Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix 457

Posted by michael
from the drawing-conclusions dept.
hexidec writes "Haven't seen this here yet, though I may have missed it. Anyway... A group of Australian techies have put together an analysis matrix of the likelyhood of each SCO Unix claim being true, and what outcome would most likely result if so. Puts a lot of the various recent suppositions in one handy place."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix

Comments Filter:
  • by zubernerd (518077) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:27PM (#6394449)
    Ahhh... I feel the slashdot effect. Since this doc has tables, I put a mirror up. http://mirrors.tatay.org/lnxsco.html [tatay.org] Cheers y'all!
    • by Saint Aardvark (159009) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:29PM (#6394480) Homepage Journal
      And another, 'cos what the hell:

      http://saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/linux_vs_sco_m atrix.html [saintaardv...rpeted.com]

    • Pointless effort (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:31PM (#6394516)
      Why host the page on your own site when google already HAS THE CACHE [216.239.51.104]
    • As long as we're mirroring it, anyone feel like transposing it from a 10-by-5 into a 5-by-10 table? Would make reading it MUCH easier.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:37PM (#6394593)
      You will notice that the purported decision matrix (implying a logical document with conclusions deduced by scientifc logic from given hypotheses) says at the bottom of all possible outcomes 'linux is unaffected'.

      In case you hadn't guessed, this is far from the logical document the name suggests, but really a portrayal of one person's viepoint. The conclusion, namely that linux is unaffected in all cases is clearly false, as I can think, regardless of my own *opinions* of what chance such an event is said to have, that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.

      There are many pro-Linux assumptions such as that Sco opened the source by distribution Caldera made any putative copyright violation legal since they were doing it themselves. This is an assumption you cannot make without a legal decision.

      This document adds nothing to the debate - the only thing that will is a decision in a year or so's time in court, and in the mean time Sco can frighten people into not using Linux
      • A year? hahahahaha (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sterno (16320) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:00PM (#6394817) Homepage
        We won't have a decision in a year. Think about how long the Microsoft case dragged out. IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.
        • by HiThere (15173) * <charleshixsn@ear ... t ['hli' in gap]> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:17PM (#6394985)
          Based on the way SCO is spending money, I'm fairly sure that the intention is mainly to cause MS to spend money. Yesterday, e.g., I received a "Presorted STD" publication from SCO. I have no idea why, and called them up to ask to be removed from their mailing list (will they? ??).

          FWIW, SCO can be reached at:
          1-800-726-8649

          The editor of the ad was at ptaylor@sco.com
          He invites comments. (No particular note on what kind of comment was desired.)
          Another mailing address is info@sco.com, but they don't particularlly ask that comments be sent there.

          Of note is that they claim that Java 1.3.1 and the Java runtime are Open Source tools. (I suppose that Sun may have changed the license, but the last time I looked the binaries were definitely NOT open source, much less Open Source, though parts of it might have reasonably been called that.)

          But sending out a mass mailing to people who aren't even vaguely interested in your product doesn't sound to me like a company interested in conserving it's financial resources.
        • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:18PM (#6394995) Journal
          Meeting:

          Tech guy 1: Lets implement Linux, its free and robust.
          Tech guy 2: Lets go with Windows, it costs more but there is that lawsuit which if SCO wins we might have to pay some undefined charges.
          Boss: What lawsuit?
          Tech guy 1: <goes on about how its fruitless and how SCO is the devil and blah blah blah repeating every Insightful post he's read on slashdot>
          Boss: So Linux might or might not be infringing on someones code and we might be opening the company to legal action?
          Tech guy 1: Yes but its just games that SCO...
          Boss: Which version of Windows should we get?

          So the longer this lawsuit goes on, the more decisions like this will have to be made.
          • by jfinke (68409) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @05:42PM (#6395760) Homepage
            Thank you. That is exactly what has happened at my company. My linux servers (which were soon going into production) are being formated with W2K as we speak.
            • Bait and Switch (Score:3, Insightful)

              by fiftyvolts (642861)

              You should have told your boss that there is another alternative that has all the benefits of using linux with none of this legal nonsense called BSD.

              Note that I am not saying BSD is better than linux, or that it is "not dead" or is "dead" or whatever. I'm just that perhaps pitching BSD might go over a little better with those who make decisions right now.

              • Re:Bait and Switch (Score:3, Insightful)

                by jfinke (68409)
                Yes, I agree that BSD whatever is a viable solution. However, Linux is a supported solution by many corporations. With Dell and Oracle presesnting RH Linux and 9i RAC as their preferred solution, there is much more support for Linux over BSD varients. Besides, Sontag and McBride have already said that BSDs may be another target. And the second that they say "may", companies wary of lawsuits (such as mine) are going to stay away.
            • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @06:43PM (#6396157)


              My linux servers (which were soon going into production) are being formated with W2K as we speak.


              Sucks to be you. MY boss, already impressed with the existing production Linux servers and our development environments, has asked me how we can go about getting MORE linux in to our production environment. And I am currently hashing out an IT plan for a new system that is based on Linux (although its more like a network appliance).

              It is expected that SCO's publicity stunt is going to affect some IT managers. Especially with the implied backing of Microsoft. But I question just how much "damage" is really being done.

              To be honest, I expected my situation to be simular as the parent poster's. I am currently in a very conservative environment that has not always embraced Open Source (or more accurately, like many other organizations, it wasn't fully aware of Open Source in its midst). Seeing this conservative (and very Windows-centric) environment embracing Linux and MacOS X is rather interesting. Watching it continue this trend despite the FUD is facinating.

