CA is hardly a saint...Just read this. It is the tip of the iceberg at CA

CA is not any different than Enron or Parlamat.
Definitly not a company to be respected in any way.

This hazy distinction angered CA's Greenblatt, who strongly objected to the portrayal of CA as a IP licensee for Linux. "To represent us as having supported the SCO thing is totally wrong," he said, before accusing the company's tactics as "intended to intimidate and threaten customers". "We totally disagree with [Darl McBride's, SCO CEO] approach, his tactics and the way he's going about this," Greenblatt added.

SCO claims to have copyrighted material within the Linux open-source operating system and has embarked on a dramatic legal battle to enforce them. Earlier this week, it expanded its lawsuits to include one of its own customers and a company using the Linux software and warned that it "will take and continue to take" legal action against Linux end users. The company sees itself as educating people about its rights in the same way that the RIAA - the US music industry body - has sued individuals in an attempt to prevent the free trade in copyrighted music.

However, one financial analyst said that the conditions surrounding the CA licence did not cast a favorable light on SCO. "I think it just speaks to the weakness of their case. Why could CA have not been convinced to take a licence without legal action," said Dion Cornett, managing director with Decatur Jones Equity Partners.

The other two companies that have been named as IP Licence for Linux customers are EV1 Servers.Net and Salt Questar. Both have confirmed that they did purchase SCO's licence.

>As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said,
>CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed
>to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had
>just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all >UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling
>CA a Linux licensee.
>
>But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea >said, "It was not CA's intention to become a Linux >licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product
>direction or strategic direction," he said.
>
>CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, >Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a >formal statement, it stands in "stark disagreement with >SCO's tactics and threats."
>
>Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are >worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that >CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a >disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in >reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and >tactics," they said."

So the truth comes out... SCO's "Significant" Linux license taker didn't pay a dime for the Linux licenses but rather had them slipped in uninvited so that SCO could make a misleading claim! Typical of SCO...

The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

SCO's giving licenses away and then claiming the recipients had 'purchased' them.

Nice ploy, but it's not working.

Google this: "canopy ca settlement"

Canopy Group (parent of SCO) and Center 7, another Canopy subsidiary, had a joint marketing arrangement with CA. Canopy claims that CA welshed. Canopy and Level 7 sued CA. The suit was settled with a $40 million payment.

I seem to recall, but I can't find a link, that other terms of the suit were that CA buy some Linux licenses. That would fit in with Canopy's plans.