Slashdot Log In
SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Jul 22, 2003 09:28 AM
from the but-i-don't-want-unixware dept.
from the but-i-don't-want-unixware dept.
An anonymous user noted that SCO will
sell you Unixware if you want to "Legitimize" your usage of Linux at your company. If you buy the license, you will be held blameless for your transgressions against SCO! Pricing has yet to be determined for the special licenses, but I suspect that for any value greater than zero, there are going to be a fair number of angry users.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 576 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:GMV (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, is where I think SCOs major flaw in their argument is, the GPL circa Jan 28, 1999 explicitly states in its preamble:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Refer to way back machine: http://web.archive.org/web/19990128195748/www.gnu
And seeing as how SCO has been distributing Linux which had their code in the kernel. They have thusly, knowingly or not, distributed their rights, to the GPLd code in question, to the public. Because, of the statement above. Or if you want to hear it straight from GNU's statement:
Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution.
...
Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://linuxette.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 26 2005, @07:00AM)
Re:Why care? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.veryshortpier.com/)
Sounds reasonable enough to me. How does 25% sound? :)
Re:Why care? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/)
Well Linus is only providing a part of the Linux O/S and one that is least likely to actually infringe. So Linus is perhaps not the best test.
A better test would be IBM who seems to be completely unphased by the situation and has racks of the best IP lawyers that money can buy.
SCO faces a big problem trying to make its case. This is not a normal copyright infringement case where the ownership of the copyright is beyond doubt. Proving SCO's case will take many years - if that is actually possible at all. In the process SCO will be forced to specify exactly the portions of the code that are alleged to infringe. It is beyond doubt that by the time any case came to court for a judgement that any infringing components would have been removed.
That is before any consideration of the GPL. SCO continued to distribute Linux under the GPL long after they acquired the rights to UnixWare. Even if their Linux claim were true they have licensed the relevant code under the GPL.
This is nothing but the death throes of a dying company that has gambled on one last chance to show a return. They could well keep the stock price high for some time while the management sell out their shares.
Re:Why care? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 08 2006, @06:08AM)
1. The suit isn't due to come into court until 2005. Until the court makes some kind of judgement, SCO has absolutely zero legal power to demand anything from anyone. They can send all the letters they want; but until a court makes a decision, they're just letters.
2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net.
3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?
4. 2005 gives the market a full two years to crush SCO. The court case will probably drag on for another two or three years, giving the market even more time. How is a company like SCO going to stay aloat that long? How is it going to avoid a hostile takeover for that long? Two to five years is an eternity when it comes to software.
5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Add it all together, and you'll see that buying SCO right now is a sucker move. If you just continue with business as usual, keeping the option of switching to BSD down the road, or updating to a new, unencumbered kernel, or migrating from X86 to whatever new platform is the vogue in 2005, you can (I think) pretty much ignore SCO. If, and this is remote, they win, it won't matter anyway. You can still dodge their sad attempts at extortion as I've pointed out.
This whole thing is a total non-issue.
In case of slashdotting: (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday November 08 2004, @10:00AM)
Uhm.. (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously.
We know that SCO is being a naughty boy.
We don't need to be reminded about it every day.
Obligatory welcome (Score:5, Funny)
I see that you are new amongst us. Welcome. What you're referring to is what we slashdotters call a "dupe". Please report to the re-education center where you will learn many things including, but not limited to, "profit lists", and jokes about non longer in existance soviet nations.
Re:Uhm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ngranek.com/)
I for one welcome any news regarding this issue. Slashdot is known for it's huge Linux audience and is very handy to have a unified source of information and comments.
Why bother? A lot of us work on companies that use Linux (myself included), even some of us have helped our employers move from proprietary Unices to Linux (myself included), and in my case I also work as a independent consultant and have helped a lot of clients to make UN*X->Linux and WIN->Linux transitions (I make all the solutions using free software and license them under the GPL to my clients, if they want to redistribute the system or a modified version of it they must release the source, if not they are free to keep it secret) so this SCO issue is affecting (and has a lot of potential to affect really badly) my job and bussiness.
