The fear war against Linux (News.com)

The fear war against Linux (News.com)

In the article, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I earlier thought the suit could be a bid to force IBM
> to acquire SCO at a cheaper price than the cool billion
> dollars being demanded to settle the case.

Bruce wasn't the only one that thought that, but where is the
evidence to back up such speculation? He goes on to say:

> Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license
> payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along
> a bribe

Another interesting theory, but where is the evidence of
collusion?

I support Bruce Perens's efforts. However, Bruce should be
careful not to make public accusations (however plausible)
for which he has no evidence.

DaveK wrote:
> Or is this perhaps a tacit admission from Redomnd that
> within their proprietary codebase there might be code
> which is 'borrowed' from others and may include parts
> of that to which SCO lays claim?

More speculation.

allesfresser wrote:
> Well, that's exactly what the GPL is for... to prevent
> "intellectual property" from becoming the smokescreen
> by which moneygrubbers keep people in the dark and
> charge them dearly for it.

That is true at the macro level: the growing trove of GPL
software protects users from proprietary monopolists.

However, it is *not* the purpose of the GPL to undermine
individual companies by means of legal trojans. That was
fergal's point: if SCO loses because their use of the GPL
comes back to haunt them then this will supply Microsoft
with useful fudder. That would be bad.