The SFLC is more concerned about the usage of FOSS simply equating to business as usual. There is no hue and cry, the company which was at fault is not hung out to dry.

The SFLC's methods could not be more different to those adopted by the average legal firm - simply because the number of billable hours is the prime concern of the latter, nothing else. Let me say it in plain language - lawyers care about money.

The more conflict that is created between the two parties involved in any lawsuit, the more reason for lawyers to celebrate.

A case in which imponderables are magnified will take longer to settle because the more the animosity between the parties, the less the likelihood of a settlement.

If the case does drag on and on, then the lawyers gather en masse and shout hallelujah. This increases the opportunities for name calling and more publicity.

And if a lawsuit does go to trial, why it's time for the legal profession to do its own rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus. The resultant publicity, in turn, will raise the profile of the legal firm involved. The reasoning the firm employs to push its reputation is simple - they hired us for such a public case, hey we must be good, what?

When one's pay packet - and also possibly yearly bonuses - are at stake, that's a good reason to try and muddy the waters about FOSS. True, there are cases like that which SCO filed against IBM - but few legal firms would go after such business which has proved to be a huge swamp in which the protagonist is slowly sinking day by day.

There are other reasons for the legal fraternity to diss FOSS, all revolving around hard cash. FOSS companies, by and large, lack the resources to pay for legal services on the same scale as their proprietary counterparts. Add to this the fact that lawyers are largely ignorant - and no lawyer will admit this - about the licences which govern the use of FOSS. Learning also consumes time - possible billable hours for a lawyer. Learning does not increase the cash flow, it may well result in cash being paid out to an institute of learning. Ah, lawyers don't like that.

It is thus far easier and more profitable for a lawyer to deal with a proprietary software company than with a smaller, less hierarchical FOSS outfit. Why then would a lawyer not want to ensure that the growth of FOSS remains static - or takes a couple of steps backward?