OSI calls for SCO sanctions

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run."

This is a timeless nugget of wisdom that SCO might be well advised to meditate deeply upon with respect to its Complaint filed against IBM on March 7th.

Especially now that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has publicly raised the stakes for both SCO and their attorneys. If SCO's lawsuit was a gauntlet cast upon the ground before IBM and the Open Source community, it would seem that OSI has picked up the gauntlet and slapped SCO in the face.

This serious challenge is buried in the most recent revision of the "OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint" . It is a seemingly bland statement near the end:

"We further suggest that SCO's complaint is knowingly deceptive to a degree that recommends sanctions under the Utah and Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure."

The text of Rule 11 of Civil Procedure in the State of Utah can be found here. Because the author is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, etc., I won't presume to interpret this Utah statute, but its meaning might be plain enough to anyone who cares to read it.

However, and writing strictly as a layman, it appears likely to me that SCO, and possibly its attorneys too -- David Boies, et al, -- could wind up with sanctions from the Court, which might include public censure, or fines, paying some or all of IBM's legal and other expenses, some or all of these. I suppose it depends upon what judge hears these arguments.

Other voices have spoken up about SCO's lawsuit against IBM. The Open for Business articles like this editorial have been rather shrill in calling for SCO's head on a platter. I can surely understand their point of view.

Linus Torvalds, copyright owner of Linux and leader of the Linux kernel development project, has dismissed the SCO vs IBM lawsuit as irrelevant. He's right... this isn't about Linux, no matter how much innuendo SCO implies. It's simply a contract dispute.

Actually, it might soon be established that by filing suit against IBM, citing alleged IBM contributions to Linux, SCO might be disenfranchised from participating in United Linux, even barred from selling Linux. SCO Linux is built on SuSE Linux. SuSE's CEO is reportedly "not amused" and it remains to be heard what the Free Software Foundation keepers of the GPL might have to say about one licensor filing suit against another.

There might be another shoe to drop, if Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen are awake and serious about defending proprietary attacks on the GPL.

But some of the better comments on SCO's lawsuit have been made by those other leaders of the Linux kernel development effort, recognized masters like Alan Cox, Richard Gooch, David Weinehall. MozillaQuest made space for an interview about the SCO vs IBM lawsuit and its legitimacy here. They support OSI's contentions, each in their own way, and they add a note of sadness that SCO should stoop so low to revisit the Unix wars that so divided legacy Unix vendors, years ago.

However, what's the bottom line? If you're using Linux, I think you are not at any risk. An amused spectator watching a weak low-end Unix vendor self-destruct, maybe. But you might want to avert your eyes from it.

On the other hand, it's going to be fun watching SCO as they try to make their case in opposition to all the facts of Unix history, that long ago decided court case that effectively gutted any commercial value in their AT&T Unix property, and opposed by the entire Open Source community.

Yet perhaps SCO might listen to Kenny Rogers. I'll suggest they run. µ

See Also
SCO to start charging for Unix libraries
SCO not very anti-Linux, at all
SCO acts out of sheer desperation
Linux, the movie