              Wish your boss had the same outlook as mine.
              • Yep, well you are lucky one. It cracks me up to see all these posters talking about how this lawsuit doesn't matter. It is affecting the adoption of Linux. I was bringing these boxes in as low cost alternatives to Solaris and Sparc. Now, they are being converted to W2K. Wish I had decided to force them to spend more money! :) Funny thing is that legal hasn't said a word about the fact that we are running AIX boxes everywhere. That point really puzzles me, since they are the ones that SCO is going aft
            • Don't worry, you'll be formatting them back the next time the BSA gets a bird up it's ass about your company's licenses.

              Lets see, Linux lawsuits... Zero (1 outlandish one pending.) Windows lawsuits...

              • Well you have your run of the mill disgruntled employee dimes you out for alleged infractions
              • There is still the pending patent nastiness with SQL 2000
              • Hmm, Stacker anyone?
            • by fanatic (86657) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @10:02PM (#6397243)

              Thank you. That is exactly what has happened at my company. My linux servers (which were soon going into production) are being formated with W2K as we speak.

              Your boss is a dumbshit and you should have argued harder because:

              • Never heard of Timeline vs. Microsoft [itworld.com]? This is a proven, decided case - where MS SQL developers have infringed by using software the received from Microsoft - not the unfounded assertions SCO is making.
              • IBM, Oracle, Dell, CELF, and others are all going full speed ahead because they know it's nonsense.
              • SCO's suit agains IBM is a contract dispute with IBM. Even if they win, it's a, (probably impossibly) long way to get from there to collecting the first penny from a Linux user. Since, as Novell states, SCO doesn't own the patents on UNIX, any offending code (IF there is any) can be written around.
              • I was looking at the windows kernel and saw binary sequences identical to those in some of my programs. I'm suing Microsoft! They owe me a trillion dollars!. I'm going after all users of Microsoft products! They owe me 2 trillion dollars! What's your idiot boss going to do now? "Omigod, someones suing Microsoft".
              Honestly, I'm not thrilled with my managment but they they've got it hands down over your boss.
        • by cybermage (112274) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:44PM (#6395304) Homepage Journal
          IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.

          Here, here.

          In all likelyhood, IBM will drag it out until SCO is dead. It's the only sensible response.

          If SCO wanted to save face, and perhaps live on, they'd do better to turn 180 degrees and contribute to Linux. They could actually make a market for an SCO Linux distro and port their proprietary applications to run on their Linux distro and keep licensing the apps the way they always have.
      • by oaf357 (661305) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:11PM (#6394922) Homepage Journal
        It is a tad biased. However, if you take away the editorial it can be very helpful to public analysis of the case.

        Perhaps someone could release a "spin-free" version of this document and then let readers draw their own conclusions. I imagine that a few of the conclusions would correlate with this matrix.

        This matrix seems like a shot at SCO's attempt to win this case in public as opposed to in court. We all know that this is going to take quite some time to muddle through the court system. We also all know that the courts will have the final decision in this matter.

      • by alienw (585907) <alienw.slashdot@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:17PM (#6394989)
        that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties

        This is not true. SCO cannot force anyone to pay royalties *unless* there are patents involved (there aren't). Any SCO-owned code in Linux (if it exists) could be removed and replaced, and no royalties would be needed. The only entity that might potentially have to pay is IBM, and that would be damages rather than royalties.

      • by Archie Steel (539670) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:24PM (#6395068)
        I don't know...I do find the argument that SCO continued to distribute Linux after they knew (and, in fact, announced) that allegedly infringing code was in it to be quite compelling. The GPL is not just there for show, it is a license and as such is based on the same law as the one that makes other software licenses valid.

        Now, SCO's argument is that even if they did distribute Linux, they weren't aware of their code allegedly being in Linux. However, and this is important, they continued to distribute it afterward - and not a day or two, but a full month after disclosure. In other words, they knowingly distributed the offending code under the GPL, therefore releasing it to the Linux community. Note that this has, in fact, not much to do with the lawsuit against IBM, which is a breach of contract suit. SCO seems to have acknowledged that they can't legally sue Linux companies, which would be a violation of the GPL, and therefore Linux will be unaffected even if SCO wins against IBM. In other words, they're saying "the genie's out of the bottle, we can't put it back in, but at least we'll sue the one who let it out." That's how I read it, anyway. IANAL.
        • by Znork (31774) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @06:01PM (#6395866)
          You're not quite correct. The GPL is actually not based on the same law that makes other software licenses valid. Most licenses for proprietary software are based on contract law, as they often attempt to restrict what you're allowed to do with the software beyond copyright limitations. This is what makes the whole "agreement" part necessary. Contract violations are rarely criminal, usually entail damages only, and are enforced in court by civil lawsuits.

          The GPL on the other hand is not entirely based on contract law; if it were, it could theoretically be challenged in court for some form of gain, and would quite possibly have been long ago. Instead, it deals entirely within the realm of allowing you to do things that you are not allowed to do within copyright law. As the GPL is the only thing granting you the right to modify and distribute the software you cannot distribute the software without adhering to the terms of the GPL (unless you obtain specific permission to do so from the copyright owner). Violating the GPL means you've violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted material without permission and that possibly means a criminal violation (depending on local law and things like wether it was done for profit), with entirely different consequences. This is one of the reasons you dont see any cases of companies challenging the GPL; few lawyers, I believe, would recommend engaging in something that may very well end up with their clients broke and in jail (and hey, wanna bet the RIAA and MPAA will try to lobby in the death penalty for copyright violations soon?).

