When The SCO Group last month filed its $1 billion lawsuit against IBM for alleged misuse of Unix code, CEO Darl McBride insisted that the matter had nothing to do with Linux or open source. Since the complaint was filed in March, SCO executives have conceded that they are looking beyond IBM and have issues with code in other Linux products, including those from Red Hat and SuSE Linux.
While it is unclear how SCO’s actions and the outcome of the lawsuit ultimately will affect Linux, the matter – the first intellectual property complaint related to Linux – nevertheless is having ripple effects throughout the open source community. The lawsuit “let the proverbial genie out of the bottle,” IDC wrote in a report issued shortly after the lawsuit was filed.
Microsoft, which has stated in Securities and Exchange Commission filings that it sees the open source movement as a threat, has long pointed to what it says is the inherent unreliability of open source products.
“It is reasonable to believe that Microsoft’s perceived position as a ‘safe choice’ by end users, which is well supported by IDC end-user research, will likely be enhanced,” the IDC report said.
The issue has yet to deter users from buying Linux products, but analysts predict that a drawn-out battle could have a chilling effect on development within the open source community.
“The biggest impact that I count as relevant is FUD, which is probably what SCO really aims for: making people feel uneasy about Linux,” says Mark Lehmann, co-founder of Nethype GmbH, an information management company in Heilbronn, Germany.
SCO says it is only protecting its intellectual property, an issue that has gained increasing attention since McBride took over as CEO of SCO last year. SCO, which has had financial problems, created a new business division, SCOSource, in January that is focused on protecting and licensing SCO’s intellectual property.
“We are not the first to raise that there are intellectual property issues with Linux,” says Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOSource. “Those intellectual property issues have to be resolved and are not something that can continue in a commercial environment with regard to Linux being able to successfully go forward.”
SCO owns Unix System V, code that AT&T originally published in the late 1970s. Since then, System V has been licensed to major systems vendors, which use the code in their Unix products. IBM used System V to build AIX, its version of Unix.
Linux, meanwhile, is an open source version of Unix that was released in 1991. SCO says IBM misused System V code by incorporating it into Linux to make Linux more palatable for enterprise use. Sontag says SCO also is looking at other Linux distributors and how its source code might have been integrated into their products.
“I’m not going to characterize it in any specific fashion other than to say we have identified significant code issues,” he says.
SCO’s actions come at a time when Linux is gaining wider acceptance in corporate installations. Windows continues to be the dominant server operating system, but shipments of servers running Linux nearly doubled last year, according to Gartner. At the same time, the number of servers shipped with Unix declined.
“It appears . . . the company is anxious to slow the incursion of Linux upon SCO’s x86 Unix business operations,” IDC wrote in its report about the SCO/IBM lawsuit.
SCO is a member of the UnitedLinux partnership and sells Linux, too, but “it appears the company is far more concerned about protecting its Unix franchise than it is about growing its Linux business,” the IDC report said. “This litigation is likely to send a chill through the relationship that SCO holds with other UnitedLinux vendors.”
UnitedLinux vendor SuSE says it is confused by SCO’s efforts to target other Linux vendors.
“We don’t believe that anything we have is within the scope of SCO’s intellectual property,” says Joseph Eckert, vice president of corporate communications for SuSE.
As for backlash from customers, Eckert says SuSE hasn’t seen any yet. “Linux is an inevitability, and we continue to see that from our customers,” he says.
Red Hat says the same thing. “We haven’t anticipated any [backlash], and it just has not been any sort of deterrent in closing deals and it hasn’t been an issue for customers,” says Red Hat spokeswoman Leigh Day. As far as SCO possibly targeting Red Hat in the future, Day says only that Red Hat has not had any conversations with SCO on that issue.
Samuel Chessman, network architect for Sallie Mae in Reston, Va., says Linux will continue to grow, despite any legal wrangling.
“I suspect that legal professionals will make money arguing about it, and software professionals will continue to write code. If there are copyright violations in the code, those parts will be rewritten,” he says.
A bigger stumbling block to Linux appears to be its immaturity: the multiple “flavors” of Linux, a reluctance to move Windows applications to Linux, and the need to retrain support and technical staff to run Linux-based systems are a few of the issues users still are addressing.
“Linux still has a long way to go to become a mainstream production environment workstation,” says Wade Phillips, Technology/IS manager in the Shakopee School District in Minnesota. “There are other hurdles [in addition to lawsuits] that need to be overcome before I even consider moving to a Linux environment.”
However, the lawsuits could stymie progress within the Linux community, analysts say.
“Claims would probably be difficult to prove and, in the meantime, could have a chilling effect on how the open source community would work with one another,” says Dan Kusnetzky, vice president, system software, at IDC. “That wouldn’t be good for the industry as a whole because at least at this phase in the evolution of Linux, sharing the effort to produce a world-class software product has produced rapid technological evolution and also pretty rapid growth.”
End-user organizations afraid that SCO also might come after them for using infringing code might decide against embracing Linux. Kusnetzky is urging clients to have discussions with suppliers to ensure that they are not vulnerable should claims be made.
Bill Claybrook, an analyst with Aberdeen Group, says he hasn’t seen an effect on the Linux community yet, but says he believes that a long, drawn-out battle could result in damage to Linux and open source.
“If SCO wins and that gives them the feeling they can go after other people as well and it looks like a witch hunt, then that could spell problems for Linux,” he says.
For its part, IBM has not yet filed a formal response to SCO’s claim; it was granted an extension earlier this month and expects to file one shortly.
“According to our contract, the Unix license is irrevocable and perpetual, and our commitment to Linux and AIX remains unchanged,” says Jan Butler, media relations director for IBM’s systems group. “Our Linux and Unix growth has been strong. We have not seen any impact. . . . It continues to be business as usual.”
Meanwhile SCO contends that it simply is protecting its assets.
“Linux is a derivative of Unix, and we as the owners of Unix are going to enforce our intellectual property,” SCO’s Sontag says. “It does not mean that Linux is going to go away, be destroyed or otherwise, but it will have to recognize and take into account intellectual property rights. If you want to characterize that as a day of reckoning, that’s reasonable.”
