Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 19, 2003 11:05 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems possible to me that by paying for a license to SCO's code, Microsoft may be attempting to prevent it's release under the GPL or other Free and/or Open Source license.
If, for example, Microsoft pays a $billion or so for access to this code, part of the reason is the exclusivity. They already have the same access to everything under GNU/Linux and the BSDs that the rest of us have. If then IBM, for example, buys the actual code to silence SCO, and then releases it under the GPL to end the dispute forever, Microsoft, having just paid a $billion for licensing, is damaged to the tune of that $billion...because they were "coerced" into spending money for something that is then made free and the value of their investment becomes zero.
I think Microsoft is planning to peel off that money to protect the concept of IP, rather than to protect themselves from any sort of lawsuit. If the code owned by SCO becomes GPLed, the end of proprietary operating systems is at hand for all practical purposes.
Re:The plot thickens.................
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 19, 2003 11:05 PMIf, for example, Microsoft pays a $billion or so for access to this code, part of the reason is the exclusivity. They already have the same access to everything under GNU/Linux and the BSDs that the rest of us have. If then IBM, for example, buys the actual code to silence SCO, and then releases it under the GPL to end the dispute forever, Microsoft, having just paid a $billion for licensing, is damaged to the tune of that $billion...because they were "coerced" into spending money for something that is then made free and the value of their investment becomes zero.
I think Microsoft is planning to peel off that money to protect the concept of IP, rather than to protect themselves from any sort of lawsuit. If the code owned by SCO becomes GPLed, the end of proprietary operating systems is at hand for all practical purposes.
#