          Due to these differences the GPL is probably more "valid" than most ordinary proprietary software licenses, and violations can carry far heavier penalties, depending on copyright law in the country where it took place.
      • by AstroDrabb (534369) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:37PM (#6395232)
        The conclusion, namely that linux is unaffected in all cases is clearly false, as I can think, regardless of my own *opinions* of what chance such an event is said to have, that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.
        Not true. The open nature of Linux will make it VERY easy to remove any offending code and continue on. Sure, anyone that wants to continue to use the offending code will have to pay, however, I don't see anyone doing that. Also, the open nature of Linux will make it VERY easy to replace any funtionality that may have been removed. It is not illegal to reimplement any of the offending code. So, in this respect I think that this document is correct in its assumption that Linux will pretty much be unaffected.
      • by cait56 (677299) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:49PM (#6395354) Homepage

        For SCO to prevail it will have to establish that it owned the code, and that it was included in Linux distributions with malice and/or a callous disregard for the property rights of the code's true owners, but that SCO's "accidental" release of the same code under the GPL was not deliberate and shouldn't be held against it.

        It seems to me that SCO was in a far better position to recognize that the code being distributed as part of Caldera was in fact part of SCO's property than it was for other Linux distributors who did not have access to that confidential code.

      • by kfg (145172) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @05:00PM (#6395440)
        Please note that only code introduced by *IBM* into *UNIX first* is effected by SCO's claims.

        None of the code seems to be included in the kernel. Many distributions do not, and never *have,* included IBM's code.

        Thus Linux itself and distros that do not include such code will remain entirely unaffected even if 100% of SCO's claims are found by a judge to be true.

        At some point in the process SCO will have to take the possibly awkward step of *identifying* the specific bits of code they claim infringe.

        Why do you think they have refused to so so far?

        Because Linux could cleanse itself overnight and cease to infringe. i.e, Linux would be unaffected, and they know it.

        They're actually trying to *force* infringment by denying Linux distros the *right* to not infringe.

        This alone should indicate what slimey bastards they really are and lay doubt well at their doorstep.

        KFG
      • a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.

        No, he couldn't. He *could* decide the Linux kernel version whatever to version whatever are infringing and that folks are enjoined from using or distributing *those versions* since the breach of SCO's IP would force the cancellation of the GPL contract on them.

        After that, it becomes a cat and mouse game, with SCO trying to collect from alleged infringers, Linux authors trying to collect from
    • Geeze. Even the mirrors are getting slashdotted!

    • by dark-br (473115) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:21PM (#6395023) Homepage
      This "matrix" has been slashdoted, please "reload" :)

  • by TWX (665546) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:27PM (#6394452)
    We'll cast Hugo Weaving as SCO, Keanu Reeves as Tux, and Laurence Fishburne as IBM. Carrie-Anne Moss would make an excellent IBM, since IBM's products are fairly sleek and sexy right now, and I'd really like to get into IBM...
  • but let's just cut to the chase: Linux wins. SCO might give IBM a bloody nose, but they're not gonna knock that giant down.
    • by crazyphilman (609923) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:22PM (#6395029) Journal
      Actually, it's more like this:

      IBM, Red Hat, and SuSE are bikers hanging out at a seedy bar in Southern California, by the shore. Their harleys are parked out front, all choppers, gleaming and evil looking. Currently, IBM and Red Hat are playing a traditional game: each holds a lit cigar to his forearm while SuSE counts the seconds, with two twenty dollar bills at stake. A few feet away, the BSD brothers are playing cards at an outside table, a quart of Mexican tequila and a bunch of shotglasses next to the deck. Periodically, they throw back a shot. Their rusty Jeep Renegade sits nearby. Suddenly, there's a little lawnmower sound. A go-kart with a broken muffler pulls up, bumping into the Harleys and knocking them down. IBM, Red Hat, and Suse ferociously stride over and bellow.

      "HEY, MAN! THOSE ARE OUR BIKES!"

      A fat little kid wearing a shirt with wide horizontal stripes and a pair of bermuda shorts held up by orange suspenders jumps out of the go-kart and saunters over to the bikes. He's got freckles, bright red hair, and triple-thick glasses. He's obviously not "all there".

      Fat kid: "Hi. I'm SCO. Motorbikes suck; I drive a go-kart." (kicks the nearest bike, breaking the headlight). If it wasn't for my Go-Kart technology, you wouldn't even HAVE these bikes. You should buy me some beers in appreciation."

      IBM: (seething). "That was my bike. Kid, you really shouldn't have done that." Red Hat: (shakes head). SuSE: (muttering) "Gott in Himmel" (laughs)

      IBM walks over, grabs the kid by the suspenders, and lifts him clear off the ground, bouncing him up and down while looking him over. Then, he tosses the kid way up in the air, catching him on the way down by his underwear waistband and yanking upwards with both hands. With a great stretching sound, the drawers pull all the way over the kid's head. IBM lets go, and they snap into place.

      Everyone: MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Red Hat: "Hey, IBM, do that shit again!" SuSE: "Funny!" The BSD brothers: "huh huh huh huh -- HE said SHIT!"

      SCO (through his underwear): "You buncha creeps! My grandfather used to own this land. I'll tear down this bar and make you take your alky bullshit somewhere else! And, what's up with that biker gay-chic thing?"

      IBM: "Oh, my lawd, he went there." Red Hat: "Oh, you didn't..." SuSE: "Uh oh..." BSD Brother number 1: "Oh, boy, here we go."

      IBM leans over, grabs the kid by the ankles, and heads to the outhouse. He kicks the door open, goes in, and the door slams.

      (from inside)
      SCO: Noooooooooo!
      (SPLASH, SPLASH, SPLASH).

      IBM comes walking back out, without SCO. He takes a long pull from the tequila bottle.

      IBM: "Damn." BSD Brothers, in unison: "What, what happened, man?" IBM: "Damn..." Red Hat: "Hey, where'd the brat go?" SuSE: "Yeah, you gave him the swirly, right?" IBM: "Yep." Red Hat: "So... ?" IBM: "He's a slippery little bastard when he gets wet. Popped right out of my hands and went down into the latrine!"

      Everyone: "NO WAY!"

      IBM: "Yeah... Poor little bastard. Ah, well. What can you do? Maybe he'll swim back up outta it."

