Slashdot Mirror
SCO Preparing Linux Licensing Program
akorvemaker writes "OSNews is reporting about an article at InfoWorld that SCO's new Linux licensing program 'will allow users of the open-source operating system to run Linux without fear of litigation.'" This seems to be either the best business decision ever, or a nail in their coffin. One would think they'd wait before charging a license fee over what some would call shaky ground,
Up 15% as a result? Yahoo finances
..with this is that they finally have to tell WHAT the license would be good for.
"Mr. Itguy, Looks like you're running 1500 copies of RH 9.0."
"Yes, your honor."
"And you're being sued by SCO for 1.5 million dollars?"
"Yes, your honor."
"Did that software come with an EULA?"
"Yes, the GNU GPL."
"Does that agreement bind you pay money to SCO?"
"No, sir."
"Have you seen the news reports of SCO claiming they have code in Linux?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you know that seeing something on the news creates a binding agreement between you and the plaintiff to pay them whatever amount of money that they ask?"
"No, sir."
"Neither did I. Clerk, are there any cases on our agenda today with some merit?"
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I just want to know who'll be suckered into paying this license fee! ROFL!
assert(expired(knowledge));
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sorry if I'm misinformed, but isn't the Linux kernel lisenced under the GPL? And isn't the GPL viral? I'm not a lawyer or anything, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean SCO CAN'T put out a new lisence on it?
I want you to assume that all spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Thank You.
If it's a sign that IBM's lawyers are running them out of money. :)
My blog
If they want to charge a fee they will have to tell us what they are charging for. Then we either see that the stuff belongs to them and remove it from the kernel or see that it doesn`t. In either case no payment necessary.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Thanks for "allowing" us to use the software we slaved over for little or no fee and released to the world for free. You should feel lucky we made it available for you to make a profit off of it.
Linux Protection, whether you want it or not.
"It's not just for the Mafia anymore."
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
... deserves to get ripped off, and should probably go back to their proprietary SCO UNIX anyways. Blegh.
Deed to the Eiffel tower
Herbalife
Property on the moon, nicely situated near the Sea of Tranquility
London Bridge
Viagra pills
These REVOLUTIONARY PRODUCTS are to be sold through the REVOLUTION of multi-level-marketing, please contact SCO if you wish to make THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from YOUR OWN HOME.
99 percent? I think that percentage is a bit low.
Wouldn't selling non-gpl linux licenses be a copyright violation?
I would imagine that if there was SCO code in the Linux kernal then Linus and the rest of the devlopers would replace it pretty quickly.
Wouldn't this make the SCO licence redundent!
Multics is an operating system that is currently "owned" by a small company in Canada. Bell Labs was part of the Multics project, but decided to pull its people out for various reasons. Some of these people then found a PDP 7 and created Unix, an operating system that had many features similar to Multics, including an HIERARCHICAL FILE SYSTEM. This is clearly a case of theft of Intellectual Property. The Canadian company should sue SCO.
The term is "racketeering."
-Peter
ALL of these slanderous lies and no one from LINUX camp is defending in the press except Torvalds. These journalists need to quit being one sided and ask for PROOF/Evidence or DON'T report the shit.
Here's the info for the SCO conference call:
Where: US: 800-406-5356
Toll Call: 913-981-5572
Password: 464644
When: Monday, July 21, 2003
Noon EDT
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
>> please do not place your opinion over the
>> facts and force everyone to read your biased
>> views.
I like the editorial, so speak for yourself.
I certainly hope it's safe to assume that Linus will be suing the living crap out of them for damage to his trademark.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
no, i've been posting to these idiotic editors for several years now... but i only do it when they piss me off.
Dear Bride et al. Some day I hope the SEC catches up with you. We all know you're mouthing off in the news to pump the stock so that you can sell and get richer. That's no secret, we can all see it in your trade statements. Your mouth says one thing (all lies), your actions another (the whole truth and nothing but the truth). You use battary and deception to work your shady stockmarket magics, and it will catch up with you. I have a video-capture of the Adelphia directors being led off in hand-cuffs. They thought they'd get away with it too, just like you guys.
Mark my words, in a week we'll see seven more consecutive SELL filings in the database. They're greedy, and greedy people run the constant risk of taking it that one last step too far...
That said, I think this SCO news is great for humor. I can't wait till monday!
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Linux: It's not your mother's operating system (it's SCOs)!
...the "SCO protection racket."
Doesn't this sound exactly like a mob racket?
Mobster: Gee, I wouldn't want anything to happen to your Linux server, would you? (waves his club near the rack)
Customer: I swear, Tony, I'll get you the money! Don't sue me!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
The article doesn't say much on price, anyone know how much it's gonna be? I'm sure 99.99% of Linux users aren't gonna pay it, but there's always that one buisiness that would rather write a check than deal with a law suit.
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
nah, too much trouble.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Quick, someone buy a license!
.
Then all the code in question will be intentionally and unambigously GPLed by SCO. Unless they intened to impinge on the copyrights of the hundreds (?) of copyright holders who have GPLed their kernel code.
As if any of this matters, since they (presumably) distributed that same code under the GPL as part of their GNU/Linux distribution . .
Yawn.
-Peter
I think I'd be happier if we let the kernel developers patch out all contentious SCO code (if there is any) and have done with it.
SCO's behaviour has just been sooooooo bad and ill judged that they should just be left to die. Then we won't have to worry about about any repetition leaving Linux and Open Source to get on with destroying the MS monopoly.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
SCO wants me to pay them for something that I can get for free? Sounds like SCO has just joined the online panhandling bandwagon.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
I urge everyone to buy one of these anti-litigation licenses, so that we can all file a class action lawsuit when it's proven that they don't have any rights to code within Linux.
While the majority of Linux customers probably would not participate in a SCO licensing program, Haff predicted some companies might be willing to pay SCO for the security of knowing they would not be sued. SCO is "hoping that even if 99 percent of Linux customers laugh in their face, that there will be sufficient large companies who, for what is presumably going to be a relative drop in the bucket of their IT budgets, can potentially eliminate a cloud over their heads," he said.
/* begin evil maniacal laugh */
IF j00 d0nt pay m3 5BILLIOIN dollars i will sue you for using sumthing i own , but i will never show you WHAT your using that is mine!!
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
Does the new SCO Linux licensing program imply that UnitedLinux customers are not immune to litigation? I would gather that the other partners are not so happy with such a prospect.
"any my father assured him either his brains or signature would be on that contract" --Michael Corleone
Excuse me, but isn't extortion illegal in the US?
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
i did speak for myself... did i say "everyone thinks" - no, i said "everyone doesn't need to read it," which is my personal RIGHT opinion.
... if this is the point where Big Blue is going to stop basically ignoring SCO and start going after them with guns blazing.
...
I mean, if SCO are trying to extort money from Linux customers by making them think they have to pay SCO as well as Linux and Linux service vendors (including, of course, IBM) then that's cutting directly into those vendors' business. It goes beyond FUD into a direct financial attack. Seems to me -- just guessing here -- that given how much IBM makes from the Linux aspects of its biz, they might get very upset.
Of course, Red Hat, SuSE, et al would also have reason to get upset, and at this point they could probably wipe SCO out themselves if they put their minds to it; but it's always nice to have IBM on your side
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Shaky ground? More like quicksand.
SCO is still distributing kernel 2.4.13. Are they licensing this code under the GPL or not?
consigliere -
An advisor or counselor, especially to a capo or leader of an organized crime syndicate.
You can't license GPL software, even if it contains some of your code. Combing GPL software with commercial software is like combining anti-matter with matter--it goes poof. As soon as GPL software has been "polluted" with commercial software, the GPL has been revoked. This makes it so that there is no license to do anything with the GPLed portions of the code. So it seems logically that SCO cannot possibly license Linux. They can either enforce their copyright, assuming that the kernel contains SCO code improperly, and stop Linux distribution, or they can sit back and do nothing. Collecting money is not a legal option.
But didn't they just license it to me for free a few months ago?
Me too, I have some Nicaraguan friends who might be interested in offering some money to transfer.
