SCO claims code violations in Linux

They've sued IBM for a billion dollars and now it looks like they're putting Red Hat, SuSE, et al in their crosshairs. I don't know how much truth there is to their assertions but this can't be good for anyone who has to defend themselves in a lawsuit. What a pain!


See the related story here:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-999371.html

In an interesting twist, Microsoft announced yesterday that they were going to license Unix technology from SCO.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1007528.html

Am I being paranoid or did Microsoft just announce they were throwing their support behind SCO's attack on Linux? It looks like SCO has found a friend to bankroll their lawsuit and Microsoft has found an attack dog to do their dirty work for them. If this isn't a marriage made in heaven, I don't know what is.

A pariah from the Unix world hooks up with a bully from the desktop world and interesting things start to happen...

Argghh... just check out all the related stories at Google. The online press is going ballistic.

Yes, I think our most cynical thoeries are in fact true here. Who else but Microsoft would stand to benefit from SCO's ridiculous attempts? There is no way they can bully the rest of the Linux world by themselves, and I'm sure their developers are deserting like rats right now. Of course, we can also conjecture that an orchestrated attack against the GNU GPL will be the next big step, using this as justification for some sort of "audit" of GPL software.

Fortunately, I'm a FreeBSD user, so I'm not too worried by any of this. *BSD projects went through their legal troubles in the early 90s, (which is probably one reason why Linux took off around that time), but at least they are fairly free from doubt these days.

In fact, most most of the open-source software I use doesn't rely on Linux or the GPL:

1. FreeBSD
2. Apache
3. PHP
4. PostgreSQL
5. Mozilla
6. XFree86 (X-Windows)

These all use a BSD/MIT-style license. So, I don't think these projects will be under fire anytime soon.

But it is a shame that this sort of thing has to happen at all. However, if it is true that Linux developers copied proprietary Unix code "line-by-line", then they have only themselves to blame.

In the early 90s the BSD licensing problems were different because the whole argument was to establish what in fact belonged to which party. Once ironed out, it has been pretty smooth sailing since then. In fact, I think if something like what SCO accused had happened to BSD-ish projects, there would not have been near as much repercussions, because BSD-style developers have not been so superior and "in-your-face" about their attitudes toward the proprietary vendors.

Unfortunately, I think some of the Linux people--especially the GPL zealots--virtually asked for this fight because they have made such a big deal about the GNU philosophy and its political implications, essentially accusing proprietary software vendors of crimes against humanity.

So, I feel there are definitely some psychological factors at work here too, not just money-grubbing. The two biggest things that drive Microsoft are A) Profit and B) Ego. Linux has severaly bruised the Microsoft corporate ego (most of it justifiably so, of course) and now Microsoft wants Linux dead or alive. It would please them no end if the Linux community received some major embarassment, such as a discovery of proprietary code somewhere in the kernel. In other words, to them it would be some sort of vindication that they were right all along about those Linux scoundrels.