With Linux, who is fighting against SCO? IBM?

What I was thinking is who defends NetBSD or *BSD at all in court? 

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 21:34, Rick Kelly wrote:
> Peter Seebach said:
> >Er.  I think it means SCO is stupid.  I wonder if they got the UNIX
> >intellectual property, but not the legal documentation associated with the
> >legal battle.  My understanding is that AT&T was very lucky to escape the
> >BSD settlement as easily as they did, once the court saw everything.  This
> >is, of course, unsubstantiated, because the entire thing is so
> > confidential.
>
> But:
>
> 1. *BSD followed the agreement and went to a 4.4BSD Lite2 codebase.
> 2. The "real SCO" put everything from System III back under a hobbyist
>    source code license.
> 3. Caldera put everything from V32 back under the BSD license.
> 4. This was followed by the release of all previously encumbered BSD
>    source code.
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> 1. Caldera/SCO has made no attempt to disprove the theory that SYSV got
>    mingled with Linux by their own software engineers.
> 2. Up until very recently, Caldera/SCO had the "offending" Linux source and
>    binary code up for free download on their website.