It's just like the {M,R}IAA "tax" on all recordable media. Already in force in Canada and Europe (although Germany might be an exception?) and just wait until it hits you in the States.
A proposal to tax hard drives is currently on the table.
BOO! TERRO
This is an insurance program, not a licenseing program.
Since I haden't heard any SCO news lately, I knew their next move would be a doozie. Now we get to hear some more of Darl's crazy remarks....
I never thought I would cheer for big corporations but "Go Big Blue!". Come to think of it, Big Blue hasn't really been that evil of all the major computer corporations. They've been dumb at times but I can't think of any instances when they were evil. What would happen if the case was directed at Linux instead of IBM instead? Would we have the resources and coordination to fight it off?
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Microsoft of course!
Probably twice too - they like to charge their customer that so why not pay it. SCO needs the money for the court battle.
Then when they had set a preference they can buy SCO and collect tax on all computers.
Just saying it like it are.
I'd like to phone him and explain my objections.
/. can do this to evil spammers why not evil Mcbride?
If
Too bad the U.S. government lacks the balls to apply organized crime laws against companies like SCO.
All about me
It seems SCO has decided to adopt this karmic business model - proving, yet again, P.T. Barnum was right.
It would seem, by SCO's own actions, that anyone with any (or maybe no) code in the affected packages would have grounds to sue SCO for billions of dollars. The FSF in particular could probably claim more money than SCO will ever see.
Of course, SCO should be glad that congress didn't end up passing a law allowing copyright holders to destroy pirates' systems...
Whatever Happens with this case the corporate veil that is allowing these people to knowingly act in a criminal manner needs to be destroyed. Commercial crime is crime. There is no difference between stealing from a million people than there is one, There is no difference in using a knife or a lawyer.
The more I look at this the more I realize Heinlein was right. Civil penalties need to be accompanied by corporal punishment, and at least minimal jail time.
Its very obvious that the laws in place have been completely inadequate to prevent McBride and company from pursuing their pump and dump. It is truly time for a change.
So, let's be asinine and assume SCO is in the right, here. Which version of the Linux kernel would be the earliest to possibly have SCO IP in it?
Surely, they aren't expecting someone running Debian potato to buy a license.
Didn't you know I have a a patent on the letters S,C, and O? We can discuss what you owe me for licensing now.
This announcement isn't aimed at the individual Linux users, it's aimed at the PHB's.
It's all about risk management. If a company has a sizeable investment in Linux, and that investment is threatened, then competent management will take necessary steps to protect it. For any company, managment has to determine which option will cost less:
1. Not take any action and await the outcome of IBM vs SCO. Taking this path, one would have to calculate the chance that IBM wins, therefore no new cost, versus SCO wins, and how much would they then have to pay out and/or possibly migrate to another OS.
2. Buy the SCO license as a hedge against an SCO victory. Furthermore, this may also bring other benefits, such as imdemmifing the company from any future claims against Linux from yet another company.
This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but with the bottom line.
At the moment SCO can huff and puff but everyone can ignore then, no one has agreed anything with SCO.
... how about an acknowledgement that you will never again use Linux without paying a SCO tax. Hmmmm, from now to forever you will need to pay SCO for what everyone else gets for free.
You want your peace of mind, so you cough up and give SCO $500 -- what else do you give them ? Well, the copy of the contract that they gave you to sign; what do we think that will contain ? Let me guess
A clever way of making money out of someone else's GPLed software.
Microsoft is getting involved with SCO again? Is it just me, or does Bill ENJOY going to court?
I want you to assume that all spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Thank You.
Kind of wipes out the advantage of not using Solaris, AIX HPUX and the like. You're now paying for Linux just like any other commerical code.
SCO has the chance to go kernel.org, download the latest kernel (2.6.0-test1-bk1) and strip out the offending code. But they prefer to use EXTORTION to support their dying company.
I think all the Linux comunity should buy a license... This way, when they shaky grounds become quicksand, all the linux community may sue them into getting back what they payed. Revenge is sweet...
how long until
http://www.boies-schiller.com/htm/flash.htm
Is there a clear picture of Mr Boince?
therefore I am
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A tax on recordable media has been around in the States for years. I don't they ever managed to tax hard drives though.
Quite simply: is what way is this illegal, and can someone (redhat? linus?) sue SCO for this?
This seems to me that this is probably either barratry, racketeering, or libel. Mostly the third.
Going around saying "linux has stolen code" is a simple allegation relating to a lawsuit you've made. However, if you're going around sending letters to redhat customers saying they owe you money because they use redhat.. I can't imagine that being legal. They are stating in a public, commercial context that they own what is rightfully RedHat's. That seems to be deceptive trade practices, at the least, and most likely like I said some sort of libel against Redhat.
Is this the case? Does this "linux licensing" thing mean that SCO has FINALLY stepped over the line from discussing their lawsuit in public into clear-cut slander, and the FSF/redhat/SUSE/mandrake can jump on them now?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm very much looking forward to seeing some sort of license agreement I can print out. I fully intend to augment it by doing essentially what I proposed that IBM do in this comment a while ago.
I think I'll add a "P.S. Show me the code, you asshats. I'm not paying unless you show me why I should." to the FAX.
So does this mean that every version of Linux from the first Kernel release now requires a SCO license? This sounds like true viral licensing?
I have evidence of collusion between SCO and Microsoft to destroy the Linux 'market.' I have several emails that prove that SCO and Microsoft have violated anti-trust and other laws.
If SCO will indicate before a judge that they will discontinue these tactics, leave the Linux community alone, sign an NDA and pay me a $1000000 license fee, I will allow them the right to view the emails in question.
(Hey, since lying appears to be an acceptable part of corporate tactics these days, I may as well join in the fun. I'm only emulating our great American heroes of commerce!)
SCO announced today that they "immediately accelerating their corporate death spiral..."???
If you're going to be biased, do so with more enthusiasm. No need to try and appear objective, we're talking about SCO here, for goodness sakes.
These folks give a bad name to cretins and laywers... That's HARD.
I just want to know who has the corporate "dead pool" running...
Let me correct myself, it's "barratry", not "battary". Writing from heart.
If it turns out SCO don't own any copyright or patents related to the software they want people to license, doesn't that make their licensing scheme a fraudulent scam?
If that turns out to be the case wouldn't they find themselves in a great deal of legal trouble?
While driving today, I saw a guy with a SCO country sticker on the back of his car (similar to these), and the first thing I thought was "god, how could you like an OS/company like that so much that you'd put it on your car?"
/."
Then, I realized that it was a Scottish flag next to the sticker, along with a simultaneous thought of "wow, I've been reading far too much
You see, me and the boys here, we'd hate to see something... unfortunate... happen to your business. After all, running Linux is attractive, but... risky... if you catch my drift.
Now, for a small, shall we say, licensing fee, we can guarantee that we won't burn down, er, um, (cough) I mean, litigate your business into bankruptcy.
After all, we're legitimate businessmen.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
If you listened to their last conference call, you noticed that they explicitly said they weren't making any copyright claims; they just had a contract dispute with IBM. That's something strictly between them and IBM; it can't affect anyone who isn't involved with IBM or their product.
Think about it SCO, the #1 reason why people use linux on their desktops is because... (drum roll please) IT'S FREE! Followed closely by the #2 reason that it's reliable. Corporations look more at the reliable side than desktop tweaking junkies do. But still, linux I don't think linux would have made if off the ground if it wasn't free. So why pay some random person coming out of no where saying "We won't suit you for something you didn't do wrong if you pay us a lot of money!" Ok then, so microsoft stole some of my IP. I'll suit everyone using microsoft (legit copies, or pirated) and become a BILLIONAIRE! Then I can buy out SCO and make even more money from their smart business decisions!
Come alone, use small bills, don't contact FSF
Drop the mony in the brown paper bag you find
behind the big oak in the east side of the park.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
ever since i started reading about SCO and IBM litigation i always thought of the Indian saying "this will pass off"
In Germany, SCO has been court-orderd not to claim that Linux violates their IP until they start giving proof of this. This licensing could be seen aqs such a claim and therefore, this license might acually *cost* them 250.000 Euros (if I remember the amount correctly) over here.