You never have too much information, and in any case, you can always not click on the link and let it pass. A lot of us even want to see more stories about this issue.
Hrm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's getting to be a bit much, especially since attention is what they're after in the first place, Slashdot...
Re:Hrm (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 06 2005, @12:39PM)
I come to SCOdot.org for "SCO news for nerds" and "SCO stuff that matters", and when I don't get my daily fix I get withdrawl symptoms.
Binary version of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://cruppel.com/)
Ok, maybe I don't understand, but isn't supplying a binary-only copy of Linux w/o source the exact opposite of every ideal GNU and the FSF stand for? Maybe I read the article wrong, if anyone can clue me in I'd appreciate. Is this a violation of the GPL?
Re:Binary version of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @07:07AM)
They are still claiming that the Linux kernel (or whatever part of SCO/Linux they are claiming today) contains their code, and that it is being used illegally, however if you give them money then they will ignore your violation. I'm not convinced that this is legal, since it sounds a lot like blackmail to me, but that doesn't seem to stop SCO.
Re:Binary version of Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://support.microsoft.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 27 2004, @06:34PM)
In the united states it is illegal to threaten litigation. However, it is not illegal to surruptitiously mention litigation, and then offer an "alternative" (a cash settlement for instance) or
Re:Binary version of Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://home.columbus.rr.com/tbaer/)
I'm not sure if it's legal either, but it sure reeks of a protection racket to me. (It's especially galling given that they haven't even established in court that they do in fact own what they claim to.) I've complained to my state attourney general about it. I'd like to think they'll look into it, but my state AG is one of the ones who caved on the MS antitrust settlement...
Re:Binary version of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/)
This is perfectly legit. Only SCO's silly and rather toothless claims are bogus, the licensing idea is fine. Keep in mind that if SCO's claims were true, the GPL goes poof on Linux, and no one has a license to distribute. What's more, everyone would have to destroy their existing copies, since they got it in a manner that is legally equivalent to downloading a copyrighted song from Gnutella.
All SCO is saying is that THEY won't come after you for continuing to use Linux, if you pay them up front. It's a protection racket, but a legal one.
Still, pointless and ignorable. See my previous comments on why [slashdot.org]
Re:Binary version of Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are quite correct.
The possession of a work that infringes on a copyright does not appear to be a violation of the copyright laws at all.
So, even in the unlikely chance that SCO was able to demonstrate a violation of their copyrights, their actions might be against distributors, and they would have no right of action against the rest of us.
If there was merit to their claims, then there would be some small possibility that downloading the distribution instead of buying it at the store might count as making a copy and would then be an infringement. And so would making multiple copies of the distribution. But since there is nothing I can find in Title 17 about limiting software to a single computer, I bet you could still install Linux on a large number of machines from a single distribution set and not infringe.
As Eben Moglen (a law professor at Columbia University and general counsel to FSF) is quoted as saying:
But even if SCO did prevail on copyright issues, they might still not be able to go after users who make copies, distribute, or modify the material since for all practical purposes, it appears that we have the authority to do so.
I think SCO is going to have to show serious evidence that there is a copyright violation to remove that apparent authority.
Why greater than zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.veryshortpier.com/)
Even if the price is zero, then I'm personally likely to be angry enough as it is. This is all about accepting that SCO is in the right, and until such time as they've taken this through court and proven that to be the case, I have no intention of doing anything to suggest that they have the right to impose restrictions on my use of Linux.
If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.
As it is, their case is built mostly on hot air, so I can see their motivation in pushing for payment in advance.
Re:Why greater than zero? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://bouncingchairs.net/)
Actually, it's a bit more than that. Since nothing has yet been proven and all of this is allegation, isn't this just a form of blackmail? Isn't that illegal? Here is a definition of "blackmail", which I find very interesting indeed:
It isn't much of a stretch to see how today the threat of "exposing a criminal act or discreditable information" has the same effect as "threatening to sue the pants off of someone for alleged and unproven wrongdoing." Perhaps even more interesting is the relationship of this next definition to SCO's current approach:
(All of these from dictionary.com [dictionary.com]) That last one is all about what SCO wants: "We're the pirates, pay us and we won't harm you."
