Linux under siege, geeks called into battle<\/p>\n
Vishnu K. Mahmud, Contributor, Jakarta, vmahmud@yahoo.com<\/p>\n
If there's one thing many people despise, it's bullies. Be it
\nthose who use weapons to terrorize innocent people or nation-
\nstates that cause collateral damage during invasions, a bully is
\nstill a bully. Which is precisely what the world's Linux
\ncommunity may be facing right now.<\/p>\n
Linux is an open-source operating system, making it free for
\nprogrammers to download, modify and share source code with
\nothers. Any problems or bugs can immediately be eradicated and
\ntested by practically anyone, to ensure security and
\ncohesiveness. The system's entire source code is also open for
\ninspection, to make sure that no one has tampered with it by
\ninserting viruses or Trojan horse programs.<\/p>\n
With this community zeal, Linux has managed to capture the
\nhearts of people and corporations looking for an alternative,
\nsecure and cost-effective operating system.<\/p>\n
Suddenly, this idealistic digital commune finds itself under
\nthe barrel of a rather nasty legal battle. The Santa Cruz
\nOperation (www.sco.com) have declared that portions of the Linux
\nkernel (the heart of the operating system) contained some parts
\nof their UNIX proprietary code that was illegally incorporated.<\/p>\n
The company is also suing IBM for US$3 billion due to its
\n\"concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of
\nUNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux
\nservices business.\" They have accused IBM of inserting the SCO
\ncode into Linux.<\/p>\n
In addition, SCO issued letters to 1,500 large companies
\nclaiming that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and
\nthat they may face legal risks as users for copyright violations.
\nSCO recently offered a licensing scheme for Linux end-users ($699
\nnow, $1399 in October 2003) to ensure compliance. Some see it as
\na \"pay us and we won't sue you\" kind of deal.<\/p>\n
With this legal cloud in the air, many companies are getting
\nworried about being in the middle of an intellectual property
\nbattle. SCO have so far refused to identify the offending code in
\nLinux (except under a nondisclosure agreement), nor have they
\nissued evidence that the said code is officially theirs. Which is
\nrather ironic since SCO themselves have sold their own version of
\nLinux (with the offending code) under the General Public License
\n(GPL), the cornerstone of the open-source movement.<\/p>\n
With the trial of the case against IBM set for 2005, there is
\nstill plenty of time to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about the
\nviability of open-source software. Linux's competitors are no
\nlonger talking about its overall total cost of ownership,
\nreliability or security, but about its potential copyright
\nliabilities.<\/p>\n
Is Linux doomed? Far from it. Red Hat (www.redhat.com), one of
\nthe world's top Linux distributors and solutions providers, has
\nfiled a lawsuit against SCO, basically telling itup or shutover
\ndoes he meant \"it to put up or shut up over\"? its copyright
\nallegations. Red Hat entered the fray after seeing many of its
\ncustomers becoming increasingly worried about potential legal
\nliabilities.<\/p>\n
According to Red Hat's general counsel Mark Webbink, SCO's
\nunsubstantiated and untrue public statements attack Red Hat Linux
\nand the integrity of the open-source software development
\nprocess. They also want to ensure the protection of their user's
\nlegal rights, noting that the collaborative process of the open-
\nsource software movement has been unjustly questioned and
\nthreatened.<\/p>\n
Red Hat has also said they are always careful about
\nintellectual property rights and would correct any mistakes
\nfound. With the help of the open-source community, those
\ncorrections could be done immediately, taking mere days, if not
\nhours, to devise a program around it and to patch.<\/p>\n
IBM has also countersued SCO, saying they violated the Free
\nSoftware Foundation's (www.fsf.org) GPL license. According to a
\nFSF statement, the fact that SCO themselves distributed the Linux
\nkernel under GPL through their Caldera Linux meant they had
\nlicensed \"anyone, anywhere, to copy, modify and redistribute that
\ncode.\" The fact that the code was always open for inspection
\nmakes some people wonder why they didn't catch it in the first
\nplace.<\/p>\n
Linux geeks at the popular Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) website
\nhave also condemned SCO's moves. Some even say these legal
\nmaneuvers and accusations are part of the company's \"pump and
\ndump\" strategy to raise their stock in order to sell it for a
\nprofit. Formerly a penny stock, SCO stock is now in the $11
\nrange.<\/p>\n
Frank Hayes, a senior news columnist at Computerworld
\n(www.computerworld.com) noted the company recently purchased
\nVultus Inc. with newly issued SCO stock, whose price gets a boost
\nwhenever a new threat is issued. Is this a battle about
\nintellectual property or a cynical play on the dotcom era's stock
\nbubble as revenue to gain profits?<\/p>\n
In any event, sales of Linux products and servers since the
\nlawsuit began have continued to climb. Governments in Germany,
\nBrazil and Chile are using Linux, as are many Fortune 500
\ncompanies. Most are confident about the viability of open-source
\nsoftware and are ready to lend a hand in the battle if needed.<\/p>\n
Is this a case of David (SCO) versus Goliath (IBM), or an evil
\nempire against a rebellion alliance (Linux)? Only time will tell,
\nbut as an IT Manager for a major American bank noted, there are
\ntoo many Linux users now, and they won't stand idle while their
\nopen-source movement is destroyed by proprietary software. Linux
\nusers can easily create their own software en masse quickly and
\nsecurely within the confines of intellectual property rights law.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/linux-under-siege-geeks-called-into-battle-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}