, and Microsoft has installed someone else's copyrighted code into their software, the owner of that copyrighted code can claim that you are using their code without a license and can sue you for copyright infringement. Just this week, Microsoft publicized the fact that they fixed that problem, by providing you indemnity in the event that such a thing happens. If it turns out that you're using someone else's intellectual property (either copyright or patent) Microsoft promises to pay the expenses and hold the liabilty for the infringement.

The problem is that there's no one that's doing this in the open source/free software world. So if someone else's copyright or patent DOES get into Linux or OpenBSD, then they can sue YOU for using it w/out a license. Generally, I think we are pretty well convinced that SCO's case has no teeth. But that's not the problem. There may be some other case out there that *does* have teeth, and there is no one to indemnify the user of Linux/OpenBSD in the event that something that's copyrighted accidentally got into the code.

For individuals this really isn't that big of a deal, because the copyright or patent holder won't likely sue someone who doesn't have the money to pay. But for a bank, or for a large company, this is a *BIG* deal. This implies a risk to the use of open/free software that can't be easily countered.

This frightens me! This is a SERIOUS problem. Suddenly, the old adage that there's no one to sue becomes TRUE for open/free software and false for proprietary software.

Re:This is what I've been saying.

[Alsee]

Lets look at the text of the law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

If I buy a copy of a program and install/run it that provision applies. The fact that the person selling it commited copyright infringement does not change the fact that I bought the program and I have a right to use it. Only the person distributing copies may be infringing copyright. Just like I have the right to read a book I bought even if the person who sold it to me commited copyright infringment in making it. Someone ELSE broke the law in distributing it, but I am not breaking any law in receiveing and using it. There is no way a person buying a product can be legally expected to know whether it was produced legally.

Unfortunately I am not as familiar with patent law and cannot provide a link for that. But it is absurd to suggest someone who bought a CAR could sued for driving it just because FORD violated someone's patent.

I'm really getting pissed off at courts and lawyers and congress saying we the law does/should apply differently whenever the word "computer" pops up. It's bullshit [pardon my french]. We do NOT need new and different laws to cover computers. The ordinary installation and use of a single instance of a program is not an infringement of someone's right to sell copies of their work. It in no way diminishes their market. It is the intended and required means of using that work. You are only infringing their rights if you install / use it on multiple machines at the same time.

The word digital shouldn't appear in copyright law at all. A copyrighted work is covered no matter what form it is in. Hell, most of the time US copyright law mentions digital it is a completely redundant statement saying that the rules are the same for digital works. The few times they DO say the rules are different for digial should all be eliminated. Hell, ordinary TEXT is effectively a digital format. There's nothing analog about it. It is a string of discrete characters. There is nothing new about "digital copyright".

-

Can't just ignore this

[ByTor-2112]

Whether or not the Linux crowd believes these allegations, someone within the community needs to take some serious time and legal effort to address these concerns. Ignoring or laughing at them won't make it go away, and I can easily imagine every corporate lawyer type calling up the CIO/CTO and saying "halt all linux deployments NOW!" As a BSD-ite I can sympathize and say that the sooner you get this over with the better.

Re:Can't just ignore this

[deander2]

> someone within the community needs to take some
> serious time and legal effort to address these
> concerns.

there are many in the community who would LOVE to do this, myself included (IANAL tho). but in order to do so, we need some sort of actual, specific complaint from SCO. until they start doing anything besides blowing smoke up people's asses, we have nothing to actually address!

other than the rude behavior of blowing smoke up people's asses. (which many people have addressed time and again)

Re:Can't just ignore this

[Kismet]

This is a necessary and important step in how the future will play out. If Linux is materially hurt by SCO's allegations, then SCO might be held liable for those damages.

Unlike the alleged damages that SCO claims, we can quantify and prove the sort of damage that is being done to Linux right now, just by pointing at the media and industry analysts.

In the past, media and analysts never said "Hey, Linux is killing SCO," which is what SCO claims happened. But now we see all kinds of people clamoring about how SCO is killing Linux.

Without solid proof of harm, Linux vendors, users and developers have little cause for action against SCO. Now that is changing, and SCO can start getting worried. We have more than allegations.

Gartner is so Baaaaaaddd

[theolein]

I have this sneaking suspicion that Gartner has only survived up until now by maintaining the same level of stupidity common to your average PHB. I have a feeling that any company relying on Gartner for decent consulting information would just as well be served by reading CNN's tech section or simply going to the local microsoft webpage.

Re:Evidence?

