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,
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 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 As soon as GPL software has been "polluted" with commercial software, the GPL has been revoked.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
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...
This is one more case where a loser pays rule would be an improvement on the US legal system. Right now, it makes sense for a company to pay SCO's license fees if they are below the cost of litigation even if the claims are baseless. The shareholders lose less money if you pay the dane geld (or at least that's the way I'm betting SCO priced out its licenses). I would expect a vast disparity between SCO licenses extracted in jurisdiction without loser pay and a vastly smaller number of licensees in loser pays jurisdictions.
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.
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.