[Luni]-understanding the Linux/SCO court case

[Thaddeus L. Olczyk]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:18:31 -0500, ed-luni at inkdroid.org wrote:

>Not that I don't enjoy a good laugh, but I found this piece to be right on 
>this morning:
>
>    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1115156,00.asp
>
>I remember thinking that Netscape had a great case against Microsoft. I guess
>they did (since they got paid off), but how is it that Microsoft came out
>smelling of roses? 
Simply put Dvorak has his head up his ass.
The idea that IBM licenses the code to use in it's version of the
kernel but not to GPL the code itself, so that IBM get's it's cake
( Linux, a better Unix than AIX ) and eat it too ( force the removal
of code from the kernel, except for companies that license it ) is
just plain nuts. 

If IBM includes the code in the kernel, then that code becomes 
GPLed. Thus it must be made available to all people using the
kernel. In effect any license agreement with SCO automatically
GPL's the code, so his suspicions about IBM are just plain nuts.


The bigger and nastier aspect is this:

The case has one of two results:
1) IBM is found liable and causes the Linux community headaches.
    OK. Not very likely.

2) IBM is found not liable and the code is GPLd. If this works out
    wrong, and it looks like SCO accidentally did things to lose the
    license of code, instead of SCO knowingly gave up the IP or did
    not have the IP in the first place, then it could be a major   
   disaster.
   In that case it would be a demonstration of MS claim that GPL
   is a "potentially viral" license and that companies could 
   accidentally GPL their stuff with one false step ( as they claim
   SCO did ). 
   In other words the Linux community wins the battle but loses the
   war.

For this reason the case should be taken seriously.


Thaddeus L. Olczyk
-----------------------
Think twice, code once.