Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims

“Users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay
The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has “intellectual
property” claims against the Linux operating system kernel or other free
software that require users to buy a ‘license’ from SCO. Allegations apparently
serious have been made in an essentially unserious way: by press
release, unaccompanied by evidence that would permit serious judgment
of the factual basis for the claims. Firms that make significant use of free
software are trying to evaluate the factual and legal basis for the demand.
Failure to come forward with evidence of any infringement of SCO’s legal
rights is suspicious in itself; SCO’s public announcement of a decision to
pursue users, rather than the authors or distributors of allegedly-infringing
free software only increases doubts.

It is impossible to assess the weight of undisclosed evidence. Based
on the facts currently known, which are the facts SCO itself has chosen to
disclose, a number of very severe questions arise concerning SCO’s legal
claims. As a lawyer with reasonably extensive experience in free software
licensing, I see substantial reason to reject SCO’s assertions. What follows
isn’t legal advice: firms must make their own decisions based upon an
assessment of their particular situations through consultation with their
own counsel. But I would like to suggest some of the questions that clients
and lawyers may want to ask themselves in determining their response to
SCO’s licensing demands.”

Columbia Law professor Eben Moglen suggests some reasons to think twice before paying for a Linux licence from SCO.