There's been a lot of news in the last few weeks regarding SCO and its many Linux-related legal actions with IBM, Novell, Red Hat, etc. The story that's been getting the most headlines - that Microsoft has been helping SCO get financing to keep its lawsuits going - is hardly a big surprise. What is more interesting is that SCO has finally followed through on its many threats to begin filing lawsuits against its own customers. And one of the things that's interesting about SCO's filings against Autozone and DaimlerChrysler is how different they are from each other.

SCO's case against Autozone revolves around its copyright claims. Of course, as it has had continued to do in its case against IBM, SCO refuses to point to the specific lines of code in Linux that it claims are its intellectual property. What is clear, though, is that the reason Autozone was sued instead of any other company that's known to be using Linux: until recently, Autozone used SCO's Unix in its point-of-sale application. Why sue a stranger when you can sue an old customer?

Even more fascinating for our purposes here is the DaimlerChrysler lawsuit. In its complaint, SCO skips over the copyright claims and focuses on a contract issue. Years ago, Chrysler Corp. took out a Unix System V license from AT&T. So now SCO, as AT&T's successor, says that means DaimlerChrysler is required to respond to a letter SCO sent them (and thousands of other companies) demanding the automaker audit all their systems and certify they are not using Linux. Apparently SCO doesn't feel it has to establish any actual property claims in Linux - the standard annual audit clause in the System V license agreement means they can require any old customer to certify anything they want.

Keep that in mind as we look at SCO's Linux IP licensing program. The ironically-named "SCOsource" program offers Linux users the right to keep using their software by paying $699 per CPU. In other words, you pay SCO a little protection money and they promise not to sue you. But what are they really promising?

The SCOsource license agreement is even more convoluted than your typical EULA, but one thing does come through pretty clearly - it does not include any "rights to access, use, modify, or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement." And SCO source code means Linux source code, as far as they're concerned, so SCOsource is sourceless. In fact, you're restricted to using "Object code (that) ... is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer." In other words, you can keep using Linux, but only so long as you don't compile, recompile, or touch the source code at all.

Well, isn't that going to be a bit of a problem for organizations that use Linux in any meaningful way? The accompanying FAQ leaves no doubt about what SCO intends in that respect. It even poses the question of how corporate IT staffs can distribute their own customized Linux applications internally to their users while complying with SCO's license. The answer is they can't. And then, remarkably enough, SCO provides the logical follow-up question:

"Q: If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?"

"A: Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux and purchase the SCO IP license or switch to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternatives that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users."

In other words, the only way to keep using Linux without violating the terms of SCO's license is to get someone else to violate it for you. How bizarre is that? You pay $699 per CPU so that SCO won't sue you sue for violating intellectual property rights that SCO can't show it owns. And in doing so, you put yourself on a list of companies SCO knows can't help but violate their license agreement.

That's not a list you want to be on. Having now gone into the business of suing its customers, SCO can't ever go back to being a technology company. And once its bogus claims to own a piece of Linux are dismissed, the only customers left for this litigation machine to go after could be those who are foolish enough to try to buy them off now.

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.