      (about a minute later)

      SCO flops out of the toilet seat, landing on the ground in front of the toilet, covered in green goo.

      SCO: "URH! URG! CTHULU FLAGNTH!" Red Hat: "Hey, boys, somethin' ain't right about that kid, man. It looks like he's growin' fins."

      Everyone looks. SCO has turned into a weirdo fish-man.

      SCO: "CTHULU FLAGNTH!" IBM: "Well, whaddaya know?"

      SCO runs across the parking lot, and leaps off the cliff into the sea.

      SCO: "CTHULU FLAAAAAAAAAAAGNTH!" (SPLASH)

      IBM, looking over the edge. "Well, I guess that's about that." Red Hat: "You don't see THAT every day." SuSE: "Pass me that there tequila bottle, ok?"

      (fade to black)

      You all thought I was going to get into the Microsoft/Cthulu thing, didn'tcha? Ha! Fooled ya!

  • Slashdotted (Score:2, Informative)

    by dimmu (214039) *
    It looks like the site is already slashdotted. I have mirrored the page at http://www.sais.nl/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html [www.sais.nl]
  • by wilfie (622159) *
    It's good that the FUD is being fought, but there could still be an effect which is not accounted for here.
  • Matrix (Score:3, Funny)

    by darth_MALL (657218) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:30PM (#6394488)
    Is there a site listing a matrix of the possible links that could survive a slashdotting?
  • by cruppel (603595) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:30PM (#6394503) Homepage
    ...blind speculation, I think.

    Those ratings at the top indicating the likelihood of these allegations (or whatever you want to call them) don't really mean anything. They're just speculation and opinion, much like the 17,000 /. comments dealing with this whole deal. It reads nice and legal-sounding, but to me it looks like a table formatted thread straight off this site.

    • by Atario (673917) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:35PM (#6394582) Homepage
      ...but they forgot a row in the table:

      Effect on SCO:
      Everyone hates them
      Everyone hates them
      Everyone hates them
      Everyone hates them
      Everyone hates them
      Everyone hates them
    • by MeanMF (631837) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:36PM (#6394583) Homepage
      blind speculation, I think

      I would lean more towards wishful thinking than blind speculation, but I think you're on the right track. They're not basing this on any actual evidence because the evidence has not been made available to the public yet.
    • by siskbc (598067) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:53PM (#6394756) Homepage
      A lot of what they say is complete bullshit. I would love to see Linux come out of this stronger than ever, I really would, but this guy's way off the mark on a lot of things.

      First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux. There's a big difference there.

      Then, he claims that Linux is OK because it only affects IBM from a breach-of-contract standpoint. Yeah, except for it establishing a finding of fact that can be used in later suits against linux users/distros.

      Finally, he makes the old, tired argument that the GPL saves us. That's all well and good except that the GPL, being a bit of a non-standard contract, has never been tested in court.

      A great deal of what they wrote is either false or misinterpreted. Like the article in Forbes (I think) last month said, the linux community is NOT served by sticking its collective head in the sand and expecting IBM and the GPL to come riding in on their respective white horses to save us. There are real risks here - granted, some of them are farfetched, but stranger things have happened.

      • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @05:03PM (#6395460) Homepage

        Finally, he makes the old, tired argument that the GPL saves us. That's all well and good except that the GPL, being a bit of a non-standard contract, has never been tested in court.

        I cringe every time I see this point being made. The GPL isn't relevant, really. If the GPL doesn't "stand up in court", then no problem, standard copyright law takes over. SCO has no other right to distribute the Linux kernel under copyright law beyond those given by the copyright holder.

        What this means practically speaking is that if SCO violated the GPL, and the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO has instead violated standard copyright law. The statutory damages are $150,000 per incident. Everytime someone downloads the Linux kernel source from their website, ka-ching. Every sale that they've made, ka-ching. Pissing off Richard Stallman suddenly sounds like the better way off, eh?

        The bottom line is that SCO continues to distribute the Linux source code. As such, they're either agreeing to distribute it under the terms of the GNU GPL (which don't allow extra burdens to be placed on the code) or they are directly violating copyrights. They are far better off if they get off with a simple GPL violation; $150K/download adds up quickly.

        • I cringe every time I see this point being made. The GPL isn't relevant, really. If the GPL doesn't "stand up in court", then no problem, standard copyright law takes over. SCO has no other right to distribute the Linux kernel under copyright law beyond those given by the copyright holder.

          You're right, but that's not quite where I'm going with it. I'm just saying that the GPL isn't a savior in this case, I don't believe, despite that people want it to be.

          What this means practically speaking is that if S

    • Nothing new, just more opinions. Using the corporate "formatting means expertise" method is not especially helpful, but it is clear and well-done.
    • by smoondog (85133)
      I agree. Although the info (not speculation) in the individual cells is interesting, everything else is (biased) speculation. This is one of the dumber /. articles in a while, IMO. They say that the liklihood that "There is no infringing code" is "Most Likely." HTF do they figure that? Sure they haven't released any code, but frankly, it is in their best interests *not* too, either way. Why give a potential legal defense time to grow on /. and in the hands of IBM's lawyers? I would point wild accusati
  • Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tiresias_Mons (247567)
    ...all the linux is unaffected conclusions, while probably right, make is seem a little like the following line of analysis:

    1) Something here
    2) ...
    3) Profit!

    I don't know, just seemed like kinda a cheesy chart to me, although a lot of the points he made were decent enough, the analysis seemed cheesy.
    • I don't know, just seemed like kinda a cheesy chart to me, although a lot of the points he made were decent enough, the analysis seemed cheesy.

