And Microsoft isn't any more forthcoming about how it might use SCO technology in future releases of Services For Unix. "We are in the process of looking at features and functionality for the next release," Oldroyd said in January. "But we don't have any plans we can talk about right now."
The reticence is hard to understand. Microsoft frequently talks about future products months, even years, in advance of delivering them. Last October, at its Professional Developers Conference, Microsoft discussed Longhorn, its next major operating-system release, at length. Microsoft's customers might also be interested to know what comes next in the company's strategy to interoperate with Unix and Linux.
Last week, when I asked Microsoft for the fourth time about its plans to use the code that's at the center of the technology industry's biggest legal storm, here's Microsoft's E-mail response in its entirety: "The terms of Microsoft's agreement with SCO are confidential. As such we can't disclose full details or financial terms. That said, the license with SCO was extended under the option in the original agreement, to grant rights to additional technology related to Unix interoperability and broaden MS rights around already licensed technology. The end result is more flexibility in potential product design, development and deployment."
In a column on this subject nearly nine months ago, I pointed out that Microsoft may have signed a SCO license to protect itself from the kind of legal action SCO has taken against other companies. At the time, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith had issued a short statement saying the deal with SCO "helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like Services For Unix that further Unix interoperability." Last week, a Microsoft spokesman said the two deals with SCO are meant to ensure not only interoperability but also "legal indemnification for our customers."
Microsoft may have perfectly legitimate business reasons for signing with SCO, and it may have absolutely nothing to do with the shenanigans some have suggested, but there are too many unanswered questions to know. What code and rights has Microsoft licensed from SCO? Where and when will SCO's code be used in future Microsoft products? Why was a license extension needed, among other things, to broaden Microsoft's rights around already licensed technology?
