[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO History article -- Non-Compete: "Linux sucked until IBM came along"

[Bryan J. Smith]

Kevin Hulse wrote:  
> I reviewed the whole document actually. I didn't 
> just concentrate on the < 5% that you provided to
> support your thesis.

First you said Project Monterey wasn't in there.  I showed
you it was not only in there, but how it is provided late
in the listing to _summarize_ what SCO was suing for as
of March 2003 (it was radically amended in May 2003).

It's not my thesis.  What I said in 2003 March on-ward is
what was confirmed by many insiders privately, and then
quite publicly by Ransom Love, who _was_ at Caldera when
this happened.  It's fairly simple to put together, _if_
you don't just sit there and demonize SCO as "acting
stupidly for greed" as of the March 2003 filing.

> SCO's writings on the matter of Monterrey are more
> reasonably explained via that "throw everything and
> hope something sticks" theory of legal filing.

As I have stated repeatedly, SCO had to show that IBM
was supported Linux as a violation of the Project Monterey.
That's what the previous items were regarding, how IBM
has transferred IP from itself to Linux, how that has
improved Linux, and how that now harms SCO, in violation
of the Non-Compete clause of the Project Monterey contract.

> ...which is factually wrong of course.
> Nevermind the whole notion that Unix in general
> is meant to be as hardware agnostic as possible.
> Perhaps this should be labeled as the Toqueville
> Fallacy. <snicker>

For UNIX in general, yes.  But that's not the context of
the lawsuit of the Non-Compete in Project Monterey.

For the Project Monterey agreement between SCO and IBM,
it is _everything_.  You keep seeming to miss my point that
this is about Project Monterey, because that's the _only_
place where SCO has a contract with IBM.  So in the context
of Project Monterey, where IBM agreed to _only_ support
UNIX on Power in the Non-Compete, they have violated it.

In _all_ the lawsuits, SCO is suing over contract violations.

> The original Caldera filing spends much more space on
> Unix/USL licensing issues than project Monterrey.

To further show that IBM was violating its Non-Compete.
They were defining how IBM was not even supporting UNIX/USL,
but a competitor to it, in [GNU/]Linux.

> That filing spent more space on defaming Linux 
> as id does covering the Monterrey claims.

The defamation of Linux was a _cornerstone_ to their Non-Compete
argument was that, essentially, "Linux sucked before IBM came
along."  It wasn't about SCO IP in Linux yet (that was May
2003), but any IP from IBM going into Linux, which could be
considered a violation of the Non-Compete of Project Monterey.

> No, they were in the original filing along with 
> their defamation of Linux and it's developers.

The defamation was, again, part of the Non-Compete argument.
It was not specific claims that SCO IP was now in Linux, although
there are clear hints that it could be possible.  But there were
_no_ specific claims _until_ the May 2003 addendeum.

In a nutshell, SCO hoped IBM would just buy them out in a settle-
ment.  When the Linux community counter-attacked, noting the
defamation and not realizing the significance that SCO just
_might_ have a case against IBM on withholding Project Monterey
source and the Non-Compete clause, 

Defamation is an issue.  But SCO did it to an end.  Now that
many have demonized SCO and proliferated IBM's innocence, do
you really think SCO cares about what the Linux community thinks?

Ransom Love did an excellent, "here's the beef," interview back
in September of last year.  It was 100% factual, and it confirmed
everything that made sense to me as of March 2003 forward.

IBM forced SCO into its March 2003 position.
SCO may have handled it better, but I don't know how they could have
avoided "defaming" Linux to make their argument on the Non-Compete.

Everything else is history.
SCO will not outlast IBM's cash and lawyers, even with re-licensing
agreements from Microsoft and Sun -- the two remaining major UNIX IP
users who did _not_ get perpetual licenses from AT&T in the late '80s.
Everything is a smokescreen of emotion and stretches of the truth.

The only case SCO has against IBM is on Project Monterey.
And many have confirmed I was one of the very few in the Linux
community who pegged it from the get go, along with Linux and ESR.

Project Monterey _is_ SCO v. IBM.
It has 0 to do with SCO v. Linux on IP.
People seem to be confused, but that's what emotion does.

-- Bryan

-- 
     Linux Enthusiasts call me anti-Linux.
   Windows Enthusisats call me anti-Microsoft.
 They both must be correct because I have over a
decade of experience with both in mission critical
environments, resulting in a bigotry dedicated to
 mitigating risk and focusing on technologies ...
           not products or vendors
--------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.            b.j.smith at ieee.org