Don't worry, just a link.

You'll find most of the 120k bytes [link|http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/fsl-discuss/2003-March/000763.html|here].

Capsule:

\r\n
• Gross misrepresentation of SCO's market significance. That a\r\nhas-been bit-player with annual revenues of several tens of millions of\r\ndollars can claim $1b damanges is ludicrous.
\r\n\r\n
• A funhouse-mirror timeline, accuracy not improved by lack of\r\ntimestamps. In this and other details, the complaint is deliberately\r\nvague in a way that's almost comical.
\r\n\r\n
• A gross lack of attention to factors mitigating the value of SCO's Unix\r\ncopyright and trade secrets value, including several well known\r\nwholesale publications of code, several standards based on Unix and\r\nPOSIX, and wholesale independent implementations.
\r\n\r\n
• To say nothing of an unfathomably broad implied definition of what\r\nthe "SOFTWARE WORK" IBM licensed from IBM in 1985 was.
\r\n\r\n
• Yet another gross mispreresentation of SCO's direct involvment in\r\nUnix development (is it just me or do others have to catch themselves\r\nand not write "Linux" for "Unix"?). The one major direct investment SCO\r\ndid make was a foolhardy IA64 port in 1998. Five years later,\r\nneither the port, nor the chip, are at market.
\r\n\r\n
• Much handwaving and little specificity in wailing allegations of\r\ncopyright infringement. Which may have occured, it's conceivable. But\r\nnot with the implications SCO would have one believe. Apparently\r\nlimited to printer drivers (the IBM Omni print drivers?) and unspecified\r\nkernel-level improvements.
\r\n\r\n
• A hugely insulting slandar of the abilities and accomplishments of\r\nLinux and other free software developers capabilities and\r\naccomplishments.
\r\n\r\n

But you really want to read the whole thing. So do. And comment.\r\nAnd help fill in the blanks.

Thanks. Be interested to see what the lawyers have to say. The\r\ncontract and copyright aspects in particular would be interesting to get\r\nlegal gloss on.

Regards forwarding this elsewhere: I've already been contacted by\r\nNewsForge who are offering to run a cleaned-up version of this, likely\r\ntomorrow if I can clean it up tonight. Which is about right. The main\r\nplace I'd like to get this is to IBM -- I think there are a few insights\r\nwhich might help them (I'm vain that way). SCO may be interested in\r\ngiving it a read as well -- if they can be convinced to quit while\r\nthey're well behind, so much the better.