Financially, I'd calll this an unwise maneuver...
Unless you consider computerising the Third Reich as not particularly evil.
You didn't think millions of Jews across Europe were catalogued by pencil and paper did you?
It was the IBM Hollerith Punch Card systems leased to the Nazis and billions of punch cards sold to them from 1933 to the end of the war.
There was one at just about every death camp, the Allies were kind enough to even give them back once the camps were liberated.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
While the majority of Linux customers probably would not participate in a SCO licensing program, Haff predicted some companies might be willing to pay SCO for the security of knowing they would not be sued.
What freaking idiots. They are simply selling fake insurance. Think about it. "We may or not have code in linux, but if we do, you might be sued by us. So pay us a little money now to avoid the possibility of paying more later." It's almost blackmail. It's disgusting.
So, why doesn't Red Hat or someone just swap out the kernel for another one?
FreeBSD kernel with GNU userland and Red Hat network support would be indistinguishable from the average Linux distro.
That looks like what SCO is trying to do and it will probably to work to a certain extend
e nsing.php
I wonder (having not thought hard about it), is it possible for IBM/Redhat etc to sell copies of Linux with the added bonus that they indemnify buyers of their products from legal action against them concerning copyright?
I refer to a similar offer that Codeweavers offers for their Crossover products
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/lic
Q. Can Microsoft sue CodeWeaver's customers for using Wine?
A. Not if you license Wine from CodeWeavers. One of the protections you receive as a customer of CodeWeavers is that you are licensing Wine from us. We warrant that the product you are buying from us is legal. If it isn't, the term of your license agreement with us says that we are responsible for its legality, not you.
Perhaps IBM/Redhat can sell a similar indemnity?
NOW I'm *pissed*...
Did these folks ever read and understand the GPL? It's one thing to go against the spirit of it, and another thing to go against the legality of it. And I'm sure that's what we're seeing now.
Oh, wait, I was assuming they actually wanted to participate in the scene instead of just bagging a buck or three.
C|N>K
The way I see this is SCO's "stratergy" is to basically scare a bunch of people with litigation by sending a bunch of letters and making a lot of noise..
then to say "hey dont worry, we won't sue you if you accept that we own Linux and are willing to accept this licensing agreement"
they are probably hoping to get thousands of scared companies to sign up and basically create the impression that they do infact own the rights to Linux.
As far as I know legally this does n't change anything (disclaimer, not a lawyer) since SCO dont have the rights to Linux to license out in the first place.
This pretty much confirms what some people here have been saying, SCO wants to own and control Linux. SCO are trying to create a fait accompli here.
A question I have is can IBM argue that SCO does n't own the rights to Linux even though IBM dont own the rights either?
The other being since "Linux" tends to mean not just the Kernel, but the libs, utils etc etc.. Does this mean that per linux distro there is a collective ownership of thousands of contributors?
Agreed. I just finished 3 letters (U.S. Mail of course) highlighting my concerns - one to the DOJ, one to my representative, and one to a senator from my state.
"You see, Mr. Pete-classic, we have noticed you are using a, shall we say highly dangerous, operating system. This operating system may suddenly become copyrighted. Perhaps if you'd like to buy some insurance from us, we can ensure that your copy will never become copyrighted."
Now, I'll never get to sleep tonight. First the cisco bug, now this....
It wouldn't surprise me, since his father is/was a prominent lawyer, wealthy in his own right when Bill was in grade school.
C|N>K
It's more likely than not that they'll lose, so it makes sense that they'd try to get as many companies as possible to give them money before they go away.
God Fucking Damnit
What repurcussions can these schoolyard bullies really throw at you? Seriously. I use slackware at home. What are they going to do if I refuse to pay them one red cent? Throw me in jail? The legal costs of actually suing each and every linux user are cost-prohibitive to the meager licensing fees they can dream up. Even if I choose to represent myself, just to save the money, they still have to pay for legal exepenses as well as flights/hotels/cars/etc for each case. Can you say "not fucking likely"? They're just blowing FUD.
To paraphrase the NRA (a highly successful, if not a bit misguided group):
They can have my slackware disks when they pull them out of my incarcerated hand.
Make them press charges for not paying. The legal costs of attacking end-users would be fucking staggering. Bullies always prey on the small guy to mask their own insecurity. The only way to stop the schoolyard bully is to not be scared of him. To paraphrase another misguided soul "Bring 'em on". Fuck SCO.
Or you'll end up like THIS!
To put it simply, SCO is wielding the FUD with a grace and skill not seen in years. They have truly mastered the power and glory of the FUD, and all behold their splendor.
For example, SCO is putting forth a media orgy of baseless speculation, veiled, hinted, possible threats, and ambiguous remarks that say much but mean little. But any company can do that. No, wherein we find SCO's true mastery of the FUD is in the fact that they contradict themselves more often than not, on purpose. Brilliant. I mean think about it, first this is a suit against IBM involving copyright. Oh, but now it isn't. But wait, Mcbride just said it was! Hold on, it isn't again. But now they're requiring a liscence to use the software without fear of reprecussion, which is only associat3ed with copyright.
What SCO is doing, and not just on the copyright front, is a far more complex version of someone saying something like "I do not disagree in the negative context of the opposite of the inverse of the reverse polarity of the mirror-image of what you are saying." By the time the media flood is done, everything, every fact, figure, stance, and position will have been switched around so many times that only SCO itself will be able to let us know what exactly they're talking about, and at that point, they will have achieved their goal.
For those people who think this issue will ever see a courtroom, where facts and positions and statements must be bound by at least a modicum of reason and structure, you're insane. The Sword of FUD (+5), can never be wielded in such confines of logic and reason. Only in the chaos of the media, and the swirling maelstrom of the message board can the masters of the FUD fully orchestrate their hellish dance. Behold the power of the FUD, and know thy doom.
The only way this will ever be resolved in court, which is the only place the powers of the FUD can be contained, is if IBM takes a proactive stance and drags SCO, kicking and screaming in front of a judge. Why IBM hasn't done that yet, I can't guess, expect for the slim possibility than even they aren't sure how sound the footing beneath them is. If they do go to court against SCO, they'll be bringing several issues, such as the GPL and various software patent issues, to their first true legal test, and I can empathize if they are slightly uncomfortable in doing so.
Right now I'm fairly certain that a band of mismatched, racially diverse IBM lawyers have undertaken the quest for the Shield of Legal Certainty, and may the fates speed them on their way.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
This is nothing short of blackmail over something that they haven't even proven yet. Pathetic.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Exactly. If SCO is going to do this then they had better spell out precisely what I am licensing from them. Otherwise they are simply asking for protection money, and probably would be liable under racketeering laws.
Of course, the second that SCO spells out precisely what they believe they own then they are done. The code will either be removed and replaced, or the actual owners of the code will slap SCO straight into an early grave.
SCO wants companies to sign up not because they want to be nice to PHB's but because they want to shout and scream "Look at all these companies, they agree with us, we own Linux". Of course a lawyer could always argue that these companies signed up due to threat of litigation and that this could be construed as extortion.
Please send payment to:
Happy Dude
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield
SCO must need to raise some funds to keep paying their lawyers.
Resist the temptation to fund legal action, indirectly, against yourself. (The same reason I don't buy new DVDs or new CDs from the "industry".)
If you cannnot protect what you own, you own nothing. This is true if the law doesn't help you and its true if you don't have the will to act. SCO is exposing the weakness of the GPL: it means nothing if you aren't willing to use the courts to enforce it.
SCO's attempts to impose additional restrictions on the Linux kernel could not be a more blatent violation of the copyrights of the many kernel developers who have released legitimately GPL'd code into the kernel. There is exactly one way for this idodicy to stop: kernel developers must sue SCO for copyright infringement.
Even under the rosiest scenario for SCO, the fact that SCO has a contract dispute with IBM, and that perhaps IBM infringed their code does not given them any right to flout the GPL and usurp the work of the kernel developers.
