Hobocop

Oh boy. You'll be sorry you asked.

Yes, Linux is open source. Linux is released under the GPL (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). [Over-]generalized, this basically means that the source code is always made available with any binary code, and anyone who makes any derivate works with that code, must also release the modified code.

This thing with SCO started about a year ago. SCO had acquired certain copyrights to Unix code (as in the original old school stuff, created by AT&T Bell labs, eons ago) and early in 2003 they came out and claimed that IBM (who is a huge contributor to Linux, and licensed certain technology from SCO) illegally inserted copyrighted non-free/non-open-source code from Unix into Linux. SCO filed suit against IBM, originally for 1 billion dollars, then upped it to 3 billion, and then recently raised it to 5 billion dollars. This lawsuit is at the heart of the debate.

During the past year SCO has embarked on a furvorous campaign to spread FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) by threatening to sue companies using linux who refuse to "license" SCO intellectual property (the part they claim exists illegally in Linux). This practice is highly questionable at the very least since the necessity of these "licenses" depends on the outcome of the court case. Meanwhile in court SCO has done nothing more than hire expensive lawyers to engage in a strategy of dragging out the case as long as possible by whatever means possible.

SCO has repeatedly threatened to sue corporate Linux users who are uncooperative and do not purchase their licenses. Until now it had issue nothing but empty threats. The story you linked to is about SCO suing AutoZone as a user of Linux, who has not purchased SCO licenses. They lumped this announcement with that of a lawsuit against Daihmler-Chrylser but as far as I know that particular lawsuit only has to do with disputes over D-C's use of SCO's own Unix products, not Linux. One of the problem with the AutoZone lawsuit (besides the fact that the original issue with IBM is still pending in court!) is that it isn't clear that AutoZone would even be liable for _anything_ since they had nothing to do with the alleged copying of code, they just sell auto parts using computers that happen to run Linux.

Moreover there are much more serious flaws in SCO's outrageous claims and in their lawsuits.

UNIX IP ownsership caldera > SCO, etc
First it helps to get a little bit of history about the SCO corporation. The SCO group, as it exists today isn't in fact the entity that purchased Unix copyrights from AT&T. This is where is gets confusing. In the old days (like the 80's and stuff) [Old] SCO (remember, a different SCO, which I'll call Old SCO) was a licensee of Unix, from AT&T. During the 90's, Novell acquired the rights to Unix from AT&T. Near this time a lawsuit between AT&T determined that BSD Unix partially developed at the University of Berekely (Berkeley had long worked with AT&T on Unix and contributed to Unix) was free/independant of AT&T/Novell's Unix. Later, in 1995, Old SCO bought the rights from Novell. Then a linux vendor called Caldera bought the server division from Old SCO along with the Unix rights. Old SCO ceased to exist after that point, but then Caldera changed their name to SCO (now they are the new SCO, that is SCO as it exists today). Confused yet? I know I am. The point is, after all these transfers of ownership, it is not crystal clear who owns what regarding Unix. Additionally, Novell has disputed some of SCO's claims to the Unix code.

Unproved/unconvincing code samples
On several occasions since filing their lawsuit, SCO has attempted to offer proof, in the form of examples of code allegedly copied from their copyrighted Unix into Linux. The first problem is that they do not allow anyone to see these examples, without first signing an NDA (Non-Disclosure agreement). This all but prevents any relevant authority from reviewing the code, because of legal conflicts between the terms of the NDA and the software projects those people contribute to. Nonetheless some of SCO's examples have been leaked out without NDA protection, and in all cases that I am aware of, the examples of stolen code were revealed to be either original works by Linus Torvalds, the author of Linux, or original work by Linux contributors, OR code _legally_ adapted from the University of Berkeley's BSD Unix.

SCO release code under GPL.
Yet another problem is that SCO, as a Linux distributor itself (remember SCO used to be Caldera, a Linux vendor, and SCO distributed it's own Linux distribution, under the GPL, until early 2003) has, and still does release code under the GPL. By licensing their Linux distribution, which naturally included any alleged contributions from their own code, under the GPL, SCO has already granted the right to use that code, according to the terms of the GPL. SCO has tried to counter this troublesome charge with wild claims that the GPL is incompatible with US patent and copyright law and the US Constitution itself. (see http://www.sco.com/copyright/)

Microsoft funded.
For what it's worth, recent revelations have indicated the Microsoft Corp has funneled over 80 million dollars into SCO, possibly over 100 million. This fact begs the question, is their any merit at all to this lawsuit, or is it Microsoft using SCO as a puppet to attack Linux in any way it can? -- (Note this is pure speculation, I have little to no evidence)

Last ditch attempt to salvage dying company, or pump and dump
Finally, it's worth noting that at the beginning of 2003 SCO was in dire straights. You might say the company was on it's last legs. It had to do something or it was likely to be in for hard times. It chose to be evil and start a sue-a-thon. Suing for fun and profit does seem to be emerging as the other great American past time, but in all seriousness I believe SCO is being guided purely by dollar signs, not about what is right or just or what is deserved.

Conclusion.
I am not foolish enough to think that it is impossible that some part of what SCO claims could be true. Be that as it may, SCO's conduct during the entire affair has been deplorable. They have made it clear that they want nothing other than to extort money from people, or sue it out of them; and not to civilly and fairly resolve a dispute. I hate the way they have conducted themselves and I think there is no denying that they have invited hate upon themselves. By making enemies everywhere they turn I believe they are digging a hole underneath themselves and it will only be a matter of time before they fall into it. We'll have to wait and see whether the SCO execs make out with the booty from the sale of their stock, which is currently riding high from the lawsuit action and bold public claims. Only time will tell.

The short version of this whole controversy, according to me:
SCO = EVIL
Linux = GOOD, open-souce, and free (as in beer and speech). (see http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Links -- for much more information see:
SCO controversy timeline:
http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
Groklaw - Tons of resources, analysis of the legal things going on
http://www.groklaw.net/

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I read Slashdot... ;)
I make no claims as to the factuality of the information provided here, this is just a brief (ha!) summary of the situation as I think I understand it, gratuitously interlaced with my own personal opinons.

Oh, I forgot to add:

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, LINUX SUES YOU!!!

...and...

ALL YOUR BOXEN ARE BELONG TO US!!!

ok, I'm done now.

Holy shit, Jimbo! I'm impressed! That is a REVOLTINGLY good summary of SCO's bullshit proxy lawsuit against the entire Open Source community!

Can I have you write my next Information Ethics paper?

Thanks for the info..I guess I need to spend more time at slashdot.

omg, i thought that it was scsi writing that thing from the get go. Alas, jim your authorship does not surprise me! ;) hehe good info tho ;)