SCO Terminates Another IBM Licenses, Claims "Silent Majority" Backs Attack On Linux

by , 11:00 AM EDT, August 15th, 2003

The ongoing battle of words and rhetoric continues in the SCO Vs. IBM/Linux lawsuit saga. The latest SCO tat for IBM's tit involves the recurring issue of IBM's license(s) for Unix from SCO. In the beginning, IBM basically ignored SCO when it "officially" rescinded IBM's Unix license for AIX.

If at first you don't succeed, as the saying goes, try, try again. That's right, SCO is taking away IBM's Unix license again, according to an article at C|Net. This time, however, it isn't the license that IBM uses for AIX, but a license that belonged to Sequent, a company that IBM purchased years ago. IBM has denied that SCO's actions have any merit, as SCO hasn't shown IBM any proof that its claims are true. From C|Net:

The company reported that it terminated Sequent's Unix contract for improper transfer of source code and development methods into Linux. Based on the move, SCO claims that IBM no longer has the right to use or license Dynix/ptx and said that customers should not be able to acquire a license for the software.

IBM again denied that SCO's actions had merit. "SCO has not shown us any evidence that we violated our agreements," spokeswoman Trink Guarino said. "IBM withdrew Dynix/ptx and the associated hardware long before the suit was filed. This seems to be another attempt by SCO to generate press coverage."

SCO said it gave Sequent/IBM two months written notice prior to the termination, as required by the terms of the contract. The company claims that Sequent/IBM chose not to address the purported breach of contract and did not offer any resolution to the disagreement.

Speaking of SCO's case against IBM, Computerworld is reporting that SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, has said that he believes a "silent majority is actually behind SCO in this case. Others with [intellectual property] they want to protect, they are hoping that SCO is going to prevail. We've been called into the fight, and we're not backing down. We continue to gain in credibility" and that "industry support from partners is strengthening."

After saying this, McBride went on to deride the GNU General Public License (GPL), calling it a "beast," and that "building your [business] on the GPL is like building your headquarters on quicksand. Everyone is terrified that their intellectual property is going to get sucked into this GPL machine and get destroyed."

This mirrors comments from Microsoft over the years. That company has attacked the GPL license and open source software as un-American, and a threat to businesses and Intellectual Property. This theme has been sounded by various Microsoft execs for some time.

The Computerworld article goes on to quote Lawrence Rosen, the Open Source Initiative's general counsel, in pointing out that SCO sold its own Linux distribution under the same GPL license that it now scorns.

You can read the full articles from C|Net and Computerworld at their respective Web sites.

The Mac Observer Spin:

SCOtt: "BANG! You're dead!"
Isner B. Mueller: "Excuse me?"
SCOtt: "BANG! Gotcha again! Hahaaa! BANG!"
Isner B. Mueller: "Do I know you?"

SCO's behavior in regards to Unix licenses sounds almost like a small child playing Cowboys And Indians with an unsuspecting adult passerby. SCO puts great weight on the fact that it thinks it can take away IBM's licenses, while IBM shrugs it off. SCO supposedly took away IBM's license for AIX quite some time ago, yet IBM continues to sell both AIX- and Linux-based systems. SCO seems to be the only one taking itself seriously.

At the same time, SCO thinks that it has a huge following rooting for it. Aside from Microsoft not-so-quietly hoping that SCO damages Linux and/or the GPL as it goes down, is anyone really rooting for SCO?

In addition, SCO's sudden turn to attacking the GPL seems like a person changing their argument after being proved wrong, and desperately trying to save face by convincing everyone else in the room that their argument never changed. It'd be sad, if it weren't vaguely amusing. Okay, it's sad, too.

C|Net Article | Computerworld Article