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,
"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
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***
The term is "racketeering."
-Peter
>> 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.
consigliere -
An advisor or counselor, especially to a capo or leader of an organized crime syndicate.
Well, obviously stocktraders expect a certain percentage of idiots to actually pay license fees for GPLed software. In reality there can only be two situations: If SCO's claims are correct, then there will be a short coding frenzy and SCO is left in the dust with its precious IP. No reason for users to pay them. Or the claims are incorrect (either because the code isn't theirs or because they effectively gave it away with their Linux distribution), then they have no case and there is no reason to pay either.
Don't think of it as a license. Think of it as a pre-emptive out-of-court settlement. Anyway, SCO's claim is that some of the code in Linux never should have been distributed under the GPL anyway because permission was not obtained from all parties with copyrights or other IP protection, i.e. SCO or the former rights holders. This is ignoring the issue of SCO's own distribution of Linux - the people they're going for with this licensing program either won't understand it, or won't trust it as a defense against a suit.
It's Saturday. The last trade was yesterday.
sounds more like blackmail...
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel. Newer (and SCO IP free versions) of the kernel would be beyond their touch. In effect, they wouldn't be collecting licenses on the GPL'ed kernel, but on the ir IP that was included against their will.
No matter what happens, SCO will not own the Linux name, or the hearts and minds of the linux community.
It seems that while businesses are afraid of the OSS community (just see the wording of of Microsoft's number two enemy comment here and they all think they can somehow get people to stop OSS development by providing a lot of features and stability (which, although they do fine on the first point, the still significantly lag on the second.) This might be true of end users, but developers, the ones who LIKE to code, don't use linux (or BSD, or whatnot) merely for the stability and cost. They use it because they want to be able to dive into their operating system head first. To fix anything they don't like, to write an app that takes full advantage of new feature that are underdocumented. To write code that makes sense, and have it compile the first time.
Even if (and it won't) SCO some how makes Linux go away, the community of OSS developers will simply find a new baby to nuture. Sure, it would be an enormous hit to the community, but no one would unlearn any of the lessons from Linux, and we might end up with something better. Maybe it would be HURD, or some RTO like TRON. Who knows, but the fact is, SCO and Microsoft are fighting a battle they cannot win. In all fact, they are merely hardening their opposition to their tricks.
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.
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.
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.
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 am sure IBM is call up all their customers and asking them to record any loss this lawsuit made. (Like the 2 hour meeting to see if you should stay with IBM, etc) Then when SCO looses, IBM Will come back with a counter suit. And also sue for everyones else losses. I am sure IBM is staying quite to get their time and build up their forces. Plus if they say the wrong thing they may piss off their customers.
But The IBM counter suit I beleave will really hurt SCO.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Actually, laws aren't always written for corporate profits. And some that are, are a good thing. Healthy corporations = healthy economy. If you continue to demonize them, then you'd better not pout when our economy erupts when they move overseas because they're not welcome here.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Because it's all a racket to pump the stock price so canopy group, and scox execs, can back out. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this lawsuit never goes to court.
Consider:
June 13th: scox share price goes through the roof on *huge* volume because scox swears it can, and will, cancle IBM's UNIX license.
June 16th: scox could have gone to court and filed for an immediate tempory injunction to stop ibm from selling aix. Scox did nothing of the sort. Instead scox announced that *they* consider ibm's license cancled, and that scox would be "seeking" a permenate injunction - which will take years. But that didn't stop the tech-pop-media from pumping out dozens of headlines about ibm's unix license being cancled.
Scox doesn't want to go court ever. Scox doesn't want to show "evidence" ever.
In Germany, scox was told to put up or shut up. Scox had to show *some* evidence or stop making their claims. Scox immidiately shut down their German web-sites, and signed a document stating they would make no further claims. Germany is scox's second largest market. And scox gave up the German market rather show any evidence.
The entire German incident was ignored by the USA tech-pop-media.
Scox
"The GPL is NOT viral."
Correct! All it says, is, "Here is our code. You can use it if you want to, in any way you want to, so long as you allow the next person to do the same with the result"
In contrast, a MSEULA reads, "This is OUR software, you own nothing, you can use it only in the way WE say you can (subject to change at any time), if you modify it in any way we will sue you and your descendants back to the stone age"
Given the fact that a MSEULA leaves your ENTIRE ORG, and even YOUR HOME theoretically open to PRIVATE BSA goon squads (due to the fact you agreed to it without a signature), I'd call the MSEULA "viral" LONG before I'd call the GPL that.
The GPL is viral only in this sense: It's a poison pill to companies like MS who'd love to use open code in their closed products, thus saving lots of money they'd otherwise have to pay developers. They use BSD code all the time. And never return anything.
Corporatism != Free Market
SCO has removed the real source from many of the Linux distributions on their FTP site, but they still have it in two places that I know of. It is extremely difficult to understand how they can be unintentionally distributing the code under the terms of the GPL when it is still available on THEIR FTP site months after they claimed that it is tainted. If this was ever a case of unintentional distribution, it is certainly not now. At this point they have either released the entire kernel under the terms of the GPL (and thus have no ability to assert additional IP rights) or they are distributing the code without a license and violating the copyrights of thousands of Linux developers. The GPL is very clear about this. Either you agree to the terms of the GPL unconditionally, or you are subject to normal copyright laws which give you no right to redistribute. This may be an unconventional use of copyright, but if it is ever "tested" in court the judge will rule based on the same principles of copyright and contract law that apply to everything else. There is nothing special about the GPL in that regard that requires testing in a court.
No. Downloading from Napster/etc. is patently illegal -- it's clear copyright infringement to make an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted work on your hard disk. The DCMA includes a special exemption to that: if you have software which requires a copy be made in order to run the software, then you may make that copy. That way, you don't need a license to install software you've acquired through legal means.
Basically, if there's code in the Linux kernel which isn't properly licensed, then anyone running a copy of the kernel is infringing.
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel. Newer (and SCO IP free versions) of the kernel would be beyond their touch. In effect, they wouldn't be collecting licenses on the GPL'ed kernel, but on the ir IP that was included against their will.
They can't charge a license fee. Period. There is only one way to distribute Linux with your own source code as SCO has done. And, that way is to license your code under the GPL. You cannot distribute Linux with your code under a different license because then you have no license for all the other code in Linux.
SCO has only two choices with regard to their code in Linux. License it under the GPL, and still get a settlement from IBM for including the code in Linux against contract. Or, get an injunction against all kernels with their code making those kernels at least undistributable, and probably unusable. Then, the kernel developers will have to write out the code to get a distributable new kernel.
Charging a license fee is NOT an option for SCO.
Dastardly
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
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!