…Still, I couldn't keep quiet about SCO's response yesterday to IBM's countersuit. Essentially, it's the legal or PR equivalent of "oh yeah? Well... so's your mother!"

…Second, lacking an adequate response to IBM's legal claims, SCO is resorting to big-time FUD-slinging by trying to change the debate to "indemnification." Basically, trying to paint Big Blue as the bad guy because they're not giving their customers legal guarantees about GPL'ed software. Never mind that indemnification is not standard in the software industry.

…Also note the interesting timing: Microsoft changed its legal terms to provide this fabled indemnification just five days before SCO filed its suit against IBM. Coincidence? I think not.[p6: note that Microsoft paid SCO the Linux licensing fees]

…Finally, now we see what it's really all about. In the past McBride and company have stated that they don't have a problem with open source or the GPL, just the idea that their IP might have been misappropriated. No longer:

Uh-huh. You can see the folks in Redmond manipulating McBride's strings here.

…One other interesting thing came out in IBM's response: SCO's "right" to cancel IBM's AIX license is subject to veto by Novell. Even if IBM's license could be revoked (they still contend that it can't be), Novell can exercise a veto power. They have done so by sending letters to SCO telling SCO that it should cease saying that it has revoked the AIX license -- yet SCO's management has not mentioned this, and they continue to publically claim they have the right to revoke the AIX license, which is part of what has driven their stock price up so dramatically.

Check out the SEC filings -- SCO execs have been cashing in on their shares like there's no tomorrow, yet they haven't given all the information to their shareholders that they have. (Namely, the Novell letters...) The SEC really needs to be looking into the behavior of the folks in Lindon.