Standing up to SCO

CREDIT: Nicki Corrigall, For TechWeekly

From left, Mike Kenzie, Shad Young and Dave Edwards are members of an Ottawa-based coalition formed to fight The SCO Group's claim to Linux, the world's No. 1 open-source operating system. SCO, a Utah-based company, claims it owns a key part of the Linux code, and now wants to bill anyone who uses it.

CREDIT: Andrew Serban, Bloomberg News.

On SCO's side of the fight is heavyweight Microsoft Corp. On the other side are Linux creator Linus Torvalds, below, IBM, Red Hat Inc. and thousands of aficionados

Conspiracy theories abound among opponents of SCO's threat to bill anyone who uses Linux. 'Philosophically, I think everybody sort of thinks Microsoft has something to do with it,' says Internet technologies consultant and Ottawa college teacher Shad Young.

The Linux squabble boils down to one essential question:

Are open-source users violating copyright law?

- - -

Shad Young could soon receive a bill for something that he, and legions of passionately ideological techies, thought was free. But he doesn't plan to pay, and he doesn't plan to take it lying down.

An Internet technologies consultant and college teacher in Ottawa, Young has been using Linux for years. He, along with millions of others, it should be noted; Since its birth in 1991, Linux has become the world's No. 1 open-source operating system.

Eschewing Bill Gates' Microsoftian vision, the world's Linux faithful have embraced their alternative to Windows precisely because it is open source, which means that it can be viewed by anyone and anyone can add to it. Distributors don't sell Linux per se, they sell user-friendly versions of it. Or, they make money by offering service and support for Linux users. As for Linux itself, it is free software, in every sense of that term.

Now, a software company in Utah says it owns Linux, and is threatening to send a bill to anyone who uses it. Users of Linux include governments around the world, Google, the makers of The Lord of the Rings movies, Motorola Inc.'s mobile phone division -- and of course, techies like Shad Young.

Along with the rest of Canada's open-source community, Young is furiously searching for ways to oppose what he sees as an attack, not just on some of his favourite software, but on the principles he holds dear. He knows this opposition may involve a legal battle with the company behind this uproar: The SCO Group.

The SCO Group claims it owns part of the Linux kernel -- the core of the operating system's code. SCO says anyone who uses or distributes Linux 2.4 or later versions, without paying the company its new licence fee, is violating copyright law.

"It would change the computing world as we know it if they actually win on a large scale," says Shad Young, and pauses. "But we don't think they will."

Over the last year, the copyright fight has evolved into a series of billion-dollar courtroom battles, and a nasty war of words. Open letters have been flying. Even Linus Torvalds, who created Linux in the early 1990s, has gotten into the mud-slinging. On SCO's side is Microsoft Corp. On the other side are Torvalds, IBM, Red Hat Inc. and thousands of Linux aficionados who won't let go of their cherished free software so easily.

Young is one of them. He has helped form a group of like-minded Linux users called the Canadian Linux Interests Coalition (CLIC), whose ranks number about 55 so far. "We're here trying to organize something meaningful to combat SCO," Young says.

So far, the anticipated barrage of invoices from SCO has not arrived. Still, Young and others have formulated their response. Not only are they saying they'll refuse to pay any bills SCO sends them, they're also considering legal action of their own against SCO. And Canadian Linux users aren't alone: opposition to the SCO claim is growing globally. The government of Japan recently weighed in, saying companies needn't get rid of their Linux just yet. But Young says CLIC is unique in that it was specifically formed to fight the SCO claim.

"We don't know of any group like ours, we'd like to be a sort of a template for groups around the world," he says. "We may not be a corporation, but we are just as strong and we have a huge market worldwide."

As if to prove that point, Linux fans have made their case all over the Internet. Web pages about the SCO issue abound, everything from line-by-line analysis of code, to scatological lists of "top 10 things to do with your SCO Linux invoice." More sinister opposition may be out there too -- SCO's website has been targeted by several denial-of-service attacks this year.

It is far from clear that SCO will win its cases against IBM, Red Hat, or any other comers. So then why are people like Young so upset? Well, part of it is concern that the reputation of Linux, and all open-source software by extension, could be sullied by the uncertainty. People who support Linux tend to support the notion that much copyright law is antiquated, and that the General Public Licence (GPL), which applies to Linux, is a smarter way to license software. If SCO successfully bills Linux users, that could be a major blow to that idea.

Conversely, if SCO fails in its bid to control Linux, it could prove that the General Public Licence idea works. So no matter how this battle ends, the Linux world will never be the same. Canada's Linux fans may have escaped SCO's notice for now, but they vow not to be left out of the fight.

In Canada, CLIC has been reluctant to even think about any legal action until or unless SCO starts going after Canadian companies for licence fees.

"It's pretty hard to launch a lawsuit about someone in another country who's saying mean things about you," says Mike Kenzie, another Ottawa member of CLIC.