I may be wrong (hey, it's happened before), but I find it interesting that the people who shout most loudly about their legal rights are often those quickest to disregard the rights of others.
Re:Why greater than zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @04:58AM)
I believe the "formal" definition is "demands with menaces", where "demands" and "menaces" are roughly the definition you gave, though perhaps with a little more scope.
(eg: neither the demands nor the menaces have to be actually stated. They can be implied, provided it is reasonable to interpret the implication as an actual threat of some kind, unless the person coughs up.)
SCO certainly seems to qualify under the "menaces" part. Just because they've not named a sum, or directly stated that Linux users would be prosecuted, is irrelevent. Their action towards IBM, and their association of Linux with illegal activity, may well be sufficient.
The demands may also be inferred, from their repeated reference to SCO UnixWare licenses and license fees.
While I think it likely that SCO has enough money to blast any suit a
Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
My thought, is that if SCO starts going to companies using Linux and threatening them saying they will sue if they don't license their code, the correct response is, "show me the code." If I'm not mistaken they have to proove you KNOWINGLY violated their copyright, and given the legally indeterminate nature of this case right now, that doesn't seem plausible.
Maybe I should go and claim that my IP is in Linux too. It's not, but as long as nobody else knows that for certain, maybe I can get a few litigously nervous companies to write me nice checks.
Re:Why greater than zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
I disagree. Sometimes, it takes more balls to bide your time and let your opponent keep shoving his size 11's into his mouth, and this looks lik one of those times.
Please consider:
- SCO keeps making all sorts of public statements that are all over the map. They don't realize that, the more they say, the more ammunition they give to their detractors, who are legion (that's you, me, IBM, Novell, etc.)
- In contract negociations, he who speaks first looses. By not dragging this into the courts, we're doing 2 things:
- Showing that we're taking the moral high ground, (so we look better than they do, with their sue-everybody mentality) rather than alienating people who are confused, fed up, or intimidated by legal procedings
- Giving them every opportunity to reveal the so-called "misappropriated code", which they continue to refuse to do.
- The longer this drags on, the more likely that "interesting stuff" will start oozing out of the woodwork. Look what's happened so far:
- SCO had what they claimed was the offending code reviewed by a non-programmer, which ended up raising more questions than it answered.
- There's now a claim extent that SCO violated IP rights (stole code) when they developed their Linux compatability code
- As of yesterday, they were still distributing GPL'ed Linux on their FTP servers. Think about it
... they said that they were unaware that Linux was (allegedly) in violation of their IP rights, and that they would stop distributing it ... WTF, anybody?
The pros (IBM, etc.) are keeping their mouths shut, because that's the professional approach. They've adopted the Kennedy approach:Both of these actions tend to reflect badly on SCO, and make our community look better (when you want to win in the court of public opinion, which is how we're going to increase Linux penetration, you don't want to come off as a bunch of smelly hippy geeks)
- Never complain
- Never explain
- Get even
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be raising a stink here; I'm just saying that, since this will take years to resolve through the courts, let's concentrate instead on winning the minds and hearts of the people who make technology-related decisions (purchasing agents, CTOs, etc). Then, when SCO [ goes bell up || is investigated for investor fraud || has to recant || looses in court ] we'll be able to laugh. Don't forget, this may never get to the point where a judge has to make a decision.all your source are belong to us (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday May 01 2004, @04:37AM)
It's for "business" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dotiweb.org/ | Last Journal: Friday March 21 2003, @07:49PM)
A few things can happen. 1) SCO loses, my license purchase was pointless then but I'm only out some money. 2) SCO wins and RedHat pays the licensing fees. My license purchase was pointless again because RedHat's aquisition of a license covers me. Not only that but RedHat will past the cost on to the consumers. 3) SCO wins and RedHat can't afford the licensing fee. RedHat goes out of business and I'm left with an orphaned product.
