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?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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***
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.
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.
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
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.
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