I seriously wonder, if a company purchases this license agreement and SCO later fails in its court case, will the company be entitled to a refund? Perhaps even litigation involving extortion? SCO will have to craft this license agreement carefully to say something like "we are not responsible if it is later shown that you are a sucker and licensing something we don't own."
Slashdot maven LinuxGeek issues a press release to announce his new, innovative and terribly valuable service:
Dog Spleen, Utah (AP) - New, Innovative and terribly valuable service is announced to the world. LinuxGeek: Terribly Valuable Services, LLC is announcing the commencement of our Terribly Valuable Service today at 1:43pm Eastern Time.
This service is patterned after the new and very successful launch by SCO ( also of Utah, but no relation. Well, maybe a slight relation due that time in prison and the whole common law marriage thingie) of charging license fees for free things. This is new and innovative because it is about the opposite! I, err, We, meaning my crack staff will be selling the service of *not* thinking bad thoughts of those clients that are smart enough to contract our services!
Those unfortunate few that ignore the obvious benefits of contracting with LinuxGeek: Terribly Valuable Services, LLC will suffer needlessly while I, uhh, our crack staff of angry thought thinkers spend every waking moment thinking bad thoughts about them. Think of the endless hours you would waste worrying about what someone in a cardboard box just off of main street in Dog Spleen, Utah is thinking about you while you try to enjoy that movie and popcorn. Ease your already troubled mind during those negotiations with the District Attorney by not having to worry that someone that almost has their G.E.D. and the sheer determination to not bathe for weeks at a time is not thinking angry thoughts about you, the source of their unemployment.
To inquire about our lucrative franchising possibilities, please contact us at:
General Delivery
C/O Postmaster
Dog Spleen, Utah 13374
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I like Linux. It is the best. I think that everybody should use Linux.
I'm tempted to write to all SCO customers telling them that for only $100 I will guarantee that they can run SCO without fear of litigation from me.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
On the 25th of June, the UnitedLinux partners, including SuSE, announced the "UnitedLinux Ready" Partner Program for Independent Software Vendors.
"Developers" can download a copy of UnitedLinux in exchange for an email address, as long as they check a box to receive communication from one of the four UnitedLinux partners, including SuSE.
The SuSE site makes no obvious mention of the SCO debacle.
Questions:
Is SuSE with SCO or against them?
Did any SuSE customers receive any of the infamous 1,500 letters?
If I download UnitedLinux, and don't put a check in the SCO box, will I get a nasty letter?
Their they're doing there hair.
So.... When will SCO start making "offers we can't refuse" and form a "cosa nostra" with Microsoft?
Anyone who buys into this crap is fueling SCO's litigation against Linux.
Don't do it.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
In a moment of slightly drunken stupidity, I registered darlmcbride.com.
At the moment, its pointing to the "Top ten reasons to use linux."
Does anyone have any other suggestions about what would be a better thing to point it at, or put on it ?
It doesn't all have to be "screw you darl" crap, I'm looking for a way to inform people of the real situation or at least point them to something that isn't a paid for lie.
When a company attempts extortion on this scale are there not criminal charges on the horizon?
If a company like SCO attempts extortion on this scale are there any civil laws that would allow a class action suit for the "pain and suffering" suffered by the group being extorted?
In the old days money was extorted through the threat of physical violence. Now days it can be done through the threat of legal harassment.
When (if at all) does the threat of legal violence on a persons assets through the filing of frivolous law suits constitute extortion?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
SCO is "hoping that even if 99 percent of Linux customers laugh in their face, that there will be sufficient large companies who, for what is presumably going to be a relative drop in the bucket of their IT budgets, can potentially eliminate a cloud over their heads," he said.
99 percent? I think that percentage is a bit low.
This looks like the "sell worthless insurance" business model, and there are already many companies that use it. For example:
- Credit card insurance ("Protect your Citibank account in case you become unemployed or disabled"). Banks make big money on this one.
- Extended warranties. $19 for a warranty on a $99 television from Best Buy? (If the TV does break, it will almost certainly happen before the manufacturer's warranty expires anyway. TV's either break right away or they last forever)
- "WirePro" on your phone line. Pay $2.99 a month and the phone company pays to repair inside wiring. But this is hardly ever needed, and if you live in an apartment this is often the landlord's responsibility anyway.
What's different about SCO is that they are actually creating the "risk" that companies would be insuring against while the others just exaggerate existing risks. But it's still effectively the same business model.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
When the threat and the 'insurance' stem from the same sorce isn't that called extortion?
If SCO ever attempts somthing like this. I would insist that SCO be brought up on Fedral charges.
Isn't this sort of protection racket governed by RICO laws?
[ home ]
and yes, there are laws against it.
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See {Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
The above is from the 1913 Webster's dictionary. It's normal use today descibes use of the legal system to slander or malign someone.
After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is likely) they will be called on the carpet for this, I'm sure.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Handy definitions:
1. What is extortion?
Extortion is committed when a person forces another person to do something against his will (usually give up money) by threat of death or bodily injury, extreme financial hardship or damage to the person's reputation. Extortion is a class 4 felony.
2. What is racketeering?
Racketeering is criminal activity in furtherance of an enterprise, even if the enterprise has lawful purposes.
2. What is RICO?
RICO -- the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- is a federal statute originally enacted in 1970 to control organized crime (such as the Mafia). In the early 1990s, however, this law was expanded to target non-traditional organized crime groups. The statute makes it unlawful to conduct or conspire to conduct an enterprise whose activities affect interstate commerce by committing or agreeing to commit a pattern of racketeering activity.
Sounds like SCO is well on its way... Are there any Attorneys General in the audience?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
SCO is making available fresh air licenses, ensuring that their customers will have litigation free air to breathe, and death permits, to allow its customers to use this propietary technique without fear of lawsuit.
Let's get this one out of the way
Looks to me like it is time for someone(s) to sue SCO back. All we have to do is wait for them to start asking for this licencing fee and all the authors of Linux can band together and sue them into non-existance. I am sure there are plenty of companies that would be willing to aid in legal costs, and most of that would be gained back for suing for costs as well as the rest.
I for one would not mourn their passing.
NR
From the article:
A statement announcing the event said that SCO executives will provide details on "opportunities for Linux customers."
My Hotmail inbox, ten minutes later:
From: SCO Nigeria
Subject: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
I am making this contact with profound interest, having considered you highly reputable and capable of assistance to my understated business proposal. I am Darl C. McBride from the Democratic Republic of SCO. On trust and in utmost confidence, I am establishing this relationship with you in benevolent spirit as to an opportunity rightly at hand.
In a closed-door meeting before Caldera's sudden and suspicious death, a Mr. Ransom Love disclosed to me certain facts and secrets regarding IP which was secretly deposited in a codebase, buried under a giant "Unix" tree. This issue has been a secret, and I am therefore taking this as an opportunity to enrich and equip myself to face my secret ambition.
All I need now is a reliable partner with whom I can clear and transfer this IP abroad. You shall retain a reasonable percentage of the total value of this IP as your share. I shall count on your indulgence to please keep this information very secret and confidential.
ps: Please henceforth address me as "Dr. Kananga." That is the name I am now using for security reasons.
/* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! La moitie de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. - Corneille */
Either it doesn't exist, or they wan't to pull BS like this off. If they were to actually release infringing code, it'd be out of the kernel in a matter of days (if not hours).
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
There is an enormous problem with nearly every statement made from SCO. That is, SCO simply fails to take into account that, even if you give SCO the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are pieces of SCO IP within the linux kernel, SCO's IP would only constitute a small portion of the IP within the kernel. There are hundreds, if not thousands of other people who own the copyright to portions of the linux kernel. Those other people have licensed their copyrighted IP to be redistributed under the GPL which forbids the distribution of their work with other works that are not GPL'd(i.e. SCO's IP) Therefore, the problem is that even if you jump into bed with SCO to protect yourself, you're really opening yourself up to liability from all the other copyright holders of linux kernel IP. The GPL forces the issue because it controls the redistribution of the vast majority(non-SCO) of the code within the kernel. The real joke of this is that if it is proven that there is SCO code in the kernel, and if SCO knowingly redistributed linux with that code in there, SCO has violated the GPL and thusly have infringed the copyrights of all the other developers of the linux kernel. SCO may be liable for damages to all of those persons.
but in this case, all I have to say is:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
P.S. SCO should consider going into comedy, they would be an overnight hit!
