[wplug] SCO is one less worry in our lives now -- never was a worry ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 08:30 -0400, David Ostroske wrote:
> There are still some details to flesh out, but there's been a turning
> point in the SCO vs Novell case, and it looks like SCO is finally
> getting its comeuppances.
> Long article, for posterity:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718
> There will be plenty more news about this, but you won't hear it from me! :)

I'm not a big fan of Groklaw because ...
A)  She's a paralegal, and
B)  She continually gets her facts wrong, legally

But with that said, understand SCO v. Linux was _never_ a threat.  It
was only a thread because 97% of the rabid Linux community took it as a
thread, and then 100% of the IT media ate it up (in typical, "ratings"
fashion).

Most people confuse SCO v. IBM with SCO v. Linux, the latter _never_
took place ...

1.  SCO v. IBM is a contract lawsuit
2.  SCO v. AutoZone, v. Diamler-Chrysler, etc... are contact lawsuits
3.  SCO never sent out its "real legal" Cease'n Desist letters

Because the original 2003 March filing rattled so many people, when IBM
didn't settle (as SCO expected them), SCO was able to make the
"smokescreen" by playing games and "expanding" the lawsuit in 2003 May.
That's when Linux (among others like sESR, Perens, etc...) switched from
saying "it's a contract lawsuit" to things like "SCO's smoking crack."

The key is to re-read the 2003 March filing and recognize ...

A.  SCO claimed IBM wasn't abiding by the terms of Project Monterey
B.  These terms included a Non-Compete in IA-32 (x86) and IA-64 space
C.  SCO didn't make specific IP claims, it only had to claim it was
    "harmed" (per B)

Now SCO's "standing" on Project Monterey is rather pathetic (i.e., the
contact is wholly dead and unenforceable -- with exception of two minor
things _prior_ to Caldra's acquisition of SCO, long story, but they are
extremely irrelevant).  Legally, IBM has no obligations to SCO under
Project Monterey, so IBM could not violate Project Monterey.  IBM
fulfilled every requirement pre and post-termination of Project Monterey
with regards to SCO, and this was proven in court in 2005 (and not
merely heresay -- although Groklaw has repeatedly misrepresented the
details, repeatedly).

SCO has _never_ even once taken _any_ legal action against any Linux
users or even Linux using or developing corporations, _unless_ they
already had a contract with SCO, of a _specific_ set of types (largely
IP-related).  If you didn't have a contract with SCO that was IP related
(e.g., not IBM, not AutoZone, not Chrysler, etc...), then you had *0*
worries with SCO.  In fact, if you didn't read it, there was an
excellent article from one company who did license from SCO, and talked
about the _huge_ issue it created for them legally.

Knowing things like this were _crucial_ to separating the FUD from the
legal reality.  I don't know how many times I warned Linux advocates to
*NEVER* associate SCO v. IBM with SCO v. Linux, and that included *NOT*
defending IBM in the lawsuit.  IBM could handle themselves.  The _key_
was to _stay_away_ from the whole thing.  I was working at a Fortune 20
company when this thing "blew up" and knowing the "legal facts" really
helped my standing (I was promoted much, much higher at my client).

-- Bryan

P.S.  I have long argued that GNU/Linux should be the "technical"
designation of Linux, not necessarily marketing, but technical.  The SCO
lawsuit was a perfect example where the proliferation of the fact "GNU's
Not UNIX" (GNU) helped tackle the "FUD" that non-Linux and other,
especially professional, users, admins and stakeholders would have gone
a long, long way to stopping the FUD.  Especially when you can prove
that Windows has SCO UNIX code, not GNU/Linux -- now that's was fun!



-- 
Bryan J. Smith         Professional, Technical Annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org   http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------
        Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution