SCO: IBM is an 'unknown software developer'

By Matt Whipp

Posted on 28 Nov 2003 at 15:02

Groklaw has published one of the warning letters SCO sent out to top commercial users of the Linux operating system: its contents portray a vastly different development process for the Linux kernel than that outlined by the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) yesterday.

The letter - ironically that received by IBM - describes commercial software as built by 'carefully selected and screened teams of programmers,' as opposed to the Linux kernel 'built from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small section of code.'

Referring to IBM as an 'unknown software developer' is an odd slight to make when you're at the same time alleging that the company 'misappropriated' copyright Unix code by contributing it to the Linux kernel. Particularly if you send that letter to IBM.

The OSDL yesterday clarified how the distinct sections of the kernel are developed under the auspices of subsystem maintainers: 'Subsystem maintainers review the code submitted to them and orchestrate broader peer review of code to ensure its quality.'

The SCO letter alleges: 'There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are protected. The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen outright, or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts.'

Clearly there is no absolutely foolproof mechanism of ensuring the resultant code is without reproach, no matter who you hire and what development model you use. The OSDL points out, however, that in the development process of the Linux kernel, every opportunity to afford code review is taken.

'All Linux code, both the current version and that submitted for future inclusion, is also available on-line for public examination. This allows literally thousands of interested parties to scrutinize submitted code in what amounts to a massive code review. Only when a subsystem maintainer accepts software code is it passed along to one of the two developers at the top of the Linux hierarchy, [Linus] Torvalds himself or Andrew Morton.'

This means that SCO has had the opportunity to assess liabilities in the 2.4 kernel, with which it has taken issue, since 4 Jan 2001. SCO filed its case in March of this year.

You can read the letter at Groklaw.