SCO's got to be delusional to think that anyone's going to pay them seven hundred bucks per processor.

Fortunately, as someone over at Free Republic pointed out, in terms of the legal strength of their case, they're holding us up with a squirt gun.

And they're "disappointed" by Red Hat's lawsuit. Does Tom Daschle work for SCO?

I'm also buying the protective license on my sandals from Caveman Inc. Just in case Caveman Inc. decides they will sue anyone caught with more than one foot with a sandal on it.

This is another case of corporate America trying to scare someone into coughing up hard earned bucks.

I thought the entire idea of open source software was for a community of users to get, add to and perfect said software. If they are going to license and sue people over it whats next, Linux Certifications and industry standrds for hiring and tracking the work force like with MCSE, CNA, etc?

This is a money grab plain and simple.

You can get Linux certifications, well Red Hat certifications at least. I see nothing wrong with that, but this claim by SCO is nothing but FUD and a quick cash-grab. They probably want as many suckers as possible to pay up to finance their lawsuits.

It just goes to show that NOTHING is really for free. While the ideals of Open source seem laudable (from socialist point of view at any rate). It all boils down to "Someone's got to pay the bills or people or going to be out of jobs."
The Lawsuit seems without Merit to be sure but its just the beginning I fear of a legal morass. Eventually SOMEONE is going to get paid for their time and effort, and that Open Source License won't be worth the virtual paper its written on.

The hobbyists pay for it. That really annoys companies like SCO who see a slice of the pie that's not being eaten and resort to extortion, but in the end it's hobbyists doing what they like in their spare time, or active businesses like Red Hat and IBM contributing to the codebase. Quite different than socialism, in which you don't get much choice and work where someone tells you to.

Yes, very much different from socialism. Far more "libre" than "gratis" if you want more accurate terms. The open sourcers tend to be lots of independent coders contributing because they had the same idea and want to, and organizing themselves out of necessity and efficiency. Socialism seems to build the bureaucracy first, then assume prosperity will follow.

This is not to say that the free software approach is a panacea: it's not, and there are many areas where professional software development will and should continue to be the norm.

Though, it's a nice warning to unresponsive vendors of bug-infested feature landfill legacy software: stay honest or the open sourcers will move in and your users will desert you. (Hmm, Slashdotters as locusts?)

It just goes to show that NOTHING is really for free. While the ideals of Open source seem laudable (from socialist point of view at any rate). It all boils down to "Someone's got to pay the bills or people or going to be out of jobs."

So what does SCO's lawsuit have to do with the idea of "Open Source"? Instead it sounds like the logical consequence of an era where lawyers are considered more important than engineers. Remember that SCO got $10 million from Microsoft recently (ie, Microsoft licensed SCO's stuff).

Open Source is driven by by capitalistic motives. One of the things that is forgotten here is that working on Open Source projects does many beneficial things for the programmers and the people who use the code. The programmer gets recognition and status which directly translates into earning power. Second, the programmers and the institutions which support the open source project get cheap working code.

Further, using open source code has many hidden costs (particularly training and support), but it rarely involves perhaps the most expensive hidden costs of all, the "lock-in". Ie, it's hard to lock-in a customer who uses open source and force them to buy your upgrades, your service contracts, your computer equipment, etc.

Eli,
I am not saying there would be anything wrong with it. My point was more along the lines of, he who controls the code and certs, controls the dollars. I'm saying that none of us who have studied for and/or recieved MCSE or CNA certs have done so WITHOUT the code controlling companies making some money. IF and only IF, SCO can tie up all the Linux code control loose ends, will they be able to follow MS and Cisco and the like down that path.

I'm a big supporter of free enterprise, love it and I will go back into business for myself again someday. But trying to take control of a piece of open source code is just plain wrong. Again, its a money grab plain and simple!!

Here is how this entire issue looks to me. I'm thinking of copyrighting my name, Stephen and selling licenses. Until now its been an open source name, several different accepted spellings, can be made male or female with minor spelling variantions at the namers choice,. Could be a first, last or middle name, corporate name, product name, whatever, the user gets to decide how, where and when to use it. If I get the copyright to the name, I could coerce any number of fearful people to cough up, $700 bucks per use, per person, and make some money. Guys named Stephen Stevens get double tapped, not my problem. I wasn't there when they were given the name, but I am here now with control "legally" snatched from all the "open source namers" in the past. You don't want to pay the licensing fee. No problem, people who are currently named Stephen could simply, stop using the name and change to BobSoft or BobOS2, at there own expense of course.

Really mad guys could get an equipment change and become BarbAppleOS!!

SCO ought to be ashamed, but their lawyers will get an injuction relieving them from shame, both now and in the future.

Maybe I'll get a law degree and fight for the little old ladies sitting quietly writing code!

I can be the LINUX Pimpernel!! Or is that already copyrighted

The SCO lawsuit claims that Linux was developed from copywritten Unix code, whereas all of the arguments I see above seem to focus on the belief that the SCO is simply trying to eliminate competition or "make a buck." Until the discovery phase of the trial, there is no way to know with 100% certainty (unless you were the original coder) that Linux did or did not use copywritten code from Unix. If it did, then someone has some explaining to do, but I don't think that it should give exclusive rights to SCO for all copies of Linux in existence. If Linux comes out on top, I bet that $700 is non-refundable.

Remember that it's SCO who has to prove wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt, not the Linux people.

Hi Rand. I already wrote up my own take on this news
here, and also
here, on my weblog.

I'll probably be venting more on this in the future.

Isn't $700 per processor larger than the Microsoft tax?