Well, after perousing the legal documentation, it seems that, ironically, IBM actually did violate their software licensing agreement with SCO. The question is: did they cause the source code of the Linux kernel to become illegal? That information is dependant on what components of the kernel where contributed by IBM. If SCO's claims are accurate (I'd have to ask the developer responsible for the three sections of code to be sure), then I guess that legally, SCO actually DOES have right to claim that they are due comphensation for the section of code. Especially in the enterprise market where the alleged changes have the most significant effect (multi processor systems with more than 4 processors.) And furthermore, their prices for server computers would be reasonable (If you consider the normal cost of UNIX.) Their client prices are still unreasonable as all of the stolen code really doesn't apply to client type workstations, even corporate class ones.

However, there is a small question of standing. It would seem that the SCO group isn't actually the one that owns UNIX. SCO was actually two companies at the time that they aquired UNIX, and the one that is currently called Tarantella. The SCO group is unaffilliated with Tarantella (Which can be substantiated from direct statements by SCO in their Comment on paragraph 10 of IBM's counter statements.)

Ya, it's a huge pile of convoluted bull crap, but it boils down to IBM Violated their licence with The Santa Cruz Operation, now known as Tarantella. However, the SCO group, who is the one currently sueing, isn't the holder to the rights to UNIX. As for the Linux community itself, this means that there are chunks of the 2.4 kernel that contain what used to be trade secrets. However, the definition of "Trade Secret" is no longer held, and the damages thereby really don't mean squat. However, the copyright held on the source is still valid, and thus the Linux kernel MAY (we don't know if IBM actually contributed anything, but I can't see why not) contain intellectual property that cannot be freely distributed via open source. All of these infringements can only be in version 2.4 and higer of the kernel. The people I would worry about would be the people with AIX on their systems. And even then, only if Tarantella decides the serve notice of a breach in the license. But until then the UNIX license held by IBM is safe because the one served by SCO is meaningless.

What a mess. Bad intellectual property or not, Motoko will continue running the 2.4 kernel. And if Tarantella decides to make a fuss about it, we'll see. But otherwise it's clear that SCO doesn't have any standing.

Well... That was unexpected.

Mood: Torn