SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead
Summary: SCO, the company that started the Linux lawsuit madness, is now in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the Linux intellectual property FUD lives on.

SCO has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-company. With apologies to Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch, SCO, the company behind a series of foolish anti-Linux lawsuits, is finally really and truly dead.
SCO, which has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since the fall of 2007, has now gone into Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The difference is that in chapter 11 there is some plan, albeit not very rational in SCO's case, that the company can eventually return to normal business. In Chapter 7, all that's left is to close and padlock the doors and then sell the furniture.
As Pamela "PJ" Jones, founding editor of Groklaw, a leading intectuall property legal news site, said, "Did you ever think you'd see this day? I confess I did not. I thought SCO, now calling itself TSG, or so they told the world, would never let a outsider trustee come into the picture, which they will have to in Chapter 7..."
In SCO's case, with 3.7-million in debt and not quite $150-thousand left in cash, there's really is much for a trustee to do except to switch out the locks and put up the closed sign. SCO's Unix operating system properties, OpenServer and UnixWare were spun out to a new company, UnXis, last year. There really is nothing less.
Even now, believe it or not, SCO still has delusions that the court will rule that its IBM lawsuit will somehow be resumed and that a miracle will happen and that they'll win the lawsuit. That's about as likely as a certain deceased Norwegian Blue parrot getting up from his rest to voom through his cage's bars.
While SCO never came close to shutting Linux down, it did help set up a pattern of intellectual property lawsuits and threats that plague Linux to this day.
Microsoft, for example, makes more money from Linux-related patent agreements with Android vendors than it does its own mobile operating systems. Recently, Microsoft, which helped bankroll SCO's lawsuits in the early and mid-200s, has successfully gotten a company using Linux servers to pay it for unspecified Linux-related patents).
SCO may be all but dead, but it's anti-Linux IP FUD lives on stronger than ever.
Related Stories:
Microsoft profits from Linux patent FUD
Microsoft inks patent deal with service provider using Linux servers
SCO is dead, SCO Unix lives on
Twenty Years of Linux according to Linus Torvalds
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead
RIP="Rest in pieces"?
No, "Rot into Putrefaction"
"wRithe in Pain"...
This is actually a good counterexample...
Wrong again, as usual
Seriously, very wise investing there, Microsoft. Can't wait to relieve myself on your grave. :-)
SCO didn't die soon enough
Daryl McBride = Circus Clown
He was one of the most Pathetic Tech CEO's in history.
The investors never did eject him
SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead
MS paid $76 million for a Unix license?
In reality, MS paid $16 million for SCO 'Licenses' , twice as much as any other SCO licensee in history, and another $50 million to SCO via an investment bank, so yes, LD, MS did bankroll the failed lawsuit. Just another loss to MS.
Get your head out of the sand, or wherever it is.
That adds up to 76 million reasons to not trust MS.
I do trust them
So then you must love Linux
No
Your entitled to your opinion.
Anyone is 'free' to use, modify and distribute GPL code. How much more free can it be?
more like forced instead of free
No one said, "No Strings Attached, They Said Free"...
Giving up your code is a condition of using the Free product (if your statement is true). You are Free to not use it (which I am guessing you chose to and it makes you happy). I think most people would consider it Free based on the accepted definition of Free they same way that the First Amendment gives a U.S. citizen Freedom of Speech, but not insure that what he/she says 1)won't be used against them in a court of law or won't cause customers to boycott their store if they chose to say something that is unpopular.
Forced?
Not once did Daryl McBride and SCO offer anything back that his company used and modified according to the GPL.
The GPL is in good faith if you take from the Open Source Community and use something that is an improvement, enhancement or modified that you take you give that back to the community. It doesn't say anywhere your FORCED nor do they send out anyone to your door to do it.
If more got the whole Open Source / GPL / GNU thing they would understand the benefits. If you take you should give that simple.
Free to sell the software?
Sco / Caldera never was true to the GPL Standards
Richard Stallman, my friend John 'Maddog" Hall and Linus could educate you on what true GPL is. SCO's Daryl McBride never got it because he was not educated enough in the LINUX/UNIX world. He destroyed a Company that could of been a huge success instead it was driven in the ground.
All due respect
It's programmed to smile when it gets responses. Please don't feed it. :-)