Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

SCO will hinder open source adoption?

There are some suggestions that SCO's FUD is going to scare customers away from adopting Linux software. It's worth remembering a few facts though.

Are IBM being sued because they're using open source software? No, not at all. SCO has standing to sue because IBM signed a proprietary licensing contract with AT&T. This contract is the only grounds for legal action at the moment, and the fact that Linux is free software is purely incidental.

If IBM were as successful with OS/2 as it now is with Linux, and SCO had dug itself into the same hole, then SCO would probably be suing IBM about OS/2. If Microsoft had not paid up earlier, SCO might be suing Microsoft.

Lawsuits are hardly a new feature of the software industry. As the Economist [subscription requried] wryly notes, getting sued is perhaps just a sign that we've really arrived:

IBM denies any wrongdoing. It insists that its contract with AT&T is "irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up", and that its customers have nothing to worry about. Whether there is any merit in SCO's claims will become clear only when the matter comes to court. But SCO is widely assumed to be gold-digging. By casting doubt on the legality of Linux, and suing a deep-pocketed company that has championed its use, SCO seems to be trying to get IBM to buy it off. That IBM has not done so suggests that it is confident of being in the clear.

[...] So far, however, SCO's lawsuit seems to have done little to harm IBM or hamper the adoption of Linux by large firms. Indeed, the attention the case is now receiving is a vivid illustration of how important Linux has become.

Proprietary licencing exposes users to at least as much legal risk as free licences. Perhaps some people prefer the devil they know, but lawyers or consultants who can explain the implications, costs and benefits of open source are not in short supply these days.

It might be nice for users if they got some kind of meaningful indemnity or warranty from their software providers. Neither open source or proprietary software vendors do this at the moment, at least at the sub-million-dollar level. But with software being such a risky business, that insurance would come at a hefty price. Indeed, given that any nontrivial program necessarily infringes on stupid software patents, it would probably be impossible.

Seth has some further thoughts on this.

posted Wed 25 Jun 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.