I can't afford a sig!
>>The program will be announced "within the next month or so,"
C OX &selected=SCOX
Last December, scox said they were "planing" a linux licensing programing. Then, about a month ago, scox said they would announce such a plan in July. July is more than half-way over, everybody is wondering what is going on. Now scox is saying they will have a plan "within a month or so." Or so?
Could it be that scox knows they can not legally implement such a plan? In two months will scox call another such teleconference to anounce their big plan, only to say once again: "we're working on some details to try and create some kind of a licensing program for Linux users to be able to run Linux legally."
Some details? Haven't they been working on "some details" since December? How complicated could it be.
Yet another SCOX bluff? Remember scox said they would stop ibm from selling AIX, they haven't. Scox said they would audit AIX users, they haven't. They said they were going sue Linus Torvald, they haven't.
But it did drive the stock price up another 15% in one day. And you better believe, insiders are selling like mad.
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us
I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us
Stop! RICO time!
(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)
I'm thinking about doing it very seriously. But first I'd like to knowwhat type of lawsuit I'll be able to attack SCO with when the IBM vs Linux vs SCO fud is over and SCO loses. Can they license something they don't own? In violation of a printed license they themselves shipped?
I think at this point we have the extremes to sue SCO for attempted extortion :)
Ok... so how the F*** can they charge licensing for something THEY DO NOT OWN and DID NOT INVENT?!?!?!
This is getting fscking ridiculous. This is perhaps the most blatant attempt EVER to STEAL a public resource.
They have proven ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in court, and they have NO OWNERSHIP WHATSOEVER in Linux or any part thereof.
Can you point to some evidence of that? DAT and "Audio" CD-Rs notwithstanding, I've never heard of "non-audio" data media being taxed (other than sales tax of course) and would be interested to hear about it.
You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
You are probably correct.
This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws..
You just can't redistribute it (from the USA and a few other contries).
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Linux user sues SCO for copyright violation and intrusion under the DMCA.
Claim 1) Whereas '464644' is a sting that I created to control access to a specific account
Claim 2) Whereas I own the legal copyright to anything I create on my own computer, including that string
Claim 3) Whereas that string is stored only in encrypted format on my computer
Claim 4) Whereas encrypted strings stored on my computer are not made available to the general public
Resolved SCO Group is guilty of Copyright Infringement for using my proprietary string for a similar access control purpose
Resolved SCO Group is guilty of Corporate Espionage for stealing my intellectual property for use in a similar context
Resolved SCO Group is guilty of Circumventing an Encryption-based access control method for reverse-engineering my access control string, as provided by the DMCA
Resolved SCO Group is guilty of egregious copyright infringement by redistributing my access control string to millions of others users without properly licensing such technology
I hereby demand immediate payment of $3Billion in US currency in small, non-sequential, unmarked bills.
Scary thing is my case probably holds a whole lot more water than their case against IBM...
And only one... so we have de code 100% sure GPLed No more FUD. Unless they give it at more than 1000$ in which case they will have a bad business If they expect to sell more than a license.
SCO are claiming to own ALL Unix-like OS's; theyre just starting with Linux. On their wilder days, they've even implied that they own Windows too...quite, quite mad.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I would think that at the very least SCO could be slapped with a BIG, FAT injunction. It's become the popular meme among nattering tech writers without clues to ask, gravely, "What if SCO's claims are true?" and claim that the Linux community is tremendously short-sighted to not be running around like decapitated chickens.
But let's turn it around. Can SCO license anything that doesn't belong to it? No. So it's made a lot of noise claiming that something in the Linux kernel is its intellectual property, but those claims have been in no way proven; if its claims are unsupported then they are trying to take money to license someone else's intellectual property. Ironic, that.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Ummm, ok, SCO is selling insurance/protection/whathaveyou, which is great for keeping SCO from suing you (and providing them with some cash to continue this farce); however, it also opens the door for copy-cat acts to claim IP infringment with Free software, and use a similar line of FUD to generate revenue. Oh, and if you think SCO will even bat an eye to protect you when round 2 begins.... I can just see the legalesse on that license they'll sell you =).
Oh, and as has been mentioned before, SCO/Caldera used to distribute Linux (up to the 2.4 kernel). so if they did hold any IP related to Linux, they were legally able to release an unencumbered version of Linux, at which point, all SCO/Caldera IP in the distributed packages fell under the GPL (being distributed by the IP owner). At this point, the core of Linux is clean from harassment from SCO (can't have a distribution without it), and any infringing code which was never released by SCO/Caldera in conjunction with Linux (once identified) can be removed without crippling Linux.
why do I keep thinking that SCO rot's into FUD????
Please, the CEO is so crooked that when he got wind of the class action suit he would sell short his stock and make money that way too.
no matter what this guy makes millions.
I want to be a CEO
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Only those who broke the copyright have anything to fear. FYI, downloading stuff from Napster/Kazaa/edonkey is not illegal, only uploading is. - Simply because the downloader is not made aware of any copyright.
So IF SCO really shares some code with Linux and IF that code is really the IP of SCO (lots of their stuff is from BSD) and IF SCO can make the courts believe that they didn't realize for years that they were distributing by GPL the code which is worth (according to SCO) 3 billion dollars - funny, you have a 3-billion dollar feature and don't realize it's in Linux for years? Seems a little bit far-fetched for me - and IF the court rules that SCO's utter ignorance of what they distributed protect them from the GPL and IF the court orders the IP to be removed (which is not sure, they could also just request the offender - the one and only the one who has put the IP in there - to pay damages)
But even then you have nothing to fear for running an old Linux kernel.
But anyway, there are so many IFs in that scenario that all this is purely speculative.
The tax originally applied to cassette tapes. A similiar tax applies to blank video cassettes. Canada has one on all CD-Rs, the USs is only on the "audio" ones, which is why they cost more.
Doesn't Linus own the trademark on "Linux"? What if he revokes SCO's license to use said trademark? Wouldn't that cause them a bit of trouble?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I'm getting ready to launch my new "Kiss My Ass" Licensing program that will allow all stupid companies (yes, that means you SCO...) and just plain ol' morons to purchase a license that will allow them to piss me off without fear of being punched into tomorrow. I can sense the line to purchase them growing as I type....
I saw that windows server 2003 web hosting edition was being snapped up quite a bit in the last netcraft survey. A 5% loss of market share for linux. IIS has had a lot of security issues and so has windows server 2003 in the past year. I wonder if the 8000 sites that were lost to windows server 2003 web hosting edition were due to the SCO case against linux. The threat of lawsuits instills greater fear than the threat of security problems. SCO linux case = windows server 2003 web hosting edition sales? I don't believe that microsoft is behind sco's behavior, but "licensing" unix ip from them gives them more $$$. And every dollar buys sco more time to keep a cloud of unsubstantiated uncertainty around linux. The SCO case is an opportunity, one that microsoft has not passed up. This is what companies do. I always see the following post floating around:
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have moved from the "laugh at you" stage to the "fight you" stage. What next is the most exciting stage of all...
They sat on their hands and did nothing until Linux became pervasive in the desktop and server environment and now they launch this frivilous lawsuit to save their pathetic corporation out of the financial dumpster.
However, I see this Linux licensing plan as evidence that SCO is weak. By raising the lawsuit to $3 billion and now barking about a licensing program, SCO seems like it is trying to raise as loud a ruckus as possible to scare off customers of Linux in lieu of IBM outright ignoring them and Fortune 500 companies shrugging at their claims. SCO is concerned that IBM is essentially silent on the issue and this grandstanding is just evidence of a desperate plea for attention.
SCO needs to understand its place in the world. It is an insignificant yet annoying gnat. And big guys like IBM smash gnats.
Furthermore, SCO's claims are bunk as this entry shows, for what SCO is complaining about is the inclusions of pieces of code in IBM's distro, such as JFS. But a Caldera employee at the time was contributing to this process and they didn't complain at the time!
SCO is sunk.
