You overestimate IBM's bet on Linux
Actually no.
The 'several million' you mention is just the most recent investment IBM made in an continuing effort to promote and support Linux's overall development.
IBM did sell nearly one billion dollars worth of Linux based or related software last year.
Obviously for IBM, Linux is good for business. So, I really don't think IBM is going to walk from its ongoing investment in an open-source Linux technology.
Legally precedent, no, maybe, but don't you think similiars in claims by both former and present plaintiffs, and the resultant non-decison, is itself relavent; that its going to be very difficult to isolate untainted sources of code?
Mr. Saint,
Yes, both sides could potentially be wrong (or wronged), but your analysis of negative reaction to the pending suit as an attempt to gain moral ground is an oversimplification.
I'll tackled just one portion of SCO suit, the claim of financial injury as a result of the supposed infusion of proprietary information into Linux code; the many other arguments as to the merits of this suit are available on this site and others.
A plaintiff in a civil suit cannot claim damages unless he (or she) can demonstrate some previous or potential harm by which the absence of positive ruling would allow. By these limitations, SCO not only has to show its proprietary code found its way into Linux, but also that the introduction of this code has somehow given Linux (either the kernel or one of its many variants) a competitive edge, and has therefore hurt sales of SCO's own Unix product line. The question is - does SCO actually have a product which can compete with Linux on a even playing field? (or does SCO even market a product which could be construed as a competitor to Linux?) Suspiciously, SCO in its compliant has found it necessary to distort Linux's capabilities, stating among other things, that without big blue's help, Linux is a mere "hobbyist" attempt to play in league with(sic)'the professionals'.
If SCO cannot show harm, that Linux unaided by IBM is incapable of competing with its own commercial Unix variant, then even if illicit code did enter into some application of Linux, its case is lost.
Definitely by creating uncertainty and thereby delaying commitment to Linux by the computing enterprise, a competitor would gain some advantage, and this ultimately is one point SCO (and others)I'm sure are well aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
You overestimate IBM's bet on Linux Actually no. The 'several million' you mention is just the most recent investment IBM made in an continuing effort to promote and support Linux's overall development. IBM did sell nearly one billion dollars worth of Linux based or related software last year. Obviously for IBM, Linux is good for business. So, I really don't think IBM is going to walk from its ongoing investment in an open-source Linux technology.
Legally precedent, no, maybe, but don't you think similiars in claims by both former and present plaintiffs, and the resultant non-decison, is itself relavent; that its going to be very difficult to isolate untainted sources of code?
Mr. Saint, Yes, both sides could potentially be wrong (or wronged), but your analysis of negative reaction to the pending suit as an attempt to gain moral ground is an oversimplification. I'll tackled just one portion of SCO suit, the claim of financial injury as a result of the supposed infusion of proprietary information into Linux code; the many other arguments as to the merits of this suit are available on this site and others. A plaintiff in a civil suit cannot claim damages unless he (or she) can demonstrate some previous or potential harm by which the absence of positive ruling would allow. By these limitations, SCO not only has to show its proprietary code found its way into Linux, but also that the introduction of this code has somehow given Linux (either the kernel or one of its many variants) a competitive edge, and has therefore hurt sales of SCO's own Unix product line. The question is - does SCO actually have a product which can compete with Linux on a even playing field? (or does SCO even market a product which could be construed as a competitor to Linux?) Suspiciously, SCO in its compliant has found it necessary to distort Linux's capabilities, stating among other things, that without big blue's help, Linux is a mere "hobbyist" attempt to play in league with(sic)'the professionals'. If SCO cannot show harm, that Linux unaided by IBM is incapable of competing with its own commercial Unix variant, then even if illicit code did enter into some application of Linux, its case is lost. Definitely by creating uncertainty and thereby delaying commitment to Linux by the computing enterprise, a competitor would gain some advantage, and this ultimately is one point SCO (and others)I'm sure are well aware of.