Coders are accused of infringing intellectual property rights. Edward Power reports

Many in the open source movement regard SCO chief executive Darl McBride as the devil incarnate so it's surprising to hear him speak as though he were a kindred spirit.

While Mr McBride's claim that core Linux code was misappropriated from SCO has attracted the wrath of open source diehards, he is adamant that he favours the principle of shared, non-proprietary software.

"The open source model is very interesting. You have thousands of eyes concentrating on a single problem. It's great if you can be open about how you get the best code, and vet out problems at source," he says.

That's where consensus ends however. Mr McBride maintains Linux has plundered SCO code and is hungry for redress.

SCO is ruminating over what kind of reparation it will seek against distributors and users of Linux. Mr McBride says removing contentious code from future batches will not suffice.

Admittedly, not every Linux user would have purchased SCO software had the alleged misappropriation not occurred. Nevertheless, the theft has deprived the company of a €3.5 billion "revenue opportunity", he says.

And he believes his stance can bring long-term benefits to the industry by making it clear to open source coders that lifting copyrighted code will not be tolerated. "We don't want to see Linux die. We want to resolve the question mark that hangs over this intellectual property," he says.

Mr McBride describes the controversy as a "hot potato".

"Nobody thinks they should shoulder the blame. The distributors don't tell users they are receiving software which is subject to a proprietary row. Users don't see why they should be responsible." So convinced is SCO that its case is watertight, it has written to 1,500 major Linux users, warning them the ownership of the code is in dispute.

The company likens its stance to that of record labels when they moved against the Napster file-sharing site, which allowed users to swap sound files.

As the dispute dragged on, the music industry warned it was prepared to confront individuals who illegally downloaded music. Though reluctant to resort to similarly threatening language, SCO warns that Linux operators could potentially be held accountable for utilising illegal software.

But users should take heart from SCO's determination to protect its interests, according to Mr McBride. Its robust defence of its intellectual property rights will set an important precedent.

"Any customer who values intellectual property should side with us. We are protecting not just our interests but their's also."

Underlining SCO's belief is its $1 billion (€855 million) lawsuits against IBM, claiming Big Blue's Aix platform contains copyrighted code.

Despite IBM's claim that the suit is "full of bare allegations with no supporting facts", SCO refuses to back down.

Equally firm is its belief that the rise of open source, and of Linux in particular, poses no threat to Unix. "The future is still very bright for Unix, which is essentially the same platform as Linux. Success of one bodes well for the other," says Mr McBride.

It is implausible that SCO will successfully pursue every Linux user - thought to be hundreds of thousands - or that a victory in a future court battle would ring a death knell for open source coding. Yet its claim has injected a note of uncertainty, not least for SCO's in-house Linux projects, which have been suspended pending resolution of the dispute.

"We don't have a problem with open source," explains Mr McBride. "It seems that we are unpopular among some elements but we are only doing what is right to defend our interest. In the long run, we believe we will be seen to have taken a brave step."