IBM Countersues SCO, And More!

mr.crutch writes "Few details are available, but CNet is reporting that IBM has filed counterclaims against SCO. CNet also has an interview with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik..." Jizzbug writes "Thanks to the folks of K5, we can all obtain our rights to use the Linux kernel from SCO, and without paying up to SCO's extortion. If kernel.org kernels aren't safe, sco.com kernels certainly ought to be." LWN has a copy of SCO's Linux License for your perusal. Bruce Perens is speaking of the dangers of patent portfolios to open source software, notable because IBM's counterclaims include patent infringement. And finally, a company is selling SCO Check, a tool to de-SCOify your Linux system, if SCO ever presents any evidence whatsoever of infringing code in Linux. Update: 08/08 00:16 GMT by T : SCO's public response to IBM's counterclaim is short and to the point. Among other things, it says "If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license." Given the other links in this story, perhaps SCO should go first on that count.

Comments

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

[p.rican]

Is it just me or am I wrong in stating that the license is fallacious because they keep referring to the "linux operating system". Last I checked, Linux was a kernel surrounded by GNU tools to make a complete operating system. Would that make the license itself a potential legal target for the FSF? RMS, are you listening?

Re:The Juggernaut

[acroyear]

Yeah, but IBM isn't using its patents against SCO's Linux distro?

The fun part about patents is that one can selectively apply/enforce them (give or take GPL restrictions; i can't remember what the GPL patent policy is and i'm not in the mood to re-read the legalize right now). This is different from copyright and trademarks, where failure to enforce with one infringer may set bad precedents when followup infringement is alleged. Copyrights are safer in this, in that a copyright holder can apply a license retroactively to the infringer they didn't care about. Trademarks are more risky -- you don't enforce it once and you can lose it entirely.

IP isn't one thing. Trademark, Patents, and Copyrights are all different.