But the invoices could arrive any day, in theory. (SCO's fees start, for the time being, at $699 U.S. per CPU for a server.) CLIC is looking for legal help, and considering its options if the invoices do arrive. If any company does receive an invoice, CLIC wants to know about it. Young is advising anyone who receives an invoice not to pay it, at least until the court cases shake themselves out.

"There are ways to defend against this action," he says. He is looking into the idea of setting up an escrow account, so that Linux users could pay the fees, but get their money back if SCO is proven wrong.

Other opponents of SCO are taking their opposition even further. Damage Studios, a San Francisco-based game developer, is refusing to give any future business to SCO's law firm, or even to hire anyone who worked for SCO after September 2003.

But other Linux users say boycotting or punishing companies or people for their association with SCO is going too far.

"A company that wants to protect itself shouldn't necessarily be punished for it," says Young.

But Russell McOrmond, a Linux consultant in Ottawa, says he won't support any customer who chooses to pay SCO its demanded fee. He says it isn't a matter of bitter feeling, but a matter of identity. If Linux becomes an SCO product, it ceases to be free software.

"I only support free software. So even though it's still called Linux, it wouldn't be free software."

McOrmond says his business isn't suffering yet, because his clients trust his opinion that they aren't in any legal danger. He hasn't heard of anyone who plans to pay SCO its fee, especially since SCO hasn't, in the minds of Linux users, made its case and explained what part of Linux it owns.

"I'd love to talk to someone who wants to pay it, because I'd then claim I own that branch on that tree and get me to pay me $10,000 for it," he jokes. "Why would you pay a fee and not be told what it is you're buying?"

McOrmond says that, if SCO starts sending out invoices or cease-and-desist letters in Canada, he hopes to be one of the recipients. Then, he can fight back.

On a much larger scale, Hewlett-Packard, one of Linux's biggest backers, plans to indemnify its Linux customers against any potential legal actions by SCO.

Martin Fink, HP's vice-president of Linux, told The Wall Street Journal last month that HP would take over any litigation and defend against any claims on behalf of its tens of thousands of Linux clients. While the indemnification could be costly, Fink said that H-P "is in a position to take that risk."

SCO's claim is rooted in the history of computer programming. Deeply, deeply rooted. "These guys are claiming intellectual property that basically goes back to the '70s," says Young.

To be exact, 1969. In that year, researchers at AT&T Bell Laboratories developed an operating system called UNIX. UNIX may be a dinosaur, but it is still in use -- Linux has been gaining on UNIX for years, but is only now rivalling its numbers.

Various companies, from IBM to Sun Microsystems Inc., worked on their own variants of UNIX; IBM's variant was called AIX. Rights to the UNIX code itself changed hands over the years: first AT&T, then Novell, Inc., then SCO. Novell is opposing SCO's claim to copyright. (The trademark "UNIX," by the way, belongs to a consortium known as The Open Group.) In 2002, Caldera International adopted the name of SCO, a company it acquired, becoming The SCO Group (commonly called SCO).

Confused yet? We're just getting started.

In 1991, a student at the University of Helsinki started talking to fellow programmers about a new system he was developing. He named it Linux -- not surprisingly, since his name was Linus Torvalds. A few years later, commercial versions of Linux, such as the one distributed by Red Hat, started to become popular. IBM started working on Linux.

In March 2003, SCO filed a lawsuit against IBM for "no less than $1 billion" U.S., claiming that IBM had inserted a significant part of the UNIX code into the Linux kernel.

The document SCO filed in court reads: "A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called 'Linux.' Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods."

And thus the gauntlet was thrown down in front of Linux fans all over the world. How dare SCO claim that Linux was a "clone" of UNIX! The consensus in the Linux world had always been that similarities between the two existed mainly because certain programming methods became standard, and to re-do them for Linux would be to re-invent the wheel.

"UNIX has been around for 30-odd years," says Dave Edwards, a member of CLIC in Ottawa. "It's more a set of ideas than actual code at this point."

But perhaps, as Young concedes, IBM or someone else may have inserted SCO's intellectual property into Linux -- inadvertently, mind you.

"SCO may have a valid case, there may be copyrighted material in the Linux kernel, but if it's there we didn't put it in there with malicious intent and we're willing to take it out."

And if that is the case, Young says Linux developers could probably replace the offending code in a matter of days, if not hours. (SCO, on the other hand, says there are millions of lines of offending code, so integral to Linux that Linux would fall apart without it.)

"We have stated quite clearly that we will fix and repair anything that is infringing," says Young. "Since they haven't identified the code, it's pretty hard to say who put it in there."

There's the rub.

SCO has not said publicly exactly which lines of code are a violation of copyright. Blake Stowell, director of public relations for SCO, said in a phone interview that the code, if it does belong to SCO, would be a trade secret.

"We're happy to show it (to someone) under a non-disclosure agreement, but we can't show it publicly, because it is proprietary code," says Stowell.

