Collateral Damage

In case you're not up on the particulars, SCO is charging IBM with (among other things) breach of contract for allegedly exposing the proprietary Unix source code it licenses from SCO to the open-source community as part of its development of an enterprise-class Linux. SCO claims Linux could never have reached "Unix performance standards" without the misappropriation of its code by IBM.

It's unclear whether SCO has a legitimate beef; IBM, of course, says it has done nothing wrong. Regardless, SCO appears to be hacking off its nose to spite its face.

That's because SCO is a principal in UnitedLinux, an alliance that's crafting an alternative to Red Hat's Linux distribution. As such, SCO's future is tied to hooking enterprises on Linux, not so much to reigniting its legacy Unix business. Yet by litigating against IBM's alleged contributions to the open-source community, SCO is alienating UnitedLinux partners SuSE, TurboLinux and Conectiva, as well as Linux integrators and customers. "I can't describe the amount of bad feeling this is generating in the Linux community," Anthony Awtrey, vice president of integration at Linux solution provider IDEAL Technology, told CRN shortly after the suit was announced last month. "Unless SuSE dissociates themselves from this fiasco, UnitedLinux is dead."

For its part, SCO maintains that the lawsuit isn't about Linux and the open-source community, that it's about IBM's misuse of SCO's intellectual property. But that's like suing your neighbor for a zoning infringement, then wondering why his kids and friends won't talk to you anymore. If you're SCO, at some point you have to ask yourself: Is this action worth the ill will?

Too Many QuestionsFact is, the SCO suit, regardless of its substance, crimps Linux's uptake. If you're an enterprise considering moving part of your Windows or Unix environment to Linux, you're going to wait out this suit. If SCO wins its case, proving that IBM allowed some of the licensed Unix source code to be released to the Linux community, does that mean current Linux customers must somehow extract that "tainted" code or replace their systems? If IBM settles, will that clear the way for all current Linux variants?

These are questions the courts or the two vendors will answer over the next few weeks or months. More costly, however, is the long-term damage to Linux's momentum and credibility. Given SCO's ability to fling a wrench into open-source development, enterprises will ask themselves whether this model is stable after all. Despite the operating system's considerable advances in terms of scalability, performance and support, Linux still comes off like a renegade movement.

If SCO's intent was to pick up a little settlement money, it may succeed. But beware the collateral damage. It's one thing to do battle with one of your biggest partners; it's another to aggravate an entire computing movement.

Post a comment or question on this story.