      I agree. Especially since almost every argument comes back to "SCO released this after discovering the infringement."
  • Matrix? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Raster Burn (213891) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:32PM (#6394536)
    Morpheus: SCO is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your operating system. Or when you boot your AIX box. You can feel it when you surf the web. When you compile your kernel. When you mount your filesystems. It is the lawsuit that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
  • Jesus... (Score:2, Funny)

    by tevenson (625386)
    I, seriously, just got the biggest headache ever. SCO must be desperate for something to do as of late.
  • by reimero (194707) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:33PM (#6394542)
    There is no SCO.
  • by Godeke (32895) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:33PM (#6394544)
    The argument contained within this table leans heavily on the "continued distribution of GPL code after realization of the consequences thereof". I believe they will try the "it took us time to remove it" argument, but that's pretty weak when you consider that the time elapsed isn't just the time from the public lawsuit, but that there must have been internal discussion as well...
    • Some of their quotes in interviews indicate that they didn't understand the implications of the GPL until around May 19. (Without the code being under the GPL, their actions would have merely been unethical instead of illegal).

      The other interesting thing is that they are still distributing the code from their website.

      • by Godeke (32895) *
        Hmmm. I don't think that the courts would put up with "we were distributing this code under the GPL, but we didn't read it first" defense. Ignorance is one thing courts rarely factor in, and in the case of corporate contracts, almost never. Deception is a different case, but I doubt anyone can say the GPL is deceptive - it states its intentions pretty clearly.

        The fact that they had the GPL on the code makes the understanding of the ramifications a moot point. What SCO has said was they didn't know their co
    • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:54PM (#6394767) Journal

      This is the weakest point in the matrix, they seem to think that courts are not influenced by arguments. SCO, if their lawyers are good enough, can claim that the time lasped was "reasonable" or something else to get around it.

      Even if you think that its a strong case either way, its what the courts decision which is what matters for businesses.
      • by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:22PM (#6395031) Homepage
        Certain arguments are simply too laughable to be taken seriously. The notion that one should have ample time to continue to be in breach of a contract is fundementally abusurd. One should not reasonably expect ANY judge to accept such argumentation.

        Besides, such argumentation would undermind SCO's claims of damages.
        • by GoofyBoy (44399)
          >The notion that one should have ample time to continue to be in breach of a contract is fundementally abusurd.

          The keyword here is "Reasonable".

          All they have to do is prove to a judge, a human being, that in the complex legal system that they acted "reasonable", then there is a chance that the time elasped is not a valid point.

          If a case gets to the courts, anything could happen.
    • by Morel (67425)
      Weaker still when you take into accout the fact that the GPL has never been proved legal in a court of law. The FSF may think the GPL is strong enough [gnu.org], but others differ [siliconvalley.com].

      Cheers,

      Morel
    • by tlk nnr (449342)

      The argument contained within this table leans heavily on the "continued distribution of GPL code after realization of the consequences thereof".

      The whole block is bogus:
      SCO makes two independant claims: that IBM violates their contract with SCO, and that Linux contains source code from the SCO Unix code base without authorization. They began with their lawsuit against IBM on March 6th, and at that time SCO board members said that this is about SCO-IBM, not about Linux.
      The claims that the kernel contai

  • by greppling (601175) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:33PM (#6394552)
    ...to see what a biased analysis this is. "Linux unaffected" with 100% certainty? Come on, we all have seen things go horribly wrong in courts. And have seen impact of pure FUD with no basis whatsoever.

    Yeah, I know I will get modded down for just suggesting that SCO's action might have some effect, but well...

    • ...to see what a biased analysis this is. "Linux unaffected" with 100% certainty?

      It seems to me that this entire matrix is based on the fact that SCO continued to distribute its Linux distro long after the lawsuit had been brought, indicating that the code was therefore gifted to the community. So no matter what happens, Linux wins.

      Now, that may be true (and wouldn't it be nice if it was), but I would like to hear what the legal eagles think about this particular defense. It seems to me that this sho
    • by KillerHamster (645942) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:52PM (#6394735) Homepage
      And even if Linux is not affected legally, this lawsuit could permanently scare a lot of companies and individuals away from using Linux, and OSS in general. Maybe it already has.
      • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:10PM (#6394914) Journal
        This might be the biggest threat to Linux, that historical fluke of nature that changes everything.

        1. Businesses love Linux because its free and robust.
        2. This infingement hits the nightly news. People get half the story.
        3. The case drags on and its not resolved. Business people think "Am I opening the company to paying infingement charges (unexpected costs) and making a career-limiting decision. Wouldn't it be better to go to MS and just have everything known?"
        4. The case is thrown out. Business people think "Linux dodged the bullet this time. But what about the next time? Do we really want to risk something that could happen again?"

        And so effectively kills Linux attempt at getting into the workplace.
  • by s20451 (410424) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:38PM (#6394600) Journal
    I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.

    David Boies is a smart man, and surely he or his legal team would have thought of this. They must have some sort of legitimate defense up their sleeve. Maybe a direct attack on the legitimacy of the GPL?

    I think it will run something like this: Linux is important to SCO's business. Even though they discovered violations in linux, they had to continue to release linux or suffer grave damage to their business. They should not be made to suffer for the malicious actions of IBM, and they did not voluntarily release their own source code, so the GPL should not apply to their proprietary code that somehow found its way into linux.
    • by molarmass192 (608071) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:19PM (#6395010) Homepage Journal
      Wrong, they knew about the code in March, they continued to distribute the software until May. Therefore, as per section 4 of the GPL:

      4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

      I quote Mr. Sontag, SCO will continue to support SCO Linux users and "hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products,". Long story short, they cannot only indemnify Caldera Linux users under the GPL, so they've effectively absolved all Linux users by absolving Caldera Linux users and freed the infringing code to the GPL in the process. Sontag should have kept his mouth shut because beyond the IBM suit, this case now has a 0% chance of succeeding, even if code was copied verbatim, barring having the GPL itself completely discredited.
    • by PickaBooga (578529) <squishdot.manuelmgarcia@com> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:48PM (#6395351)

      I don't know why people keep bringing up the possibility of the GPL being illegitimate.