Basically unless I roll my own internal variant of linux I don't see any positive benefit to purchasing the license unless they intend to go after each business individually in court.
Re:It's for "business" (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's the beauty of Open Source. You can't be truly orphaned.
what about sco trangressions against Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblog | Last Journal: Tuesday September 03 2002, @07:25AM)
Thanks IBM!
Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This way, they make money without legal fees, and don't need to prove anything. The only thing that can stop this is a countersuit...which I very much hope we see.
Exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)
By spreading FUD and insisting everyone cease and desist without actually seeking an injunction, it seems that the dynamic duo of Sontag and McBride are hoping to make some money without doing any dirty work. However, as was noted before, we have seen the GPL stand up to the legal tests (remember Progress and MySQL fighting over Gemini?). I hope someone eventually nails these guys with a libel suit. They haven't proven anything and they talk about this magical "discovery" phase like the dirty laundry is about to be aired... but it hasn't. As of the time of this post, SCO still has GPL'd Linux up on their FTP: ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/upd
My respiration patent. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.levik.com/)
Pending the outcome of our patent application we are offering carbon-based lifeforms to protect themselves from possible litigation by lisencing out technology for a low upfront fee based on the cell count of the organism.
By chosing to forgo purchasing a lisence, you may be opening yourself to a potential injunctive action down the road.
What if? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 14 2006, @01:11PM)
Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
Now, if I buy this license... (Score:5, Funny)
You can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
Heh. (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.snowplow.org/tom/)
Finally we have filled in the blank (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday November 25 2002, @06:13PM)
Ahh! so finally we can fill in the blank at point 2.
We'll see how it works out.
I'd like to ask a question... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.slack-fr.org/ | Last Journal: Friday November 23, @04:23AM)
There... I feel better...
Why not just use the GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://hypocrite.org/)
Why do we let them get away with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?
i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?
Bender says (Score:3, Funny)
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
RedHat's answer to SCO's licenses (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.geocities.com/opkool/)
A sample of this, in perfect "Management-Speak":
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed.
Which, translated into English says:
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
Not at all
You go, RedHat!
Peace!
At what point has SCO stepped over the line? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the most blantant racket I have ever witnessed. And the USA legal system seems to be completely incapible of doing anything about it. Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.
Germany shut down SCO a long time ago. Germany said put up or shut up - show us some evidence or stop making claims. Predictably, SCO ran away with it's tail between it's legs.
I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.
Re:The system works (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it so completely impossible that the system *is* responsible? The system in Germany worked, why not the USA? Maybe there are problems in the USA legal system that need to be repaired. Why is this point of view "childish and naive" ??
No need to pay. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://brianm.org/)
For desktops and servers, stay the course, but do your research now and be sure you're able to step back to 2.2 should SCO's claims prove valid. With 2.2, you give up some performance and compatibility with a few newer peripherals. But ducking down to 2.2 while the allegedly offending code is removed from 2.4 will cover your business. Be very surprised if it takes more than just a few weeks for an untainted 2.4 branch to be released.
The one thing you should not do is to purchase an SCO license without your legal department fully reviewing the terms of the license. By entering into a license agreement with SCO, your company could find itself vulnerable in all kinds of new ways. If SCO is turning into a pure litigation company, you don't want to be on their customer list!
SCO will GIVE you a license (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/)
Problem solved, let's go back to writing code.
Why is this the end user's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday March 30 2003, @07:32PM)
Why are the end users responsible for licensing SCO's code? They got the product (the linux kernel), under a license from the linux developers, and they're following the license they recieved the product from. If there was a license violation, it's on the developer's head (in this case, IBM).
Think about it: If closed source software stole code and sold it, could the company that originally owned the code sue all the users of that code for violating their license? This doesn't make sense to me -- they'd sue the offending closed source company, and perhaps have them issue some sort of recall or licensing program for the code, but they wouldn't go oafter individuals who thought they bought the software legitimately...
How about another example: if a magazine puts some copyrighted content that they're not supposed to use in their magazine, is the copyright owner going to go after every single person who bought the magazine? No! They're going to go after the distributer, who did the illegal *copying* in the first place!
I really don't understand why companies are giving money to SCO under their legal pressure, when it seems like they have absolutely no legal leg to stand on.
anyone know the real legal implications here? IANAL, Obviously
I believe it's already been said, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am confident (though possibly wrong of course) that SCO is doing ALL of this for one reason and one reason only. Stock price manipulation. Look at the following issues and contrast them with the timing on this whole fiasco.
52 week stock price of SCO (SCOX)
Price of stock after each insane press release (while SCO has yet to show anything of substance, press releases feed the hungry speculative buyers out there).
Issuance of stock options at very low ($.6x) prices.
Exercising of options.
Sale of stock from exercised options.
I mean come on, most of these guys got options when the stock was at $.66 just before all of this craziness started. Then they crank up the stock price (fueled by nothing more than baseless accusations in the form of press releases) to $10-$12/share, exercise and dump. Where the heck is the SEC on this!!!
I believe that basically the execs at SCO new the ship was going down. They are doing what they're doing to squeeze what blood they can out of the turnip that is SCO. Once they have gotten what they can from stock games, they'll pull an "Oops, I guess we were wrong about that whole Linux intellectual property thing.", turn out the lights and call it quits...money in the bank.
Anyone disagree?
ER
Re:I believe it's already been said, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in January, when scox was still planning the lawsuit. SCOX insiders gave themselves a boatload of shares for - get this - $0.001 each. So insiders could sell shares for one cent each and still make 1000% profit. SCOX stock is now $13/share. Insiders are selling like mad.
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
Dear SCO, (Score:5, Informative)
(1) These features were never present in your own UNIX offering. They were not even developed by SCO/Caldera; they were developed by Dynix, which is now a subsidiary of IBM. Because these features were developed for SVR5, you claim they are derivative works of SVR5 and therefore your own intellectual property. The legitimacy of this claim depends upon your contracts with IBM; it is not as black and white as you make it out to be. When asked whether the code supposedly copied from SVR5 originated in BSD, you respond that this is high end "enterprise" code which isn't present in BSD--but it's not present in SVR5 either. Your claims on this matter are misleading.
(2) To state that Linux stole your market is preposterous, since you yourself were a Linux value-added reseller. In fact, you actively contributed to the development of enterprise features for the Linux kernel. You even cooperated with IBM in the Trillian Project (SMP on Linux). Your previous CEO, Ransom Love, spoke of unifying UNIX and Linux into a single platform. Now you turn and say that an enterprise-ready Linux took you completely by surprise, even though you helped bring it where it is.
You portray yourself as a protector of intellectual property rights, but then you seek to wrest control of Linux from its creators on the basis of unproven allegations of copyright infringement. Your arrogance and hypocrisy know no bounds. Linux development has been very transparent, as Linus Torvalds has said. If you were really interested in protecting the intellectual property of all parties involved, you would work with the kernel developers to find out which parties contributed your intellectual property to the kernel and seek relief from them and/or allow the infringing code to be removed. Even if this would disable Linux SMP for a time, there are millions of Linux users running uniprocessor systems who were never infringing on your IP in the first place, and should not have to pay you a license fee. Furthermore, your move to collect license payments from Linux users without identifying specifically what they are licensing or even proving that you have a claim on Linux at all is fraudulent.
Your proposed Linux licensing program amounts to the wholesale theft of years of effort from thousands of Linux contributors. You have profited from their efforts for nearly a decade, and now you stab them in the back and bite the hand that fed you. Since you could not compete in the marketplace, you resort to barratry, racketeering, and extortion.
Microsoft is behind all of this! (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.everyone-wins.net/)
What is the one major difference between MS software and OSS software from a business standpoint?
Licensing.
What has Microsoft had so much trouble getting their customers on board about?
Licensing.
What is the one thing that SCO is now saying that Linux users must now purchase from them?
Licensing.
If you're the average run of the mill CTO, and you were thinking of switching to Linux... you now must think about licensing.
