I think that MS has a big part in this. They probably promised SCO some fat deal if they can hinder the adoption of GNU/Linux, with the gleaming hope that they can buy, or at least control, the rights to UNIX from SCO in the event they win-out. Either way Linux gets FUD and MS benefits.

The letter from Novell CEO Jack Messman is fairly damning but is not 100%.
Novell CEO tells SCO CEO to piss-off in not-such-words
On the 1995 contract between Novell & SCO


...
You can super-heat pure water in a microwave (it won''t boil until you distrurb it), and when the water is not pure you can heat beyond the pure-H2O boiling-point. i.e. 220F is not an impossible temperature for coffee to be at. Anyway, the coffee in question was at about 185F.
if you care

quote: Original post by Dauntless
However, McBride did make a good point that who watches the source maintainers?

Shouldn''t matter; SCO is responsible for keeping thier trade-secrets secret. IBM could be in-breach-of-contract for leaking the information, but historically once trade-secret information is let loose, it''s no longer protected information. The courts have lately taken a difference stance with pure-IP companies though. e.g. if an auto company does not keep it a secret how they make thier special wind-shield wipers, then anyone can make them; and it''s thier, the auto-company''s, responsibilty to ensure it is kept secret. However, regard the mp3 & mpeg2 patents et. al.

quote: Original post by Magmai Kai Holmlor
You can super-heat pure water in a microwave... i.e. 220F is not an impossible temperature for coffee to be at. Anyway, the coffee in question was at about 185F.

Arild and I must have been thinking Celsius. I know I was.

Originally, I was. But I did stop to check before posting that 220 was above the boiling point for water in Fahrenheit as well.


AnkhSVN - A Visual Studio .NET Addin for the Subversion version control system.

Latest is that Novell forgot they transferred copy-right to SCO in an amendment to the deal in 1996 (Novell retains patents), and the code in question, among other things, includes the journaling capabilities of ext3.

The case looks good for SCO today; the speculative outcome is that IBM will buy-out SCO. The question left unanswered today is who copied the code into Linux. Obviously SCO believes someone at IBM did.

Actually, its really not certain that the code in linux is from SCO.

My bet is that linux and SCO both copied code from a bsd. Everything is perfectly legal, and SCO is just hand waving.

I read a while ago that SCO said the code is not present in the Linux kernel itself, but is patched into the RedHat kernel and some of the other commercialized distributions. Was I hallucinating? Did they change their minds?

Supposedly two other "experts" have commented that it looks like SCO has a strong argument in their favor.

Now I realize that ultimately all that has to be done if SCO is right is for the stolen code to be taken out and changed, but I think the problem is deeper than this. As Bruce Perrens pointed out, the onus of proof is on SCO to say that someone stole the code and put it into the Linux kernel; it is not IBM''s or the kernel maintainers burden to prove that they didn''t "lift" stolen code into the kernel. Moreover, who''s to say that SCO didn''t steal GPL''ed code and put it into UnixWare?

So now it''s become a case of their word vs. everyone else''s word. And SCO is hiding behind IP property to say, "well we''d show you the code, but then it wouldn''t be proprietary secret code anymore...would it?". So who''s to prevent some other upstart company with so-called proprietary code to claim that Linux has some of their code in it? And while the onus of proof is again with the litigants, it is still some serious FUD that may prevent companies or organizations from adopting Linux.

The problem is that the Linux code is open and free to look at, but proprietary code is not, so people like SCO can claim that Linux stole its code...but unless the judge deems it necessary, SCO can keep its code secret. In other words, how do you keep other companies from not violating the GPL license as is claimed here?

quote: Original post by Dauntless
The problem is that the Linux code is open and free to look at, but proprietary code is not, so people like SCO can claim that Linux stole its code...but unless the judge deems it necessary, SCO can keep its code secret.

If SCO doesn't provide such evidence, what jury or arbitrator would side-with them? And if somehow they win without it, then an appeal should be easy to obtain.

However, it is very wrong to think that the burden of evidence is on SCO. The burden of evidence is on the accuser for criminal claims, and on the accused for civil claims (SCO needs to provide something that suggest wrong-doing, IBM has to prove there wasn't). The burden of evidence is on IBM and the various companies SCO has threatened with legal action – in the US at least. Other countries’ legal systems may be more or less FUBAR.

For that matter, the FSF could sue SCO claim that code came from Linux into SCO, not the other way around, at the same time SCO is suing IBM for the opposite. Same rules apply.

[edited by - Magmai Kai Holmlor on June 11, 2003 11:00:51 PM]

Unfortunately, no one can know if SCO copied Linux code since it''s closed. Therefore no one can counter-retaliate that way.

What scares me is that a jury might just buy into SCO''s claims if they find enough "experts" who agree to the NDA. Actually the whole NDA agreement is a farce too. The experts must give a simple, "yes" or "no" answer if they think Linux has stolen code in it. What scares me is that honest and reputable experts wouldn''t agree to such limitations. But you never know.

Still, I think it''s not so much Linux that''s on trial as it is the whole open-source movement. It will be very easy to FUD up opensource projects with threats of litigation. Whether or not the claims have any merit is irrelevant...all it has to do is scare customers away...preferably towards the "legal" version of a product. Opensource projects will move on and live, but its progress could be slowed...or rather I should say its implementation could be slowed down.