      If the license is illegitimate, then the only thing that would remain is the legal rights of the copyright holders (the individual authors, or the companies they work for, or the EFF if the author transferred the copyright, etc.) In most countries, the copyright is automatic.

      Since SCO distributed copyrighted code, they would have to explain under what license they were authorized to do so, or admit they violated the copyright. They cannot claim the GPL if it is invalid (obviously), so then they would have to secure the rights from all those people, companies, organizations individually, under the laws of dozens of countries. Since almost all the copyright holders would be hostile to licensing to SCO, they would demand outrageous fees for SCO's past and current distribution.

      Besides, any legal means of breaking the GPL could be used against the software licenses of Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, etc. That is why those companies are so scared of the GPL, it cannot be attacked directly, without destroying their ability to distribute code under the control of a license.

    • by iabervon (1971) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @05:00PM (#6395437) Homepage Journal
      David Boies has only signed on to prove that IBM violated the terms of some private contract between SCO and IBM. SCO continuing to publish Linux after claiming infringement has no bearing at all on this question. SCO's claims, aside from this one issue, are merely press releases and personal comments intended to make SCO stock worth more; this doesn't require a legitimate legal defense for their actions, or even a legitimate justification of their claims.

      Linux will certainly be unaffected by the outcome of the SCO v. IBM suit, because it is not a party to the suit. SCO would have a number of problems bringing an IP-related lawsuit against someone over Linux, which is what would be required to have any effect legally on Linux; they don't seem to own any IP of significance, they've licensed any IP they do have to everyone, and they've refused to identify any IP they might own.
  • You can't be told what the infringing code is, you have to see it for yourself.

    This is your last chance.

    You tale the Blue pill, and you decline the NDA. You come to your senses and walk away.

    You take the Red pill and you stay in wonderland, and SCO will show you just how deep the Rabbit hole goes. Oh, and you can't tell anyone what you saw.

  • Handy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilpenguin (18720) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:39PM (#6394620)
    I like this. All the uninformed and irrelevant speculation by armchair lawyers put into one slashdotted source. A great timesaver.

    That said, we all know that in the long run Linux has to be unaffected. If they prove infringement a great deal of effort will go into producing non-infringing code. In the long run, it will be just fine. This is mainly about a dying company trying to get some money to pay the receiver.
  • by b.foster (543648) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:42PM (#6394642)
    Although the concept of a decision matrix is a good one, these authors chose instead to squander their opportunity to present both sides of the case by presenting a one-sided, dubious view that may or may not have anything in common with the court's ultimate interpretation.

    For instance:

    • "SCO have yet to reveal any conclusive evidence that they can show there is code that they have developed, which is now in Linux illegally." Although I also doubt that SCO has any conclusive evidence, as a former paralegal I can assure you that there are many good reasons why they would be harmed by showing their cards right now.
    • "SCO released any infringing code: Proven." This is decidedly false, as this has not been proven in a court of law. Codes of procedure, rules of evidence, and whether or not the judge got laid last night all have significant bearing on whether or not the court will have enough evidence to deem this point "proven."
    • "Final Outcome: Linux is Unaffected." This is completely false. Linux has already been affected by companies [microsoft.com] who have shown increased sales since beginning to spew FUD about "stolen IP" in Linux. I have several friends at various Linux vendors who claim that sales are down and that customers have mentioned the suit very often as a reason to hold off on adoption of open source software. The BSA is lobbying foreign governments to avoid open source because of this case, even as we speak. We may be able to fix a few lines of snarfed code in 15 minutes and end the whole ordeal, but Linux may never get its credibility back if contributors can be shown to have caused the problem. Never forget that it takes a long time to build trust but trust can be lost in a matter of seconds. And articles like this that spread pro-Linux FUD are just as detestable as the garbage spewed from Redmond.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:51PM (#6394733)
      Preaching to the quire ROFL!!!! I suppose I should inchoir as to why your spelling sucks!
    • by pongo000 (97357) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:04PM (#6394867)
      Linux has already been affected by companies who have shown increased sales since beginning to spew FUD about "stolen IP" in Linux.

      So true. But companies won't come right out and admit to this -- makes them look foolish.

      Case in point: I was all set to introduce our school district (>50,000 students, 9 high schools) to Linux as an economic alternative to Novell. Servers were purchased (ProLiant DLs with dual processors and 6-disk RAIDs), Linux was installed, testing was done, quotas set up, we were ready to roll -- and then SCO dropped their bombshell. A week went by...two weeks...I discovered that due to "security" concerns, the servers were to be converted to Novell servers.

      "Security" concerns? Bullshit. I had already worked several weeks with the network gurus to put their security concerns to rest.

      This is but one government entity. The damage SCO has caused is quite extensive, and those who deny it are hiding their heads in the sand.

      Who would have thought that Linux (and open-source software in general) would be brought to its knees by an indirect blow? Here we were, thinking the battle was to be fought in Redmond, when in fact we were flanked by SCO and didn't even realize it until it was too late.

      Such is the price of hubris and arrogance. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." (Sun Tzu, Art of War [chinapage.com])
    • by RickHunter (103108) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:39PM (#6395251)

      I have several friends at various Linux vendors who claim that sales are down and that customers have mentioned the suit very often as a reason to hold off on adoption of open source software. The BSA is lobbying foreign governments to avoid open source because of this case, even as we speak. We may be able to fix a few lines of snarfed code in 15 minutes and end the whole ordeal, but Linux may never get its credibility back if contributors can be shown to have caused the problem.