Furthermore, you must think about licensing it from a company embroiled in a lawsuit with IBM, whose future is uncertain.
So, given the choice between free software with no one company behind it, or closed-source software with a company behind it, and licensing on both sides... which do you pick?
The answer is obvious. And that is why Microsoft must be sitting pretty, grinning to themselves - they have effectively nullified the main argument for going with OSS. (Since some of the software can be at least considered on par, technical merits are equal.)
Re:BurySCO (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 04 2003, @07:02PM)
+5, Interesting Comment over on Yahoo (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has made a big noise about registering SVR4
copyrights and announced their linux liscensing
plan, which they call a UNIX liscensing plan. Looks
like they're going for $1500 per LINUX seat for Unixware
liscense to emdemnify from lawsuit.
HOWEVER everything is not as the media is reporting...
The copyright they registered is a 20 page revision
to SVR4 (i.e SVR4.1ES) registration number TX-5-705-356.
You can verify this at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
The original UNIX copyright was never registered to Novell,
and is currently registered to (SURPRISE!) AT&T.
I'm not sure about the legal ramnifications, I believe
that SCO has the right to copyright derivitive works
in their aggreement with Novell. However, a search at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
under the tab "Copyright ownership documents,
such as name changes and transfers" shows no
record of any copyright transfers to SCO Group.
In short, despite what is being widely reported,
SCO still has not acquired (and may not be able
to acquire) the copyright that they are
threatening to use to sue LINUX users.
(Copyrights MUST be registered before lawsuits
may be filed).
Darl McBride's word (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.p0wn3d.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09 2004, @09:43AM)
"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group, August 2002 Linux Journal Article #6293 [linuxjournal.com]
I wondered how they were going to do that (Score:3, Interesting)
This gives them a nice out: they don't offer a "linux license" but they threaten you if you don't have a Unixware one.
Recent Experiences Where I Work (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdolt.org/)
Re:Recent Experiences Where I Work (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.majoros.net/)
I do not know of ANY OS that doesn't contain at least a bit of free software.
Just one question... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the case, I'm moving to europe (or at least canada) where they don't have legal systems where parasite companies can take advantage of people and businesses.
Which License is more Viral and other Questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO's license is for Derivitive Works of UNIX. IBM developed AIX from the Unix source tree. They can't just come up with AIX version 2 and decide not to pay SCO.
The GPL says that any software released under GPL must be released under GPL in any and all future versions and source code must be given. BOTH says all Derivative works must fall under the same license.
SCO is implying that IBM tried to take UNIX technology, put it into Linux and then ditch SCO licenses. Assume they are correct in their allegations. IBM, SCO or someone else released some code from a SCO Derivitive Work into the Linux Kernel.
Does Linux then become a Derivitive work of UNIX? Do parts of UNIX suddely become GPL? What if the code was originally from a 3rd party and in UNIX first, but freely available elsewhere? How much code must be transferred for these licenses to apply? Do the licenses cover the actual implementation or the algorithms used? Is removal of the code an acceptable solution when the order to do so may come down years later? What person or method could we trust enough to audit the code bases and decide what goes and stays?
Whatever the case may be, this long and drawn out lawsuit is bound to set some important precedents. The longer we wait, the more work that will be required *IF* code must be removed in the future after being built upon. The results of the Microsoft Monopoly case may have been disappointing, but this is IBM vs SCO battle with a Billion dollar prize.
In the end only the lawyers will be left standing.
As usual, Eben Moglen cuts through the crap... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Amongst many gems there is this,
I would strongly recommend reading the whole of the article I have linked. Moglen's stuff starts with the heading "Legally Speaking". It is very informative and quite reassuring.
