SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 15:44 UTC (Thu) by dbhost (guest, #3461)
Parent article: SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

With everything I am seeing going on with this hullabaloo concerning SCO and the Linux kernel claims it is SCO that really should be concerned. I am starting to wonder why there haven't been more legal actions brought against SCO for violation of the GNU / GPL. After all, they are STILL distributing the same exact source code (as verified by md5 sums) that they contend is in violation of their rights. This would mean that they willingly, voluntarily, and knowingly are distributing the code under the GPL. Therefore ANY efforts SCO would undertake to limit others rights to this code or use of such code would be in DIRECT violation of the GNU / GPL.

(Log in to post comments)

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 16:54 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

So, if SCO wins, can we count on the other companies (IBM, HP, Compaq, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Unilever, whoever) to help the Linux volunteers succeed in the lawsuits that should ensue? What about any additional help from IBM?

I'm posting this question here because I suspect there are a lot of Linux developers in corporations reading this site.

I don't make any money working on Linux, and they won't use it at my work. It is important to me, however, as an avid fan on my own time, to know where things are going with this, how I might help, and who we can count on to stand up to these monsters.

Please understand this: I believe it is possible that SCO could win this suit, whether they are in the right or not. There are problems with the American legal system, and I find it hard to put my trust in it.

The SCO Group Is Counting their Chickens Before They've Hatched

Posted Jul 24, 2003 18:05 UTC (Thu) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

> So, if SCO wins, can we count on the other companies (IBM, HP, Compaq, Fujitsu, Matsushita,
> Unilever, whoever) to help the Linux volunteers succeed in the lawsuits that should ensue? What about
> any additional help from IBM?

Please keep in mind that the SCO Group's claims to anything in the Linux codebase is still unproven: MacBride, et alia have made a lot of noise about how their intellectual property has been stolen, & is currently being used without proper compensation by countless Linux users, HOWEVER they have yet to prove that they own anything. A few people have signed NDAs, looked at SCO's evidence, & stated that _maybe_ Linux & SysV R4 share code. It has yet to be proved how it got there -- or if the original AT&T license to UNIX is relevant in their suit against IBM.

Right now, the SCO Group's statements are equivalent to the following threat: ``You better give me protection money, or I'm gong to beat you up -- right after I wipe the floor with that ex-Olympic champion who has been practicing several martial arts for years."

Any plans before this lawsuit starts -- let alone before we see the evidence offered -- are pointless exercises. (And if you feel compelled to talk about contingency plans, I suggest that you do it while enjoying your favorite beverage.) The only people who keep insisting that doom is about to engulf the Linux community are the shrills at Microsoft front organizations like Gartner, ZDNET, & so on; the rest of us have better things to do.

Geoff

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:27 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

...the problem here is that there are other people who have jumped onto the "Linux may be dangerous because of SCO" bandwagon. At least the Germans have done something about it. However, SCO hasn't been shut up in the U.S. So, we get stuff like this one at NewsForge, which points out that Gardner Group is advising against Linux deployment.

These kinds of problems are the ones that might be good to look into before any trial, because SCO is making all kinds of umproven allegations, and people who don't like Linux are using those allegations to advise businesspeople.

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:11 UTC (Thu) by dsime (guest, #5764) [Link]

This sounds like the tactic that MS used against Java.
They muddied the language which stalled the adoption of the language.
You know;
"We can't adopt Java until we find out if the MS extensions will be allowed"

Now we have;
"We won't be able to adopt Linux until we find out which way the SCO/IBM suit falls"

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:26 UTC (Fri) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

People have been advising against use of Linux for years. Amazingly, I can't think of anyone who is claiming that the SCO lawsuit threatens Linux users who weren't in that group that has been advising against Linux. (Well, there's Laura DiDio, but I had never heard of her before she chimed in on the lawsuit.)

Back in high school, my science teacher repeated the cynical observation that for any new scientific theory to be accepted, you have to wait for all of the old scientists to die. It apparently applies to adopting Open Source software; almost all of its current critics apparently will refuse to acknowledge it as a viable solution to their death beds, no matter what the evidence is.

Geoff

The SCO Group Is Counting their Chickens Before They've Hatched

Posted Aug 1, 2003 14:13 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

So you say: The only sensible reaction to such a threat - that alone damages other companies, after all - is to wait until one gets sued.

If this is really the state of the US legal system, than you're in much more trouble than with Gartner FUD. But according to my knowledge (I'm from Germany, but have had to do legal business with US companies), this is not the case.

So the real question is: Where are the US Linux companies and organizations that attack SCO due to this business-damaging threat?

Cheers,
Joachim

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:09 UTC (Thu) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]

I don't think SCO needs to be concerned about anything at all. They have yet to make any claims with substance. From the outset the whole nature of their complaint has changed a few times. Everytime they make some more noise, the boot licking toadies like Gartner pick it up and amplify it, and the stock price goes up a few more notches.

SCO was dead, SCO execs are now making real money every time they spit on Linux. Why shouldn't they keep it up? It's working like a dream for them.

It would certainly feel good if someone with some money would put SCO in their place, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.