      And finally, we come to the root cause of the suit. No, there's no any infringing code. There never has been, and there never will be. But now that SCO's made the accusation, it will be impossible to dispose of. Whenever someone mentions Linux, the "but didn't they steal code from Unix?" question will pop up. Whenever a Microsoft sales rep is talking to a PHB, and the PHB mentions "open source", or "Linux", or even (yes, even) "BSD", the sales rep will be able to say "Ah, but what about that stolen code?" And as the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have proven so well, stolen's a little red-flag word. No-one wants anything to do with stolen. And not only is Linux tainted, but SCO's nebulous assertions about "Unix" and "SysV" derived works make all Unix-descended systems seem tainted. Which leaves guess who as the sole survivor?

      SCO has no proof. IF this suit ever gets to court, and doesn't just vanish into the mist, they'll get smacked down so hard by IBM that they won't know what hit them. But that possibility will always be out there. After all, Linus cannot check every submission to make sure it wasn't "stolen" from some piece of proprietary software. Its impossible. Neither, however, can Microsoft check to make sure that one of their coders didn't "steal" code from proprietary software, or even a GPL'd program. Its a red herring, designed to make Linux look tainted and criminal for a problem that's common to ALL software.

      I think everyone's first thought was right - SCO is looking to get bought out. But not by IBM - by Microsoft. The executives and top investors know they're on a sinking ship, and are currying favour with MS to try and get on what they see as more sure footing. And making a bundle off their investments while they're at it, by inflating their stock price and selling during the high.

      I sincerely hope these suckers get smacked down hard by an FTA investigation, and whoever's backing them gets nailed with criminal charges.

  • by DeadSea (69598) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:42PM (#6394653) Homepage Journal
    For SCO to get anywhere on this lawsuit:
    1. If SCO doesn't own the copyrights that it claims --> Lawsuit fails
    2. If there isn't any infringing code in Linux --> Lawsuit fails
    3. If SCO can't prove that IBM put the code there --> Lawsuit fails
    4. If SCO can't convince a court that they were duped into distributing the infringing code under the GPL in their own Linux distribution --> Lawsuit fails
    5. If SCO can't convince a court that there should be monitary damages --> Lawsuit fails
    So what if there is infringing SCO code in Linux and SCO manages to play the duped victim with their own distribution under GPL?
    1. Linux developers replace the code and release a new version. Any infringing sections are rumored to be in the tens (not hundreds or more) lines. This should happen very quickly.
    2. Linux users upgrade to the newest version and would no longer be in violation
    3. SCO could try to sue more people for past offenses, for which they would likely be awarded very little as the infringement is so small and users were not aware of the infringements (even after the lawsuit was announced as SCO isn't telling what infringes).
    • 3) IBM spends more $$$ on coffee worldwide than it would take to buy out SCO...
    • by scsirob (246572) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:02PM (#6394839)
      We can argue over the outcome of a lawsuit forever, but the damage has long been done. It's not about a lawsuit, it's about reputation. And Linux' reputation will be tainted for a very long time to come.

      Any company with an axe to grind towards Linux wants this story dragging on forever. For all we know, even IBM may be involved, as it gets a lot of media coverage over an issue that's not about their core business... You may have noticed this is all dragging on between large corporations. Their world, the world outside /., revolves around MONEY, and any way they can make it is acceptable.
      • by Darth (29071) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:25PM (#6395072) Homepage
        We can argue over the outcome of a lawsuit forever, but the damage has long been done. It's not about a lawsuit, it's about reputation. And Linux' reputation will be tainted for a very long time to come.

        yeah. I mean, look at the chilling effect it has had on the adoption of linux by major japanese multinational corporations. Since this lawsuit, there's only been one international organization of major corporations formed to utilize embedded linux in their future products.

        The business world wont care about SCO's ip threats as long as they are sure SCO can be neutered. Businesses (generally speaking) will violate any law they think they can get away with, as long as there's money in it.
  • by hendridm (302246) * on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:43PM (#6394662) Homepage

    > SCO made initial IP claims against IBM in March 6th 20032, and only removed the source code to its Linux distribution in May 14th 20033 Thus SCO have gifted this code to the Linux community.

    The author of this piece seems pretty sure Linux will be unaffected by the outcome of this case. What about this:

    SCO realizes there is infringing code in Linux, but continue to release their distribution anyway. Perhaps they felt since their code was already infringed upon, why should they be punished in lost sales by pulling their product which was developed unknowingly with stolen code? Could it not be argued that once an invalid license always an invalid license? Since the infringing code was included without their permission, its license under the GPL was never valid.

    To illustrate my point: Let's say Pepsi owns Nutrisweet and have patents on the artificial sweetener. Let's say they also resell Dr. Pepper products in their soda machines. Let's also say that Dr. Pepper developed their own artificial sweetener for Diet Dr. Pepper that infringes on some of Pepsi's IP. Once Pepsi finds out about it, are they required to pull all Diet Dr. Pepper from their machines, thus hurting sales and requiring extra man hours?

    Obviously, this isn't a perfect example because you don't license a can of soda to a consumer. However, couldn't a good lawyer argue that the crime was done and the time period where SCO was releasing their code under the GPL was to give them time to "tie up loose ends" with that product line while minimizing the negative impact on their bottom line? It seems like a "victim" of such "theft" should be entitled to pick up the pieces within a reasonable time frame.

    Just a thought. I just don't think we should be celebrating until the court case is over.

    • There is very exacting language in the GPL that states if any section/code is tainted then the whole license is invalid.

      So, either the license is valid and thus all is GPL'd or SCO was illegally selling unlicensed work. (Either way they're in trouble.) You see, if they prevail on their case then they lost all rights to the rest of the code being distributed. Additionally, they continued to distribute the code (both clean and "tainted") in source code form with the GPL stamped on each file for two months
    • by jedidiah (1196)
      Except SCO is suing someone else for "stealing their source code". SCO can't continue to distribute Linux without "stealing someone else's source code" or giving away their own.