OK, Let get this straight... They're taking a failed exit stratagy, trying to threaten other businesses, because IBM isn't playing their game. IBM has more IP lawyers than SCO, Red Hat, and SUSE have employees and they are not worried. Why should we SCO is going to die quietly. We could as community sue the them too. That would help suck more cash out of their accounts.
This move is puzzling me, I admit to not understanding how the GPL would fare against perceived intellectual property rights (i guess its about evens given the understanding of courts and typical panicky PHB's.)
My guess what we will see:
a: Somehow SCO get court approval with their claim, and are bought by IBM or Microsoft.
b: SCO get court approval for the claim and rights on the software.
c: The GPL becomes worthless, hours of open source development protected by GPL become free game, and the open software community dies, its founders get a nice fat cheque for years of advocacy.
Its no longer just a belief if people with no interest in that belief begin to make money from it, lots of money one way or another.
perhaps it would be a prudent and fun idea for
the GPL to be changed just a little to provide free software and source to everyone EXCEPT SCO!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Hehe. Great fun. Nice operating system you have here ... to bad if someone should ... copyright it ...
I'm going to make you an EULA you just can't refuse.
sigs are hazardous to your health
A telephone conference (which anyone can participate in assuming SCO's conferencing bridge holds up, which it won't) with SCO leaders and their attorneys will be the center ring of this ongoing circus. The fallout from this will be entertaining to say the very least.
A license so I can run Linux? That's nice. How about you tell me how I'm violating a license to begin with before I buy your seemingly unnecessary one.
The SCO lawsuit is much ado about nothing at all. The only entity that might be hurt by the SCO lawsuit is IBM.
As for the alleged code that was stolen from SCO UNIX, let's assume that it is stolen. It won't terminate Linux and won't force anyone to enter into SCO's licensing scheme. Just about any self-respecting Ph.D. student in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University could easily write a clean-room verion that duplicates the functionality of the stolen code. Then, we replace the stolen code wtih the clean-room version.
We could entice the Ph.D. student to do our bidding by promising that he'll be set up with a blonde girlfriend if he finishes the code quickly.
it's business doublespeak for "I'm to stupid to think for myself, so I'll just let someone else do it." Sadly, this has been creeping into more and more of society.....
But, the assesment of extortion is spot on.
I'd like to personally invite CEO Darl McBride, attorney David Boies, and spokesperson Blake Stowell to bite my ass. I've got their licensing fee right here (pointing to crotch).
Based on this precedent, tomorrow I will begin licensing copies of Windows XP, for the low low price of $50 a pop. Remember, if you're not getting it through me, you're a dirty rotten pirate and my lawyers will use our bulletproof claim to this intellectual property to sue you three ways from sunday.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
I think that IBM (or RedHat, or whoever) should set up a competing license for SCO's software, since it's just as likely that SCO is the one who did the copying. From their example, no actual proof of copyright ownership is necessary!
Maybe I ought to set up my own MicroSoft license program. Pay me, or I'll sue you for using Windows!
If SCO's extortion scheme works, I should be able to make millions! Millions, do you hear me, millions! (pinky finger to mouth)
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
IANAL, but as I understand it, if you feel there is a reasonable probability that you are going to be sued then you can seek a delcaratory judgement against the party likely to sue you. This aleviates the fear & anxiety of waiting to be sued, by the court giving a ruling as to who would win the case were you sued.
Surely it is in the interest of one, or a group of, companies to fund a preemptive suit for declaratory judgement against SCO? The fact that they are offering to sell people indemnity against being sued would seem to offer reasonable grounds for them to believe that they might be sued, to say the least.
G.
..and you, yourself is placing your opinion over facts. No one is forcing anyone to read anything.
Me too, I have some Nicaraguan friends who might be interested in offering some money to transfer.
Hey, they could also transfer some leftover funds to this fellow in Africa who just needs a little bit to free up a larger amount...
I haven't seen any post about how outrageous this is. That it mean we nead to pay a license to pay for free software (as in free beer and free speech!)
What's going on there?!?
I hope SCO will soon die a painfull death. How can they still be credible as a Linux vendor when they go against all is the strength of Linux. ie. independant vendors and freedom.
This is a sad day for SCO, let's hope they take it to their grave...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Zipi di do da zipi di day Oh my oh my what a wonderful day. Bless you Sco bless you for your kindness.
Assuming for a moment that SCO is, in fact, telling the truth about IP in Linux (Not that I believe that one for a moment...), SCO is guilty of over six months worth of IP infringement of the Linux kernel because they have been distributing the same with NO license to do so during the time that they knew about the problem with infringement and did nothing about it.
I expect to see movement along the lines of at least several of the Linux kernel coders getting a temporary injunction on SCO over this if they attempt to do the licensing scheme.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They are running a protection racket.
Damn slashdot... :->
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Wondered when you'd chime in with something over here at /.
:-)
(Right now I'm wondering what sirius and yoyo are doing over this announcement- probably frothing at the mouth about it going to the moon...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Good for you, thanks.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
> I wonder if this is the point where Big Blue is going to stop basically ignoring SCO and start going after them with guns blazing.
Yes, I want to see a countersuit, but not just by IBM.
I want to see a class-action suit against SCO in the name of every company and individual who makes money off of Linux.
The charge would be Product Disparagement.
In other words, they would be charging that SCO is intentionally trying to harm (lower the value of) their businesses by damaging (via a lie) the reputation of Linux.
If there is any SCO software running anywhere in the world, would someone please crash it?
desist from unfair competitive practiices.
This is what LinuxTag.org did in Germany. Granted Germany has more justice than in the USA, but this is getting ridiculous!
All you morons who think Iraq is over getting oil for the US forget that if the US wanted the oil that bad they just would have done a quid pro quo with Saddam - just like the French did.
I knew we could pin this on Hans Blix (his parents, anyway!)
The new IP business boom is based on claiming ownership or potential infringement and then going to court. Look at DirectTV. Look at the RIAA.
This group has focused on large corporations. DirectTV is going after individuals as is the RIAA. Right now, SCO has not demonstrated its legal basis. So, they will be less likely to issue those $3500 settlement letters as DirectTV has done. However, if they win, those letters will not be far behind.
DirectTV is likely to result in no change to current law because so few people are affected. The SCO case is likely to be very different if they win. Many people will be affected.
What will slashdot do? What will home hobbyists do? When the $3500 settlement offer arrives in the mail.
At that point, there may finally be enough critical mass to change our antiquated IP laws.
I'm thinking about doing it very seriously. But first I'd like to knowwhat type of lawsuit I'll be able to attack SCO with when the IBM vs Linux vs SCO fud is over and SCO loses. Can they license something they don't own? In violation of a printed license they themselves shipped?
Okay, killjoy, are you trying to take all the fun out of this thread? This is SCO news, and I was having withdrawl pains after several days without a fix. Don't go getting all technical on us. :)
It's just like the {M,R}IAA "tax" on all recordable media.
Already in force in Canada and Europe (although Germany
might be an exception?)
Nope. Sadly, Germany isn't an exception.
If anything, it is copyright infringement.
I see this whole case as a desparate attempt to find a loophole in the GPL. If SCO sells a Linux license which contradicts the GPL, they would presumably violate the GPL. However, the GPL depends on copyright. In order to violate a copyright, you must distribute* the material.
SCO is proposing to sell licenses without actually distributing the software.
*Distribute here means any of the six rights spelled out in copyright law (distribute, perform, copy, display, create a derivative, or perform over a digital transmission).
This seems like it violates the gpl. Can someone
that has authored code within the linux kernel
please sue SCO and shut them up. This has gone
on long enough. They can not license gpl'd code
to other people, because that breaks the license,
otherwise making them violaters of a copyright
and piraters. SCO has talked and talked, again
and again, but has never shown any evidence.
After this news release, which is obviously made
to heighten their stock value, someone should
follow through and shut them up as was done in
germany.
Africa is soo last summer.
he tax originally applied to cassette tapes. A similiar tax applies to blank video cassettes. Canada has one on all CD-Rs, the USs is only on the "audio" ones, which is why they cost more.
