We're back in Wonderland, where up is down and it's off with IBM's head in SCO's happy dreams.

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:45:16 -0500
Robert L Krawitz <rlk at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> SCO keeps changing their story, but they've been saying for a while
> that it's purely contractual, not copyright.  In that case, I find it
> hard to see how anyone beyond IBM could even in theory be liable for
> anything.
let's wait for Judge Kimball to rule on SCO's motion to reconsider his
previous ruling. 

Note that there are thousands of pages of dispositions from discovery.
The bottom line is that then IBM case was originally a contract issue
over IBMs contributing Unix code to Linux. But, they also have claimed
some copyright violation in some System V code. Most of SCO's case was
thrown out last June by Judge Wells, and affirmed in November by Judge
Kimball. 

Regarding what-if discussions, those are pointless because there are a
number of factors. Currently, the major commercial vendors in the Linux
arena, such as IBM, HP, Red Hat, and Novell have taken steps to protect
their clients. Many other companies, such as Oracle, have invested very
heavily in Linux. It is the commercial Linux desktop and server market
that SCO is interested in. 

For Linux users, I think that keeping an eye on what is going on is
important. Not only the IBM case, but also the Novell case. The Red Hat
case is effectively on hold until the IBM case is resolved. While SCO
sued Novell, Novell is pursuing its counter suit very aggressively while
it was able to put the United Linux contractual issue into arbitration
in Europe. 

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9