Misquote/misattribution in your Mercury article?

> The SCO Group says that IBM and other companies inserted its Unix
> code into versions of Linux.
 
Not exactly true. In fact, just far enough from true to get you into
legal trouble. If you'd written it in quotes it would be Mr Moglen's
problem, presuming that such an attribution is correct, but as it
stands it reads more like a misplaced rephrase of something Mr
Kusnetzky is likely to have said.
 
The SCO group does not say that any more - at least, not in any legally
binding forum.
 
What they are actually claiming in court is that IBM dealt unfairly with
them in a contract centring on Monterey. The substance of the claim is
that IBM inserted code _which_IBM_developed_ into all of TSG-owned
UNIX(R), OS/2 and later Linux. The logic to the claim is that because
the code was originally developed for TSG's UNIX(R) codebase (not
actually true), it falls under the same _contractual_ terms as UNIX(R)
proper and therefore could not have been published elsewhere by IBM.
 
It turns out that practically all of their premises are wrong, that
their predecessors-in-interest-once-removed in the contract (AT&T)
clearly didn't intend a remotely similar interpretation of the
contract, that much of their UNIX(R) code is public domain anyway so
they'd be hard pressed to claim legitimate ownership, that they
published the supposedly tainted code themselves for more than a year,
that no copyrights or patents relating to UNIX(R) were ever transferred
to them, that no UNIX(R) code exists in Linux and to cut a long list
short that they don't appear to even be able to find their own
backsides with both hands, a map, a mirror and someone coaching them.
 
The SCO Group are not pressing any copyright or patent claims against
IBM. IBM is counterclaiming (so far) seven patent violations against
The SCO Group. TSG don't even own the trademark on UNIX(R), The Open
Group does. Worse, The SCO Group appear to have included GPLed driver
code from Linux wholesale into UNIXWARE(R) without so much as an
attribution.
 
In short, Open Source generally doesn't need protection from idiots.
Idiots will attack monied interests for the very simple reason that
there's no profit in attacking individual developers, and said monied
interests will typically respond by smacking down said idiots.
 
What Open Source does need legal protection from are short-sighted,
powerful and greedy monopolists like the RIAA and Microsoft, who appear
to be willing to sacrifice almost any principle in the pursuit of
control and the ensuing profits. Open Source generally doesn't have the
concentrations of money needed to go toe-to-toe in courts and
legislatures and under tables with these organisations.
 
Cheers; Leon
 
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/ Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://slpwa.asn.au/ Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/ Member, Linux Australia