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,
..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?"
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 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***
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.
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
... 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.
SCO is still distributing kernel 2.4.13. Are they licensing this code under the GPL or not?
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
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.
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...
>>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
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry but you are way off base here and show a lack of understanding of IP law. It depends greatly on exactly what IP rights SCO is asserting were violated. Currently SCO is only asserting breach of contract and trade secret disclosure. The ONLY parties who are liable were the ones who signed the contracts involved.
Even if SCO was to claim copyright violation it would be difficult for them to go after everyone who distributed linux since the distributors and users acted on the assumption of good faith. Typically at worst they could demand that everyone stop distributing the infringing code.
The only scenario where SCO would have any possible legitimate claim against the users would be patent infringement. This is highly unlikely since SCO holds few or no current patents. (if anything SCO should be afraid of violating IBM's patents, indeed this is likely a key part of IBM's defense strategy.)
This case has little or nothing to do with the Internet and much to do with a contract dispute. If SCO was suing Microsoft for breach of contract and disclosure of trade secrets, Windows users would be in no more danger of being individually sued than linux users currently are.
(I do realize that SCO could file lawsuits against individual users if they really wanted to. However when it was discovered that the suits had no basis, SCO would get bitchslaped hard)
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.