[gl4ss]

maybe, but it it looks like it's full of bull(the recommendation, no mention of any bsd for example, instead just 'go with windows or sco!, they're safe!', so it looks like a cash handed report). and what are they to pile into this steaming pile of fud that they well know has no solution yet except just fud'ing around.

.

yea kinda typical slashdot comment.. but who cares.

Re:Evidence?

[captain_craptacular]

Isn't Gartner the same group that will say whatever you pay them to say? They've been on both sides of the windows sucks issue, both sides of the use linux issuse. They're the whore of the IT strategy world.

I say we all put $1 in a paypal account and then use the total to buy a report saying that slashcode should be extended into a viable app platform and used to deliver ALL web content.

Risk Assesment

[Waffle Iron]

I like how PHBs asses risks. Today's topic: save a few bucks on IT expenditures.

Option A: Save money on software by trying out a different operating system that has fewer up front and accounting costs and is known for stability.

Assesment: Oooohhhh.... that's risky. Somebody might need to be trained! Somebody else might make outrageous unsubstantiated claims over ownership! Can't see how we'd do it.

Option B: Save some money by firing the people who know how to run your business. Gather up the most intimate details and critical information about your operations and ship them 12,000 miles and 11 timezones to a second or third world country. Hope that nothing bad happens to your information. Hope that the world political climate stays stable enough to keep your business running over that tenuous link.

Assesment: Yes, it's a no brainer! Woohoo! Let's do it! We're a cutting edge organization!

SCO's ploy is dangerous to Linux users

[Infonaut]

Reallocate is dead on and should be modded up.

If you run a company, your job is to make sure the company makes money and provides return to stockholders. Championing a technology for its own sake is ludicrous if you're an O-level person in a company. Linux has made inroads in the corporate world by providing a better return on investment than the alternatives. ROI drops radically when you have to spend money on legal fees just to use a given technology.

Sure, SCO is using FUD to disrupt the Linux market. But the fact remains that FUD is very powerful when backed by high-powered lawyers and a bankroll.

The corporate backers of GNU/Linux (notably IBM, which is the real target of all this tomfoolery) need to get off their asses and go on the offensive. Unfortunately in the technology world, how you spin your side of things to the press is just as important as the real facts. IBM may have the facts on their side, but they are losing the PR battle. If IBM continues to loose the PR battle, then Linux will really take it in the shins.

Re:Big Linux folks TOO quiet!

[Zak3056]

The big Linux folks are being way to quiet. Why don't we hear IBM, SuSE, Red Hat et all. Screaming at SCO or at least putting out their own press releases.

Because there isn't anything to scream about! SCO has so far made vague allegations with NO specifics, and nothing else. The only thing that CAN be done is to say "It's not true. Wait until trial." which is what IBM et al. have already done.

Gartner kinda has to say this...

[rainmanjag]

IANAL, but I think Gartner is obligated to give cautionary advice toward Linux. If Gartner simply stated that the SCO claims are false and their legal threats are FUD, a company paid for and followed their advice, and strangely SCO won the suit or sued Gartner's customer, then Gartner would be held legally liable for their legal advice. They could be sued for dismissing SCO's claims as absurd, regardless of how absurd they actually are.

As much as we all know SCO's full of shit, if there's a suit filed, there's always a chance they'll win. Gartner can't afford to ignore that.

-jag

Let me educate you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's set the wayback machine to 1994-1995, shall we?

At the time, the battle was between Windows, OS/2, and Apple. Linux was no where to be seen by anyone but a few geeks.

Time and time again we were treated to "reports" and "analysis" from the Gartner Group/Rob Enderle extolling the benefits of Windows (3.1, keep in mind, followed by 95) over everything else. Volumes of FUD was generated by Gartner/Enderle and Dataquest AGAINST anything non-Microsoft. It was a constant, incessant FLOOD. At the same time, discussion groups like Compuserve's CANOPUS form were being invaded by paid-for Microsoft shills (see www.pjprimer.com for the details), like "Steve Barkto".

The end result? OS/2 and Apple were discredited. THOUROUGHLY. Windows, even in it's horrid crash-prone unstable form of Windows 3.1 and Win95, "won".

And at the sidelines, Ziff Davis acted like cheerleaders at a football game, chanting "rah rah! Microsoft! Rah rah rah!" The lone dissenter--Will Zachmann--the only man who stood up to say "um, guys? This is bullshit!"...got a phone call from the Microsoft Munchkins trying to butter his bread on Bill Gates' side. Instead of selling out, Zachmann quit, turning the entire trade press over to pro-Microsoft bias 100%.

The point of my story? Any and all suspicion of Gartner, Rob Enderle, and Ziff Davis/ZDNET is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED. And further, it has nothing to do with "lunix" as you call it. Some of us have memories that stretch back before 1998, and we damn well REMEMBER what the FUD generated by these paid-for bastards can do.