You've got my attention. Now, please explain how one can differentiate between "audio" and non-audio CD-R blanks. My blanks have a label indicating "700MB/80 min" which would seem to indicate they work for either.
As for the alleged code that was stolen from SCO UNIX, let's assume that it is stolen. It won't terminate Linux and won't force anyone to enter into SCO's licensing scheme. Just about any self-respecting Ph.D. student in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University could easily write a clean-room verion that duplicates the functionality of the stolen code.
Why on earth would we want to involve a Piled Higher and Deeper, when we need a real coder? :)
Two charges would apply as far as I know - fraud and demanding money with menaces.
Well I guess if it hasn't dawned on you luminaries we have yet another parasitic pariah in our midst. This scourge will spread infecting all it comes in to contact with, sucking the very life out of its victims.
It must be isolated and killed. It must be treated like a horrific disease no less than the likes of cancer or HIV.
This monstrous disease lives and insidudously spreads by forcing its victims to feed it much like a hookworm. Fortunately we have medicine for parasitic pariah's like this.
This medicine must be applied knowing all along it will be hard but it must be done if we ever hope to remove the disease and avoid further infection.
The first step will be to acknowledge that it is indeed a disease and its existance is not in society's best interest. The mind set is what is important. This disease must be isolated and destroyed.
The next step is to stop feeding it. Do whatever you have to but, cut off its food supply. It will be hard and may take time as two other established parasitic pariah's have helped fill its larders and it will be able to live off this food store for quite some time to come.
The third step is to liberally apply huge doses of a strong anti viral medicine. This will help the pariah use up its food and speed up its eventual destruction through starvation. There are many good doctors who know what medicine to apply and how to apply it. Contact them at your earliest convenience. Apply this medicine everywhere the paraih has spread its infectious disease being careful to avoid the locations where the infection is strongest as this location currenty favors its survival.
If you fail to take action now you will eventually either die a slow and unimaginably horrible death or be the never ending food source for this parasitic pariah.
if they lose? I mean, if they lose the case entirely to IBM, and it's found that their FUDmongering for the past [insert period of time here] is entirely off base (as many of us suspect), then can't anyone who bought a license from them turn around and sue them later for extortion? Or at least selling a license to which they have no rights to?
IANAL obviously (and hopefully someone who is can answer this question), but it seems to me that if you've paid a fee to SCO when their claims are bunk, then you should be able to at least extract that fee back from them.
Actually, isn't attempting to collect money by illegally threatening harm extortion? I know one has to be careful approaching people who legally owe money or it can be construed as extortion.
So, you guys recently acquired linux? No??? Oh.... I see... you have always owned linux but were just not aware of this till your company was facing impending doom... Wow - good thing you guys put two and two together! Yes, now I understand Mr. McBride. Why don't you go ahead and put me down for 300 Linuses. uh I mean licenses - check is in the mail. ;-) Oh, and uhh... while you are at it - go f*ck yourself.
...With apologies to Weezer this time. :)
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
Dang it, you are correct. This means that prices for Microsoft Linux will rise. I'll have to revise my bugets. Damn you SCO!!!
"We own the IP to linux. No, we won't show you why we think we own the IP, you'll have to trust us. Now give us money."
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The difference between audio and data CD-R is the labelling on the side. One says "Data", the other says "Audio". Oh yes, and the audio ones have better lines to write on, I'd imagine...
But, all in all, they are the same.
--
Dan
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I wonder if IBM can buy a license
Seems there's been a fair amount of trading by the higher-ups in the last couple months. Note, also, the levels of the automatic sales...
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
*laugh*
Sorry, no mod-points at the moment.
-- MarkusQ
Id like to point out to all those PHB's who sign up for this licensing deal that although a SCO license will grnt them use of SCO intellectual property, there is more required.
Please sign up for MyLicensing(tm) as well - only $99.95 per month via direct debit / wire transfer / paypal into my personal bank account grants you full rights to use any of My own IP that may (or may not) be part of the linux distribution that you are using.
Whats $99.95 for a little peace of mind ?
Yep, basically SCO have realised that IBM's neither going to cough up, nor buy them, so plan B for profit is ??? ....
Yes You've Guessed it .............. it's a shake down!!
clearly McBride hasn't changed a bit from his pre-school bully days.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
At least this is a licence fee that Microsoft will not be able to funnel money to SCO.
Imagine if they did, they would implicitly legitimize Linux. At least with Services for Unix they can say it is just for "legacy" support, in the pejorative sense
Attention: all users of Microsoft Windows products
... just take my word for it, it's in there.
I believe Microsoft has illegally placed code I've written into their operating system products. I have no intention to prove it
Therefore, if you are a user of Microsoft Windows, you must pay me a $150 licensing fee to avoid getting sued. I think you'll find this a much better deal than SCO's Linux license -- it's a tenth of the price!
Please pay immediately to avoid litigation. I accept cashier's checks, money orders, PayPal, and briefcases full of cash.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
> I don't know what idiot came up with this term
;]
Microsoft labeled the GPL as viral in a campaign a while (years?) back. It was all over Slashdot when it happened.
> but they are seriously misguided.
Yes, they are misguided
When SCO lose to IBM they (SCO) will have no money and no assets left. Anyone who pays money to SCO (to buy a license or to buy stock) will never get any of it back after the suit.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It is really a wonderful meller-drama. In this world filled with ambiguity, here we have a story where good and evil are well defined and unambiguous. SCO is playing up their role to the hilt twirling their mustacios. We are all falling for it but in return we get to be on a great emotional rollercoaster ride.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Even if there is SCO code in Linux this attempt to Proprietarily license ALL of the Linux code is a definite violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). An IMMEDIATE COUNTERSUIT should now be considered should any such "Linux Licensing" plan be presented by SCO for the GPL violation. We should also look into a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT with the SEC for using our OS as a part of a probable "pump 'n' dump" stock fraud scheme on the part of SCO. Their "golden parachute" tactics should only land them in JAIL or BANKRUPTCY!!!
Exactly. If SCO is going to do this then they had better spell out precisely what I am licensing from them. Otherwise they are simply asking for protection money, and probably would be liable under racketeering laws.
If SCO has crossed the line and is racketeering Boies and the company officers had better leave for a country without an extradition treaty with the US now. Getting caught violating the RICO statutes isn't anything a sane person wants to do.
On the other hand perhaps they want all of their personal assets seized and to spend time in Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Darl,
Okay, please tell me where to send my money.
Sincerely,
Mitch
P.S. I think you're kind of pretty.
After all they are the
* Silly
* Cretins
* Organisation
* Sleazy
* Corrupt
* Organization
would be closer to the truth but
* Racketeer
* Influenced and
* Corrupt
* Organization
might be better.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I think this time they may have stepped over the line and are entering the realm of out and out fraud. They may actually sell some licenses to people who would like to see them go to jail. Maybe this is part of the plan and what MS is paying for. To find out how far a company can go before someone walks in and throws their white collar asses in jail.
Some cd burners will only burn audio CD burners - the ones that were built into Sony stereo equipment are an example. I'm fairly sure that none of these products are still around though, since consumers aren't total morons.
SCO is now going to license Linux......But how can the open source community negate what the license is supposed to be for? Funny how SCO seems to now be trying to capitilize off of a crime they blamed IBM for but they themselves committed.
If SCO can claim their IP is wrongly in Linux and try and sell a license for protection from them sueing you.... then who else can try that?
I think the FSF and Linus should sponsor a class action lawsuit against SCO for intent to extort.
Certainly the EFF would or should be willing to handle the legal position.???
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahah !!! (ad nauseam) This is the funniest thing I've heard all month.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
I downloaded a source RPM from SCO's site only a month ago. Since that is GPL'd they can't sue me!
They also can't claim that they did not know their code was in there, since this was months after they initiated their lawsuit.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Before they charge licensing fees for Linux doesnt it have to be proven that code within Linux DOES in fact contain their copyrighted code ?
How can they do this if its not yet been proven in court that IBM violated their contracts with SCO and also to be proven is that some code within Linux does in fact infringe on their IP ?
Whose word are we supposed to take ? Laura Didio's ? Darl McBride's ?