      That's all there is too it.

      They decided to ignore everyone else's intellectual property while whining that their own had been violated.

  • by Distan (122159) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:45PM (#6394683)
    This whole thing reads like an exercise in assuming the outcome is "Linux is unaffected".

    What if:

    1: A court rules that SCO code has been put into Linux by someone other than SCO.

    2: A court rules that the GPL is non binding upon source code previously released by SCO.

    3: A court rules that any party using such source is and has been in violation of SCO's patents, and is open game for damages.

    No matter what me, or you, or the author of this "matrix" thinks the GPL says, the only thing that matters is what a court decides it says.
  • by pavon (30274) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:48PM (#6394701)
    Who needs a decision matrix when you can have a Jump [slashdot.org] to [slashdot.org] Conclusions [slashdot.org] Board [slashdot.org]?
  • by toastyman (23954) <toasty@dragondata.com> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @03:58PM (#6394794) Homepage
    SCO hires Johnny Cochrane

    Likelihood: Very likely

    Evidence: While SCO has not yet hired Johnny Cochrane on their legal team, most pundits (John Dvorak included) are predicting it.

    What if SCO does: Chewbacca is a Wooky from the planet Kishic, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.

    Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.

    It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer working for a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must convict. The prosecution rests.

    Final Outcome: Linus Torvalds wakes up in his bed and says, "Mom? I just dreamt that me and IBM and SCO were trapped in a court case that made no sense and we were talking about everything that happened to us except that it was all wrong, and ended with us eating ice cream."

    I think I know where my bet is.

  • by John Harrison (223649) <johnharrisonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @04:03PM (#6394852) Homepage Journal
    Though "Linux is unaffected" is listed as the outcome of every possible scenario, this conclusion hinges on the argument that SCO continued to distribute Linux after the lawsuit. This would have the effect of causing the offending code to be placed under the GPL and thus the problem is solved.

    I think this logic is a simplification of the legal situation, and is being used as an ace-in-the-hole by author. The author is making the assumption that the court will agree with this catch all and so none of the other aspects of the case matter.

    He should write another matrix with the assumption that the "donated to the GPL" argument has failed. That would be more interesting.

    I don't think the SCO has a case, but I can at least imagine a scenario in which Linux would be affected.

    • by spitzak (4019)
      In that case they have violated the copyrights of all other contributors to Linux. You are not allowed to distribute Linux except under the GPL, otherwise you are violating copyright.

      Their only possible excluse is to claim lack of knowledge of putting the code into Linux. However: their failure to immediately stop distributing it before or when they published their claims, their failure to provide instructions on how to remove the offending code from the previously-distributed versions and thus make them

  • by NZheretic (23872) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @05:33PM (#6395698) Homepage Journal
    The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux [weblogs.com]

    In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast [ddj.com]

    In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64 [iwethey.org]

    A mp3 capture [iwethey.org] of the following transcribed portion

    Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

    Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

    Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

    But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

    Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

    Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

    Q: Thank you.

    Love: You bet.

    SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.

  • The SCO/Linux FAQ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward (683461) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <drawocsuomynorieh>> on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @06:19PM (#6395996) Journal
    Question: SCO has declared itself a victim of breach of contract by IBM, specifically WRT AIX. Why, then, is it attacking Linux so specifically and directly?
    Answer: the goal of this exercise is to attack Linux, nothing else.

    Question: why is IBM saying nothing?
    Answer: they believe SCO might win, and are willing to sacrifice Linux if necessary.

    Question: why is Microsoft saying nothing?
    Answer: everyone knows they hate Linux, so no-one believes their propaganda any longer. They need a fresh mouthpiece. SCO is that mouthpiece.

    Question: why is Microsoft so intent on harming Linux?
    Answer: the goals of Linux and all OSS are nothing less than the total anhilation of Microsoft. War is not a nice thing. This is not a metaphor: we are talking about the lives of people you know.

    Question: if it is war, how do we win?
    Answer: this is a good question, and timely. You win wars by avoiding the battles you cannot win and by winning those you can.

    Question: what is the ultimate goal of Microsoft?
    Answer: the closure of the "development gap", in which the right to create code still lies in the hands of the individual. Ultimately, this power must be restricted to licensed programmers only. Nothing less than that makes sense. If your think this is exageration, look at other professions, then think about the public's perception of hackers, Linux kernel hackers, and virus writers.
  • by jazman_777 (44742) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @06:21PM (#6396009) Homepage
    I am not a lawyer, but --insert long lawyerly opinion here justifying your deepest wishes for Linux--.
  • interesting quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd (182728) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @06:39PM (#6396131)
    "obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."

    -- Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. August 2002

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6293

    Check out the 8th paragraph.
    ----

    BTW: scox stock price has surged over the few sessions, and insiders are selling like mad. I think insiders just filed to sell 300K shares after the market closed.

  • by RALE007 (445837) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @07:08PM (#6396310)
    see the OSI's release on the suit: OSI's IBM vs. SCO Position [opensource.org]

    It is the most relevant and insightful material I have seen to date and I highly recommend reading it.

  • Rather One Sided (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday July 08, 2003 @07:24PM (#6396404) Homepage Journal
    People need to realize that they really could have a case here.. its pointless to embark on this stunt if they didn't feel they had a chance.. just beacuse we have not seen the evidence doesnt mean its real.

    If they win, we are all screwed. Even if they dont, the damage being done to public opinion about the OSS movement will take years to repair.

    Remember too, its not what *WE* believe, or what we feel is right or wrong, its what a judge decides.. and he wont give a damn about public opinion ( if has a decent judge ), but instead what the facts and arguments from both sides add up too..

My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.

Working...