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
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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
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.
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
But there are clear advantages like having the ability to view and modify the source code and the ability to run on more than one platform.
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...
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.
They also do it because heavy users of Microsoft Windows(r) software except to click through a license as they install. If they don't see 10 pages of lawyer-speak to ignore, they get confused and think they've missed a step.
Seriously, the kits used to make installation packages for Windows software (like InstallShield, or Winzip installer) create the Accept/Decline license box automatically, and just ask the developer to paste in his license.
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...
As has been constantly said, you can't openly run pirated software or listen to pirated music without fear of reprisal anymore. The corporations that own the intellectual property have wised up to the ways of the Internet and are cracking down. Whether the Linux kernel has any SCO I.P. in it has yet to be proven, but if it does then everyone is on pretty shaky ground.
If they can prove it in a court of law, will most Linux users continue to ignore them like they do the RIAA and hope they'll fly under the radar? This is a very real situation here. Either the SCO management is incredibly stupid or they have staggering evidence to back up their claims. Not many corporations would be willing to risk everything like this over a complete lie. Well, perhaps Enron, Worldcom and Tyco, but those are exceptions.
Most corporations are good, honest, hard working organizations that have the interests of the public at heart. OK, maybe not that either, but they're not willing to put their asses on the line unless they have paper asshole covers to back it up. The question of the day is still, does SCO have their shit in order? If they do then Linux users could be in for a bumpy ride.
As someone who maintains a couple of Install Sheild 3 configurations for the company I work for, there is nothing to force you to display an Accept/Decline dialog, you have to explicitly go through several steps to configure one as part of the installation. So there are idiots out there who actually go out of their way to make you click through the GPL. Go figure.
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
Actually, IBM is quite sure of its footing, and you can see a lot of what IBM's tactics will be in Eric Raymond's position paper for OSI. What should have set off huge warning bells for SCO was IBM's 3 paragraph press release, which included the sentence "This will be resolved in the normal legal process.". For comparison, 2 days later another IBM press release about IBM donating WiFi support to 600 Boys & Girls Clubs ran to 12 paragraphs. Now think about that - they're certain enough of the outcome of a $3B lawsuit that they're spending 4 times as much effort talking about a donation of 6,000 PCs.
IBM is by nature a slow-moving and cautious company, and at the current time there's no reason for them to hurry. Remember - they took 17 years to resolve their anti-trust case a few decades ago, and will spend as many months as they feel needed to get their cased lined up. Also, note that delay may be in IBM's interest - the longer SCO persists in acting foolish, the better the chances that SCO will give IBM more things to use against them.
But rest assured - IBM is pissed, and is readying the corporate equivalent of a "shock and awe" retaliation. They fully intend to leave SCO headquarters looking like Dresden after the firestorms.
Why Dresden rather than Hiroshima? Well, Dresden was a firestorm rather than an explosion - almost all the damage was fueled by the city itself burning rather than externally provided. Similarly, most of the damage to be done to SCO will be fuled by SCO, not IBM...
Granted, if I ever got seriously into distributing software, like for money or as a buisness or anything, I'd spend the couple days to package it right ;)
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????
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.
Actually, when MS runs a little low on MS Office revenue, instead of holding a sale (and raising prices later) they just instruct their resellers to stop checking for student ID for the educational version. That gets the units sold number right up but is a blatant violation of the EULA that is promoted by the vendor. I've seen it happen in retail stores and seen an interview where the VP in charge of the Office division confirmed it was policy but, of course, didn't talk about that as piracy.
The GPL explicitly states that it does not cover "use". So I don't think I need to agree to the GPL in order to use it.
Take for example clause 5:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Note that here too it doesn't mention "use".
If I don't have to accept the license as end user I also don't have to agree to clause 11 or 12.
Downloading from Napster/Kazaa/et all is not illegal in and of itself.
However, if you discover that something you downloaded from there is covered by copyright, and you then keep it, then and only then have you committed an illegal act.
A friend of mine put a 3.4 MB text file on Kazaa under the name of some Brittany Spears single, and tagged it as an MP3. Downloading that, even though it had the same name, was not illegal. Neither was uploading it.
Of course, he's doing this because he wants to be sued by a knee-jerk responding RIAA.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
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.
Um sorry who are the Idiots that moded this crap Insightful, it's not Insightful it's moronic, competent management DO NOT PAY SCAM ARTIST's...
Actually that's how most businesses operate! They carry out actions that minimize risks. A classic example is the Y2K computer problem a few years ago. There were a lot of businesses that actually carried out Y2K audits, trainings, upgrades, etc even though Y2K was hardly a concern for them (ie. businesses where the rollover has no impact on the business, or systems that don't even deal with dates). The reason many companies paid a lot of money to consultants, etc for the Y2K issue is to avoid LIABILITY and NEGLIGENCE. It is in the interest of a company to spend a few hundread thousand to avoid future lawsuits relating to Y2K. If a problem did show up in the future, they can at least say "We did everything we can. We checked all our systems. So it was not as if we were negligent. We are not responsible."
That's how the world works. It wouldn't suprise me if a 100 or so Linux customers actually signed on to the SCO deal--not because they believe SCO to be correct, but rather to avoid liability in the future.
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
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-
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.