If its not proven that Linux contains any SCO code or if a court decision proves otherwise then by charging Licensing fees for Linux now, isnt SCO violating the GPL?
dvnull
Unfortunately, RL prison is the place where "everyone is innocent" (for a personal example, I've heard one rapist justify a brutal rape and beating as "the bitch was asking for it, whaddaya expect me to do?"). Given D'ohl's actions so far, he'd be just another indignant twit too tied up in himself to imagine what it'd be like on the sharp end of his own idiocy.
Googling around a bit, the charge seems to be pretty much identical in at least NZ, HongKong, the UK and the USA.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
and you'll also receive the free curly cue fry cutter, a $40 dollar value. Call now.
Insightful? INSIGHTFUL!?
The mods are on crack again.
FTC Complaint Form
Need i say more? Thats right, scare em into paying. The money is still green right?
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
Ha! My sig is working!
If enough people short the stock and the short interest goes sky-high, that by itself will take the wind out of SCO's sails. At some point the herd effect kicks in, and nobody will buy at any price. After all, it's sheer insanity to buy a stock that everyone else is shorting, regardless of what you think of the company's future.
MANY people are looking to short SCO, but most are trying to figure out when the rest of the world realizes there will be no buyout.
If most of the potential buyers (Sun, IBM, etc.) started announcing that no buyout of SCO was under consideration, that might get the ball rolling. Although merger negotiations are always kept secret, a non-merger is under no such restriction, right?
I think if we can get the price under $9, they will be on the fast track to bankruptcy. Keep up the good work Slashdotters!
'will allow users of the open-source operating system to run Linux without fear of litigation.'
... is that you can freely share your mp3s from your linux box, and SCO will cover your ass!
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Wonder how long before SCO is charged under RICO?
That's NOT a loophole for SCO in any way, shape, or form.
Clause 4 in the GPL invalidates your license the moment you knowingly distribute intermixed code of your own or someone else's that isn't also GPLed.
SCO continued to sell OpenLinux for 2-3 months after they allegedly found there was allegedly a problem and has continued to distribute the kernel sources now for SEVEN months. This is combined with a public statement from them saying that it was all "okay" for them to do so since the infringing IP was theirs to begin with. That makes whatever SCO has done as premeditated and willful.
Now, charging for licenses means they're intending on claiming that the code is theirs and that it's not under the GPL. This means that SCO is liable for seven months worth of infringement on at least 400 seperate instances of Copyrighted materials- of which they've already made it clear that it was intentional. Not understanding the license doesn't count- you shoul d never agree to something you don't understand fully. And, by distributing Linux, they agreed to all the terms, including clause 4.
There is not going to be a court that is going to let SCO off the hook for this if they go ahead with the licensing ideas. Without the GPL, they can't distribute. Clause 4's not unreasonable and isn't illegal- so it won't be discounted. They distributed the code with the alleged infringing code, knowing it was there, for seven months.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"I used to be funny," said a tearful Jay Leno at a news conference, "But now those folks at SCO are running me out of the comedy business. We just can't compete; We pay writers thousands of dollars a year to write but damned if SCO doesn't say anything far funnier than our jokes. It has to be stopped."
(with abject apologies to Jay Leno)
Dawn of the Dead
Please don't stereotype like that!
if someone cheats you once,
shame on him.
if someone cheats you twice,
shame on you.
Is there any possibility of class action lawsuits against SCO that Linux users can bring to the court just like LinuxTug? Or any bureaus like FTC or Consumer Affairs to file claims against SCO of unfair business practices?
Now SCO is actively pursuing Linux users' money with underlied implication that if you won't pay, SCO will sue you. IANAL, SCO's action appears to me a threat and extortion, demanding "LICENSE" fees for the product which ownership is yet to be determined by the court. After all this whole thing looks a well planned extortion scheme that, ironically, has been very unsuccessful.
most people would realise the futility within a week. slashdot is all about feeling good about using linux, commonsense and reality aside
I actually RTFA (how embarrassing!), and aside from that it's remarkably content-free, I got the impression that SCO's "opportunity for linux users" would consist of an offer for said users to buy linux licenses to avoid being sued.
In other industries, the equivalent "offer" would be accompanied by a visit from Vinnie and Guido.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
For leeching onto her good name, as well as befouling it. Value dilution would be even yet another charge.
But I would not want him in jail, this is by no means a criminal crime. But he should make restituition somehow. Maybe he could serve as an usher at 100 of her concerts. Britney would still pay the usher's fee, but it would go to the displaced usher, while this value thief would not be recompensed. For once, this abuser of property priveleges would be an actual functioning and contributory member of society. Maybe the lesson would even stick. The real crime would be in not attempting to educate this miscreant in this.
Pardon me, but until they actually show what part of Linux violates their IP (something they have been very loathe to do) why in the hell shoould anyone pay them anything!
A protection racket. =)
Should I be buying into guitar case futures?
I sent them my name/address/phone# (I also sent the same info to IBM and asked IBM to include me in with them in the sue-ee's)
I also listed the number of Linux installs I have here (numerous) and the number of Linux installs I am responsible for in the field.
And when and if they sue me, I can't wait for them to try to collect. I'll go to their office and put a steel toe boot up the ass of every mother f*cker in the building. That will be my payment to them..
Oh yeah, SCO owns Linux IP like Al Gore invented the Internet...
go on playing and dreaming, SCO, but for god's sakae do it quietly and stop the fucking noise. It is getting on our nerves.
As was your one and only opportunity to get laid before you found you were gay.
since when was this a "news" only site.
This, to my knowlege has been an editorial site since MS started making alot of noise about linux
Gay people get laid all the time.
Who gives a rats ass what SCO says or does. They are second only to Microsoft in foot stomping and sand-kicking. The only people conceivably more utterly worthless than SCO are any and all IT managers who suggest for a second that they should pay these people. If they get paid, a whole new era of Corporate Terrorism begins.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
If it is proven that SCO had nothing to liccens when offering liccenses to Linux code dose this mean SCO can be sued for fraud?
Who knows maybe by the end of this Linux will have some SCO code... as a settelemt deal for fraud.
By the way didn't this happen before? There has been a number of attempts to clame ownership of Linux it's like the next big 'Make it rich' scam.
First the whole DotCom rush then patent frenzy and next clame ownership of exsisting populare software.
Well hay I'll clame Mosaic. Isn't that the core of IE?
Or better yet Dos...
Or how about claming IP rights on the ansi C language and get just about everyone.
I don't actually exist.
I just haven't seen them until just now. Me, I've been posting here and at linuxtoday.com- and Yahoo's message board, of course.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Thanks for the praise. I'm glad you find my blog useful. I do want to make clear that I am a paralegal, not an attorney, so it's a paralegal blog, not a legal blog. While it's true that I work in the legal field, as you say, I don't want anyone to be misled. I'm doing what paralegals do: research. And I post what I find, with the hope that it will prove useful, as the saying goes.
funny i thought the comment section was invented for off the cuff editorialization:)
Unfortunately, by that time SCO will have no assets worth suing over.
However, if they do go forward with this licensing plan, the kernel developers will have a good case of copyright infringement against SCO. How in the hell SCO thinks they can get away with stealing someone's IP and selling it back to them is beyond me.
I think a keen trick would be to put the GPL in a click-to-agree box, but with multiple buttons: "Yes", "No", "Maybe", "I'll read it later", "I'm under 18, or am drunk, or am otherwise not allowed to enter a contract". Of course, any one of those buttons would proceed with the installation as normal...
Of'course, it is better to have (a)Yes, (b)No, (c)Not Applicable/No Power of Attorney by GNU GPL/No capacity to contract upon GNU GPL, and (d)Without prejudice UCC 1-207.
Option (d) is the sovereign's choice; governance by conent and devised through Uniform Commercial Code. UNITED STATES INC employees never understands why they can no longer fuck peopel in the ass until the legal document reaches the exhibit table and signature is recognized by an officer of the court.
The audio ones have some number/code that allows set top burners (as in audio components) to recognize it's valid "audio" media.
These units will reject regular data cd-r media.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.