A look at the SCO complaint
The first half of the complaint is dedicated to establishing SCO's claim to the Unix tradmark and source code. There is also some talk of the licensing agreements for that source, and SCO's wisdom in building a version of Unix for Intel processors. Unix, they say, is a great thing:
Paragraph 74 turns the topic to Linux. Here's what SCO thinks of the operating system it sells:
SCO, back when it was Caldera, used to think that Linux was good for a bit more than that. Note also the claim that Linux is "derived from and based on Unix."
The core of SCO's claim seems to be that Linux could not possibly have gotten to where it is now without some sort of divine assistance. Consider points 82 and 83:
As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors...
This is an interesting claim. According to SCO, something came along which radically changed the nature of Linux development. Given the highly public nature of the Linux development process, it should be possible to put a finger on the point where that process was no longer "uncoordinated and random." SCO, of course, does not mark that point in this complaint.
Of course, development of many of the "enterprise-quality" features of Linux, including its top-of-the-line network stack and SMP support, happened during the "uncoordinated and random" period before IBM set us all straight.
Just to drive SCO's point home:
Let's look at all of these points. Regarding the first one: people watching the Linux kernel development process should be forgiven if they have a hard time finding the "high degree of design coordination" claimed here. Remember how Linus sees this process:
It's "directed mutation" on a microscopic level, but there is very little macroscopic direction. There are lots of individuals with some generic feeling about where they want to take the system (and I'm obviously one of them), but in the end we're all a bunch of people with not very good vision.
And that is GOOD.
Point (2) alleges access to fancy equipment. The first four-processor Linux demonstration was put together by the company then known as VA Research. IBM has since provided some nice boxes to its developers (leading to fun things like 7.5 second kernel compiles). But one might well ask when it became a crime to give your developers access to high-end hardware.
The third point claims that Linux could not have gotten to where it is without access to the Unix source, along with "methods and concepts." The methods and concepts have been well documented in the open literature for decades. Access to the source remains an unproven claim; SCO has not pointed out a single line of code which, it claims, is derived from the Unix source. One would assume that will change during the trial phase, if this case gets that far.
Point (4) claims that Unix architectural experience would be required. Again, this point has not been proved, but it is worth mentioning that the architecture of Unix has, once again, been well documented for decades. The availability of free versions of Unix (i.e. the BSD variants) could also be a legitimate source of Unix architectural experience.
Point (5) claims a "significant financial investment." That investment has certainly been made - by countless hackers who have donated their time, by many companies hoping to make a business with Linux, and by a substantial number of dotcom investors who, perhaps, don't feel quite so good about the whole thing at this point. And, yes, also IBM. But IBM's investment, massive though it is, is still a small piece of the total resources that have gone into the development of a free operating system over almost two decades.
Paragraph 86 summarizes SCO's position:
The compaint then turns to how SCO has suffered by IBM's actions. From paragraph 111:
In other words, had IBM not wandered into Linux, SCO's products would still be doing fine in the marketplace. Right.
The claims seem to be saying that SCO was somehow entitled to the right to exploit the market offered by increasingly powerful commodity computers. Thus SCO complains:
An alternative point of view, of course, is that SCO was never entitled to this market, and was well on its way toward losing it before IBM discovered Linux.
Another thing that IBM has done:
IBM is thus responsible for the Great Papa John's Pizza Caper. It's worth noting the reference to "its Linux distribution partners." These are listed as being Red Hat, SuSE, and others earlier in the document. It could be that this suit will expand beyond IBM at some point.
Here's what SCO wants:
The $1 billion figure, thus, is a minimum amount; they really would like to get more.
There's a lot more to be said about this suit, of course. The speculation that SCO's real goal is to be acquired may have a certain amount of merit. The legal implications of the fact that SCO, itself, has distributed the code in question under the GPL could prove to be most interesting. All of this will become clearer over time.
But there is something here that the Linux development community should not
miss: SCO has shown the extent of its contempt for you. Without IBM as
fairy godmother, says SCO, you could never have achieved what you have
achieved with Linux. That is an insult of the highest order - the
worldwide free software development community has been slandered in a big
way. Whatever happens with this case, we should not forget what this
company thinks of us.