[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO History article -- SCO v. IBM != SCO v. Linux IP

[Bryan J. Smith]

Will Sean wrote:  
> Bryan, Yes, SCO may have had a case against IBM and MS and 
> insert-whatevercompanieseverhadcontactwithsco-here,

The _truth_ is in the details.

Microsoft and Sun did not have perpetual UNIX licenses from AT&T.  In
fact, a lot of Microsoft's use of UNIX(R) code comes from the MS-DOS 2.0
and forward days, as well as use of the 4.3BSD/386BSD code _before_ the
4.4BSDLite resulted from the Berkeley-USL settlement.

That's why Microsoft and Sun re-licensed UNIX, because they did not have
pertual ones, and used a lot of pre-4.4BSDLite code.

IBM, SGI and many others _did_ have a perpetual license.  IBM, SGI and
other such licensees ditched their previous, BSD-based UNIX flavors as a
result.  I think SCO really screwed up with their case against IBM when
they terminated that perpetual license.  It was not granted by Project
Monterey, but around 13 years earlier.

> but their bungling of this case,

They case?  Or the PR / Linux licensing effort?
That is, SCO v. IBM?  Or SCO v. Linux IP?

SCO has _botched_ the PR and Linux licensing effort, badly.  Their
"smokescreen" has failed.  People see right through it.  But has 0 to do
with the case.  But still, some companies are worried about
indemification.  So much so that I saw a project I was on shutdown as a
result.

NOw, the May 2003 filings are largely a joke, along with terminating
IBM's perpetual license.  That could _hurt_ SCO's changes for positive
results.  But the PR stuff is _separate_ from the case.

> the Autozone case

SCO v. IBM != Autozone v. IBM.
Like the IBM case, the Autozone case is about _contracts_, not Linux IP.

The PR/licensing effort is a "smokescreen" built around the _real_
contract issues.  I don't know what those are in the case of Autozone,
but I seriously _doubt_ was harmed by Autozone like it was by IBM.

IBM was a bully to SCO, and it is a lesson for the Linux community.

IBM won't turn against Linux, just like it won't turn against
Microsoft.  IBM is a services company and Linux sells their services
big, but still not quite as big as Microsoft (yet ;-).

But IBM _may_ push around its contract signers.  They have already shown
great displeasure with companies picking HP Linux/x86-64 solutions over
their Power/AIX5L offerings.

> and their  general approach to these and other issues have lost them
> any shred of  credibility they may have had previously.

Yes, credibility in the PR / Linux licensing efforts.
But those are _separate_ from the trial itself.

> Of course, that's the main reason that Ransom Love denounces them. 
> One of SCO's many credibility problems is that it went out and 
> bought companies such as Caldera with IP (DOS related) that they could
> sue others over - what kind of scheming evil is that?

Er, no.  Caldera bought SCO, then renamed itself as SCO.

Caldera could not maintain profitability with Linux, even after it
separated itself off from Lineo (who sold DR-DOS to Device Logistics).

Caldera then realized that SCO's price was at an all-time low, with
marketshare basically halfing every year since 1998, they were cheap. 
But they still had a sizable marketbase, and believed they could maket
IA-64/UNIX64 to these customers.

Caldera's purchase of SCO was noble enough, much like IBM's current AIX
v. Linux approach.  It was one of  a "high-end, high-profit" product,
and then we also have a "low-end, service-oriented" product.  When IBM
withheld the IA-64 port of Project Monterey in 2001, and told
Caldera-SCO it was going to support Linux for IA-64, that killed their
plans.

And SCO _still_ waited around for a good _18_months_ before shifting to
their current attack of Linux.  I don't like SCO, especially _not_ after
their January 2004 lobbying attack of Linux as "anti-IP" in Congress. 
But IBM _did_ screw over Caldera-SCO.

> Wanna discuss the merits in all of their clinical glory? Head over to
> http://groklaw.com, mine is a near perfect state of emotionally
> charged logic :)

I'm very familiar with groklaw.  Groklaw, the FSF and other sites are
dedicated to SCO v. Linux IP, because SCO's claims are rather pathetic.

Understand the _differences_ between SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Linux IP.

Otherwise if SCO wins on some counts against IBM, even if IBM wins some
counterclaims as well, people will ass-u-me that SCO v. IBM = SCO v.
Linux IP.

I really tire of the Linux enthusiasts who have petitions to end the SCO
v. IBM lawsuit.  It's _not_ a Linux lawsuit.  Linus and ESR came right
out and said it after the March filing, and re-iterated it in May, but
the IT media (and the non-developer Linux community) still did not
listen.

-- Bryan

SIDE NOTE:  Although I don't think Linux should be called GNU/Linux, I think
there is some merit to Linux to being referred as a "GNU system."  It would
market against the whole "Linux is based on UNIX" mentality of the Linux
non-familar.  LPI is introduce an exam/certification called "LinuxCore" that 
tests these very same concepts about Linux -- in a hope to educate people
on them.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b.j.smith at ieee.org