I... Hate... Reading EULAs... (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.deadjournal.com/users/felis_panthera)
The only place that I can even see a mention of source code is here:
"Software" is the machine-readable (object) code portion of the Product and any human readable code contained on the media.
which reads to me that they don't give out their source code. Also, they have admitted here:
Caldera, the Caldera logos, Caldera OpenLearning, Caldera Volution, OpenLinux, Lizard, Webmin, SCO, The SCO Group, and associated logo, SCO OpenServer, SCO Open Server, ODT, Open Desktop, AIM Benchmark, and Hot Iron Awards are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S.A. and other countries. Caldera Global Services is a service mark of Caldera International, Inc. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. SCO Legal Notice [sco.com]
that Linux is not SCO, and SCO is not Linux. As well as a reference in the EULA that there may be free software adhering to the GNU Public License included with their products.
So unless someone who was authorized to view their code (ie a real SCO developer), there should be no way that SCO Unix code could have found its way into the kernel. They also make no claims about Unix being SCO property in either their legal documentation or their EULA.
Either they haven't drafted this new license, or they're talking out of their asses. Any votes as to which??
So SCO wants me to enter into a contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.... SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees."
So now SCO wants me to have a contract with them, by purchasing a UnixWare license? Why, so they can use it as a more effective weapon against me later? No thanks, Darl.
I have an offer for SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Mitigating damages.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In SCO's case, the damages could be easily mitigated by releasing enough detailed information so that the offending modules can be rewritten. Now we have a good idea why SCO has chosen not to do this, it is not to their short term advantage. They are relying on FUD to boost their stock prices and provide a cash stream to pay Bois and friends.
So the real question is, how will the court interpret the fact that they have refused to mitigate damages? Any lawyers out there that can answer this question?
I say pay up (Score:4, Funny)
(http://photo.jonavin.com/)
Can I "borrow" ten bucks? (Score:3, Funny)
Can I borrow ten bucks?
General Nuisance: "Let's threaten to sue the world, and maybe we'll get bought" (If I scream loud enough, Mom or Dad will just give me ten bucks to get me to shut the hell up.)
Impotent attempt at Intimidation: "You'd better quit using Linux right now!" (Gimme the ten bucks, dammit!)
Appeal to authority: "I'll sue you if you don't quit using Linux" (I'll tell mommy you're being a hog if you don't share!)
Appeal to justice: "That code was developed here. Linux wouldn't exist without SCO." (You stole ten bucks from me last week. Give it back, ya big bully!). Note that Scooter's a little twerp who's way more likely to steal from someone else, than get stolen from.
Harrassing your Target: "Dear Linux User...you're using our code." (Can I borrow ten bucks? How 'bout now? How 'bout now?)
Appeal to pity: "How can you leave our company and all its employees without jobs?" (If you don't lend me ten bucks, I can't go see "Finding Nemo").
Bargaining: "Just buy this cheap license. I know it's worthless, but it'll get us to leave you alone." (Just give me five bucks and I'll quit bothering you)
Earning the ten bucks: "SCO begins developing a useful project (Maybe a financial program that interoperates with Quicken) & puts it up on sourceforge for us to all share & enjoy. Then they ask for donations to keep them afloat." (OK, Sis. I did all your chores for the week. Can I have the ten bucks now?)
Oops--that last one was how everyone else got their ten bucks. Scooter's looking for an easier way.
SEC Complaint Filed (Score:4, Informative)
(https://openqabal.dev.java.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 14 2006, @01:51AM)
Here's what I sent the SEC:
Names, Address, Telephone #s and Other Biographical Information
about Individuals Involved
Darl McBride, CEO, other executives
How you Learned about the Transaction or other Activity
Published media report, SEC filings, Internet postings on Slashdot.org
Details About the Transaction(S)
It appears that top executives at SCOX gave (and exercised) generous stock options at an artificially low price, to themselves, immediately before filing a lawsuit against IBM; regarding alleged IP violations relating to the Linux operating system. Since that time, SCOX stock has increased in value dramatically. Based on the volume of insider trades that have taken place since the suit was file, it appears that this suit was filed only to inflate the value of the SCOX stock, so they could "cash out" and pocket millions. There is also a strong possibility that these same executives know the suit is without merit, as they knowingly distributed the disputed code under the terms of the GPL license, which Linux is provided under. It also appears that if any IP made it's way from SCOX's code into Linux' code, it was done by an employee of SCOX (when they were previously known as Caldera ).
