[Sussex] IBM Counter-sue SCO

[Steve Dobson]

Hi

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:19:16PM +0100, John Crowhurst wrote:
> 
> > It has struck me from the beginning that SCO have decided to commit
> > commercial suicide. What on earth did they hope to achieve?
> 
> The first thing that comes into my head is a partnership with Microsoft,
> to do as much harm as they can to Linux before it becomes more popular
> than Windows.

I don't see Microsoft as a big player in this; what extra can be gained
by Microsoft by getting involved?  Think of it from a sales pitch, their
sales people can now say "Look at the Unix community - they're all suiting
each other."

The only thing that I've seen Microsoft do is buy a SCO licence.  Why 
did they do this?  Because Microsoft does have Unix type interfaces and
features so it would appear that some of that code is "based" on Unix
source.

I also think Microsoft can gain more by sitting back and watching how this
plays out.
 
> It would be interesting with the GPL front if code was seen in their
> sources that originated from GPL code. I wonder if the same is true with
> Windows, that would destroy Microsoft if the underlying networking
> sourcecode was based/ripped straight from GPL code.

I doubt that code in Unixware has GPLed code; SysV is just so old now.
However, I do think that there is a strong possibility that parts
were taken from source that is in the public domain now.

I also think that the chance that there is GPL code in Windows (or any other
commercial OS) is highly likely.  As a developer I know how easy it is 
to take example code and use bits of it that meet your own requirements.
That is why I don't think we will be seeing any copyright claims on Linux
from Microsoft.  If they are to win such claims they will have to open
their code up to the public.

If any of the Window's kernel code is found to have GPL code in it then
think of the consequences are for Microsoft!  They would be compelled by
the GPL to publish all the WindowXX code, and thus loose one of the two 
profitable divisions of the company.   This is another reason why I don't
see Microsoft as a big player in the SCO/IBM lawsuit.

As to why SCO is suing IBM well I have been doing a bit of research on
the Net for that. 

1). Caldera (SCO's predecessor) bought the rights to a version of DOS
and used those rights to sue Microsoft successfully.

2). At about the same time Darl McBride sued is then employer
successfully.

3). Caldera bought the SCO OS from The Santa Cruz Operation (now
Tarantella), then McBride joins CEO and the company was renamed to
SCO and the rest we all know.

This does appear to be the way that the board of Caldera/SCO made money.
They buy obsolete code and then sue owners of derived works.  While
this worked for a proprietary OS developed by a single company it now
seams obvious that the added complications of the Unix development
tree is going to get in the way.

Steve