You're damn right--this isn't 1998.

Re:remedy hostage

[tomhudson]

I'd just say that SCO doesn't have a case that will stand up in court, and they know it. They told IBM that IBM can no longer sell their (IBM's) version of Unix (AIX), and IBM told them where to go. If they actually had any sort of case, they would have gone to court and gotten an injunction. They didn't -- and actions speak louder than words.

AIX represents only 2% of IBM's revenues, but that works out to about $2.4 billion a year, so it's not like they don't have a financial incentive - if they have a case. But they don't, and they're afraid to actually go before a judge.

Then point out that Microsoft also knows that SCO doesn't have a case. Otherwise, Linux would not be rated by Microsoft as the number 2 threat (right after the ailing economy).

Then, as a third point, mention that SCO cannot "license" Linux without violating both the GPL and the copyrights of the kernel authors, and that any company actually using such a license would also be in violation, and open to lawsuits.

When they ask "So why is SCO doing this?", just point out that their shitty products cannot compete, and their only alternative was to go broke. Desperate || stupid poeple do desperate || stupid things :-)

Do legal threats against MS get this reaction?

[GodWasAnAlien]

At one point, MS had actual lawsuits against it from every direction. The Federal, State, local government and businesses such as Sun and Caldera (now SCO).

Did Gartner issue the same warning then?

So far SCO has only sued IBM. There is good reason for that. They have no case against others, unless they have a specific contract with them.

For a normal Linux user, there is no SCO agreement.

Linux users should assume that all linux code is covered under the GPL, unless shown otherwise.

The most SCO could ask linux users to do is remove possible infringing code, if there was any.

--

SCO claims that IBM borrowed their car years ago, and IBM took part of the car (perhaps near the bumper) and donated it to you, who assumed that it was a genuine gift from IBM.

Now SCO is coming to you and demanding payment. They are also running around town telling people that your car is running on parts stolen from SCO. You are more than willing to give up a part, if they can show and prove which part was taken. But SCO will not tell you which part it is, and instead says that if you pay for their car, they will not sue you.

A Call to Arms

[tabdelgawad]

Every SCO-related story now has tens of comments that are modded '+5 insightful' or '+5 interesting' that say nothing more than "SCO is evil, IBM will/should crush them, Linux is safe, and everyone who disagrees is in league with the devil (MS)". Frankly, this is neither 'insightful' nor 'interesting' any longer.

Linux is in trouble. The SCO litigation obviously has enough bite to warrant a significant SCO stock response, a reassessment by IT consulting firms, and some hesitation by the corporate world. These are all self- and cross-enforcing mechanisms and if not dealt with, they'll get worse in the next couple of years while this whole matter moves through the court system. The damage to Linux at the end, even if SCO loses, may be irreparable.

And the reponse of Linux advocates so far? 'Underwhelming' is the word I'd use to describe it. There's no shortage of outraged comments about 'SCO FUD' on Slashdot, but the big Linux players (IBM, Red Hat, the Kernel developers and maintainers) seem to have decided that ignoring or belittling the SCO threat is the best approach. Well, it's not working!

Here's a suggestion: start an audit of the kernel. If SCO won't say which code is infringing, then the auditors can certify which code is *not* infringing. It may take months, even years, to complete the task, but that's how long the SCO matter will continue anyway. In the end, an audit like this would be an insurance policy against any further attacks on Linux's integrity.

Even if the audit suggestion above is unrealistic (I'm really not qualified to judge this), my larger point stands: Linux advocates need to stop being dismissive and start being proactive. Beyond a certain threshold, dismissing FUD becomes a sign of weakness rather than a sign of confidence. I thing we've just passed that threshold.

what customers think?

[BenLutgens]

I've had a customer ask me about this. I assured him that there's no legal precedent for this and that until a judgement is made we need not act. The lawsuit is based on allegations only. There is no legal basis to pay these bastards at SCO a nickel. Make SURE your customers/bosses don't fall for this fiasco. Speak with them and let them know that its far to early to leap.

SCO must die, investors should abandon them for the scum that they are. Do NOT stop using linux because of this crock of shit. They refuse to provide clear proof of the violations, and in reality thier fight is with IBM, not the general linux user/developer.

Why doesn't Red Hat or IBM sue SCO for damages?

[rollingcalf]

SCO should be sued for the damage they are doing to Linux distributors, and an injunction should be obtained to shut them up until they can show proof in court. One half-dead company must not be allowed to use the legal system to terrorize people all over the place.