If on the Internet, All Relevant Internet Addresses
www.caldera.com, www.sco.com
Any Additional Information
Use this area to add any additional information that you wish.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22/141
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/151
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003072201
Re:Extortion is Right!! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @07:07AM)
Not really no. Even in America, you can't sue something that doesn't exist, and the chances of SCO existing after they've lost are very low indeed.
Re:Extortion is Right!! (Score:4, Funny)
My pending lawsuit against the toothfairy (illicit confiscation and commercial usage of my (copyrighted) DNA) speaks otherwise!
Re:Extortion is Right!! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
By this do you mean that the chances of SCO the organization remaining solvent are very low, or that the chances of the current SCO leadership not being assassinated by berzerk Linux zealots are very low?
(note for the humor impaired: even as a borderline Linux zealot I would not support acts of violence against any SCO executive... although forcing them to to spend a long time incarcerated for securities fraud while in constant fear of prison rape is kind of a grey area, particularly if the other inmates make apropos jokes like "So you think if I inject you with a tiny bit of my property, that means I own you, right?")
Re:linux gets what it deserves (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday August 20 2001, @10:08AM)
It's NUMA, it's RCU, it's JFS, it's low-level subroutines, but they won't tell you exactly what it is. How can you change something when you don't know what needs changing?
Re:linux gets what it deserves (Score:5, Informative)
Because SCO will only show someone the "offending code" if they sign an NDA. The NDA would then prevent them from removing the code if it exists.
This shouldn't be a surprise. SCO doesn't want any alleged code to be removed. As soon as it is removed they no longer have anything to threaten customers with and force a license purchase. After all, a threat of "upgrade your kernel or pay us $1000" won't make nearly as much money as a threat of "pay us $1000 or risk a lawsuit."
The worst thing that could happen to SCO right now would be if the case was mainlined and taken to court quickly. I think this would also be the best thing for Linux too.
Note to SCO lawyers... this posting is mearly my opinion and IANAL.
Re:Haha (Score:5, Informative)
(http://evilempire.ath.cx/)
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.
And oh yeah, go back under the bridge, troll. That wasn't even creative. j00 ()w|\|z3r3d nobody.
What do you mean? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday December 07 2002, @12:34AM)
Face the facts. All SCO has done is blabber on and on about how they think that Linux contains UNIX code and not backing up their claims about it with any substantial information. Their claims about SMP and business related aspects are total BS, as even before IBM involvement, Linux was a very mature OS. Right now, their third rate OS Unixware is capable of 8 processor SMP, while Linux is capable of up to 64. Why would any intelligent person take parts for a Mustang from an Escort?
Their claims will not hold up in a court of law. If you think that any company can just make random claims and extort money off of the hard work of others, then you obviously are not familliar with the legal process. The very notion that SCO is selling licenses to UnixWare for Linux, BEFORE a trial even started, just proves that they are dishonest in making a licensing scheme for a product that they did not prove was theirs.
The only solid evidence that SCO may have is the fact that there are portions of similar code in Linux and in SVR4 UNIX, the latter of which they own. Recently, the code, all 80 lines of it, was shown to some people who signed a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently, not all the people who viewed it had to sign, a mistake on their part, and it seems that even these 80 lines are kind of a stretch. There were no line numbers, no filenames, no function names on the demosnstration packet. Sometimes, there were portions that made no sense at all, like identical comments next to completely different portions of code. SCO claims that there are tens of thousands more, and Sontag even made that claim that there were files that were directly taken from UNIX. If any of that crap is true, then why did they show only 80 lines of it, where most of it was kind of a stretch?
Linux was developed through the most transparent means possible, and it is possible to see where almost every feature of the kernel came from. The developers were even very careful about the small portions that IBM did contribute, and added it in after much verification.
In conclusion, if you're not trolling, then you're either misinformed, hate Linux, or are just ignorant. I don't care whether or not you hate Linux or free software, but telling lies about it makes you no better than SCO.