And that's where the irony gets really thick. Linux itself is the poster child for people who don't believe in proprietary code, who believe in the value of open source programming that is an evolving collaboration between its users. It is that community of people which has bought Linux products from Caldera/SCO. And it is that community that feels betrayed, having poured heart and soul into Linux, only to have it claimed by what they see as one partner in the Linux collaboration.

"Right now, they're willing to use our code and not give it back," says Mike Kenzie of CLIC. "They've been selling our code for years."

A little disclosure on SCO's part would go a long way toward easing the pain of Linux developers, who are fond of accusing SCO of spreading "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to cover up what may not be a cogent argument.

"As long as it's a mystery, they can keep doing what they're doing, they can keep sending out press releases," says Edwards.

It isn't likely to remain a mystery forever. The exact nature of the code in question is likely to come out in court at some point. And there will be ample opportunity. Not only is SCO suing IBM, but IBM is counter-suing SCO for making unfair allegations and for violating the General Public Licence under which Linux is distributed. Then there's Red Hat, the leading distributor of Linux, which has launched its own court complaint against SCO's actions in claiming ownership of part of Linux.

Stowell says the IBM case will serve as a deciding factor for Linux users who are trying to decide who is in the right, and whether to pay SCO.

"Certainly they'll know by the end of our court case with IBM whether the intellectual property is ours in that case."

But, he adds, the court cases could drag on for years. "If anyone chooses to take a wait-and-see attitude, they could be waiting a long time."

There will be many people in Ottawa watching that IBM-SCO case. Take the people who work at Xandros Corp., the successor to Corel Corp.'s Linux branch. Xandros produces a hybrid of Linux and proprietary code. Like the rest of the Canadian Linux community, Xandros hasn't heard anything from SCO yet, and as of this point, they have no intention of cooperating with any demands.

Erich Forler, senior product development manager at Xandros, says an IBM loss could be a devastating blow to the Linux industry, but that's unlikely to happen.

"If I were a gambling man, I'd certainly be gambling on IBM rather than SCO."

That seems to be the consensus. In a coffee shop in downtown Ottawa one afternoon, Shad Young and Mike Kenzie, both of CLIC, muse about how long SCO will stick to their guns.

"If they are being supported by someone with deep enough pockets, this could drag this on for a long time," says Young. "We've made it clear we'll be here as long as they are."

Kenzie takes a sip of his coffee, and says quietly, "There are very few pockets deeper than IBM's."

Open-source advocates haven't always come down on the same side as IBM. And CLIC is very clearly not supporting any party in any particular lawsuit -- they're just opposing SCO, at least until SCO proves its case. But for now, open-source advocates, copyright reformers, and IBM are all strange bedfellows in the case against SCO.

So why is SCO doing this, after Linux has been floating free for a decade? Blake Stowell says it is a simple matter of protecting property.

"We're not trying to cause problems for people but we are trying to protect the intellectual property the company paid $150 million for eight years ago."

He says several companies have expressed an interest in buying a licence, and at least one anonymous company already has. Stowell says some Canadian companies have contacted SCO about buying licences too, but at the time of the interview, none had bought one, and no Canadian companies had received bills. Stowell says he believes some Canadian companies were included in a group of 1,500 corporations whom SCO send letters warning of potential liability for using Linux.

"A lot of companies understand the value of intellectual property and understand that paying for a licence is the right thing to do," he says.

But among opponents of SCO's decision, conspiracy theories abound. SCO's stock, which was struggling a couple of years ago, has been steadily rising throughout this controversy. Linux was steadily eating into the UNIX market share, so SCO needed a corporate boost.

"It's like they've been voted off the island and they're desperately swimming for shore," says Forler of Xandros.

Fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theories came in the spring, when Microsoft Corp. announced it would licence a UNIX version from SCO. IBM and Linux are both rivals of Microsoft, so it seemed like too much of a coincidence that Microsoft would be an early supporter of SCO's claim to Linux, and against IBM.

"Philosophically, I think everybody sort of thinks Microsoft has something to do with it," says Young.

To be fair, there's no proof Microsoft's support of SCO has to do with anything other than a pure respect for intellectual property. And Linux types do tend to have a pretty strong anti-Microsoft bias to begin with.

Ironically, say some analysts, Microsoft and other companies could find themselves being accused of stealing ideas themselves. Go back far enough, and all operating systems share ancestry.

"Virtually every operating system is a derivative of SCO code if you believe them," says McOrmond.

So would a SCO victory set a precedent for new claims of intellectual property going back decades?

"It would be a carte blanche," says Edwards. "If they're willing to extend their math as far as Apple and Microsoft."

But the whole SCO controversy could also end up being a good thing for the open-source movement, if it proves that the General Public Licence holds up in court.

"Anybody who's been into this for a little while knows that this was going to happen eventually, that the GPL would be tested," says Young. "It will force a re-examination of patent and copyright issues. In some ways, an opportunity's been handed to us."