Back in March of 2003, when SCO Group first brought its suit against IBM for, we thought, copyright infringement related to code IBM supposedly donated to Linux  , the whole world thought it might be the death of Linux. Even those who didn't think so certainly believed the litigation was at least about Linux.
Two years later, and counting, there still is no indication from SCO what code it is precisely talking about, and any link to Linux seems to be getting weaker and weaker. The code SCO offered to the court so far as infringing materials was rejected as being not credible evidence of copyright infringement.
So, where are we now in the SCO v. the World litigation? Most observers now seem to view the case as more about a contract dispute, and the latest SCO claim it wishes to add to its complaint seems to be about AIX code on the Power architecture, which absolutely has no relationship to Linux. So what happened to SCO's Linux copyright infringement claims?
What Ought To Happen
While it's unwise to predict outcomes in legal disputes beyond what ought to happen, the market already has reached its own conclusion, which is that in the enterprise , most folks just don't care how it turns out. They want to switch to Linux and they are.
Linux is growing by leaps and bounds. If Microsoft 's anti-Linux campaign got one thing right, it's when it said it was like "a cancer" -- only not the way they meant it. It was trying to say something mean, and inaccurate, about the GPL, the license under which Linux is made available. But in reality, Linux really does seem to be growing at an unstoppable pace.
I believe the SCO case, while designed to slow Linux adoption, actually might have encouraged it. I call it the SCO Boomerang.
I think there are several reasons for seeing real benefits coming from the otherwise painful and, in my opinion, unnecessary, litigation, and I know I'm not alone in this view. Before I share the benefits that have accrued, let me share some reasons I think the boomerang happened:
SCO's bullying was widely perceived as something to stand up to, not as fear-inspiring. The company's ham-handed tactics backfired, because businesses don't like being threatened. Well, who does? No one respects a bully -- and executives especially don't enjoy companies trying to change the terms of a deal midstream. So when SCO sued its own former customers, red lights began flashing -- something out of the norm, and contrary to respected rules of the road was going on, and nobody liked it. (continued...)
|
