What do you think, what are the morons from Caldera (oops, SCO) up to? From the moment they were formed as spinoff from (IIRC) Novell* they stumble from one failure to the next. Perhaps they hope, as many analysts believe, to force IBM into buying them (if they don't run themselves into bankruptcy first by pursuing expensive frivolous lawsuits and alienating all their customers in the process). There is an interesting point in this article: SCO maintains that Linux contains parts of proprietary Unix code, but they have released it themselves under GPL as a part of SCO Linux, they variant of UnitedLinux (actually little more than rebranded SuSe).

In my book, one is certain: SCO Unix and UnixWare are dead.

*) At one moment Novell owned both Unix and Tuxedo, the transaction monitor & app server for *ix world. Both languished for a year or two in the hands of incompetent owners untill they were bought by (original) SCO** and BEA, respectively.
**) Don't you find it ironic that SCO Unix in part traces its origin to Microsoft Xenix?

I find it difficult to believe that any competent and unbiased judge/jury wouldn't laugh that lawsuit out of court.

The fact that SCO have themselves distributed linux source code under the GPL containing the alledgedly infringing code pretty much kills their claim. They haven't even substantiated their claim by pointing to the IP that they alledge was 'stolen'.

This really is a death throe move AFAIC.

The thing is, though, that they're bound to be getting good money from Sun, HP/Compaq, and IBM from licensing Unix (and a little from SGI). If they are looking to get bought by IBM, I think that's a bad thing for Unix, as it might then become possible for IBM to start leveraging that ownership against Sun and HP (and SGI). And since IBM has the least usable (IMO) Unix variant, that would be an exceptionally bad thing.

(Note that for the purposes of this post, Unix does not include Linux.)

Don't you find it ironic that SCO Unix in part traces its origin to Microsoft Xenix?

Not really. SCO bought it from MS. Or maybe I'm missing your point.

BTW, if you haven't seen it, this timeline of Unix is interesting.

The point is, as they released their own Linux variant, also under GPL, they have no case.

The fact that they have now withdrawn it does not make it proprietary again.
GPL allows you to take source code and change it or incorporate it as long as you re-publish your source code under GPL. Which is exactly what the other vendors have done.

It ceased to become proprietary as soon as they released it under GPL

Yeah, what I found ironic is that Microsoft has important place in history of Unix(like) OS on Intel.

I agree about potential IBM owneship of Unix being bad, unless they simply stick to they new-found Linux strategy and release it as OSS or even public domain.

The point is, as they released their own Linux variant, also under GPL, they have no case.

I don't see how that has any relation to SCO Unix being derived from Xenix.

Hm, the timeline appears to indicate that SCO Unix is direct descendant of SCO Xenix... BTW, intersting detail is that Xenix seemed to have been influenced by all major flavors, SysIII/V, V7 and BSD. And I never realized there was Trusted Xenix (I suppose that means Orange Book certified, C2 or so, I would guess...)

Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

The trick, then, is finding a competent judge/jury, which is no mean feat when the competence may need to involve technical details.

An interesting position paper demolishing the case is here.

I'm tempted to short SCO.

Bitt, thanks for posting the timeline, that made for some interesting reading!

This slashdot posting from this morning should throw some interesting speculation into the mix.

This whole thing is still being discussed at my company on the linux mailing list. The best part, some Anti Linux sales drone started trying to bash Linux in general, lncluding a comment about "you shouldn't be working here" if you like Linux. He quickly realised he put his foot in his mouth when the CTO joined in on the conversation.

Reasons for M$ siding with SCO are obvious to all but a handfull of 'analysts' (like Gartner). BTW, M$ announced it will license SCO's UNIX-related patents, although a search done by a journalist (in PC Magazine, I believe) showed there are none...

Anyway, a Gartner's pearl of wisdom:

'[Gartner] also recommended IT managers seek advice from their legal departments and perform "due diligence" on Linux or other open-source code by exploring its source and integrity. '

Interesting. So, closed-source code is guaranteed not to infringe on someone's IP by the virtue of being closed, it would seem. If not, it would also warrant "due diligence"; but, how to conduct it if it is closed?

BTW, ER deconstructs SCO claims brilliantly. Thanks for the link.

Ha Ha Ha....

For once Slashdot was amusing and informative.

Has anyone seen this?
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html

The reason noone can find any patents for SCO on unix, is because Novell still own them!