Slashdot Mirror
SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?
An anonymous user noted that SCO will
sell you Unixware if you want to "Legitimize" your usage of Linux at your company. If you buy the license, you will be held blameless for your transgressions against SCO! Pricing has yet to be determined for the special licenses, but I suspect that for any value greater than zero, there are going to be a fair number of angry users.
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
It has been mirrored already
Hate me!
Didn't we hear about this yesterday? This isn't exactly new, news. How about waiting for a new bit on it until we actually have some new information. Like IBM or some other simliarly large corporation bending SCO's back the wrong way until it crumples like tin foil?
Seriously.
We know that SCO is being a naughty boy.
We don't need to be reminded about it every day.
This couldn't have been edited onto the previous SCO story this morning?
It's getting to be a bit much, especially since attention is what they're after in the first place, Slashdot...
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok, maybe I don't understand, but isn't supplying a binary-only copy of Linux w/o source the exact opposite of every ideal GNU and the FSF stand for? Maybe I read the article wrong, if anyone can clue me in I'd appreciate. Is this a violation of the GPL?
Even if the price is zero, then I'm personally likely to be angry enough as it is. This is all about accepting that SCO is in the right, and until such time as they've taken this through court and proven that to be the case, I have no intention of doing anything to suggest that they have the right to impose restrictions on my use of Linux.
If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.
As it is, their case is built mostly on hot air, so I can see their motivation in pushing for payment in advance.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I, for one, am grateful for this opportunity to come clean. Where do I send the check?
Best Windows Freeware
is it possible that microsoft are paying sco to become 'most hated business ever' so that we stop beating up on the redmond boys? i'm running out of logical alternatives for this story. i mean... does sco really believe that anyone believes that linux belongs to them?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Sounds reasonable enough to me. How does 25% sound? :)
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Q: "What UnixWare are you running?"
A: "I really don't want to concern myself with what UnixWare."
.sig
A few things can happen. 1) SCO loses, my license purchase was pointless then but I'm only out some money. 2) SCO wins and RedHat pays the licensing fees. My license purchase was pointless again because RedHat's aquisition of a license covers me. Not only that but RedHat will past the cost on to the consumers. 3) SCO wins and RedHat can't afford the licensing fee. RedHat goes out of business and I'm left with an orphaned product.
Basically unless I roll my own internal variant of linux I don't see any positive benefit to purchasing the license unless they intend to go after each business individually in court.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
What about a license to indemnify me from trangressions of SCO against Linux..oh wait IBM gives those out for free!
Thanks IBM!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
This way, they make money without legal fees, and don't need to prove anything. The only thing that can stop this is a countersuit...which I very much hope we see.
Not really no. Even in America, you can't sue something that doesn't exist, and the chances of SCO existing after they've lost are very low indeed.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Pending the outcome of our patent application we are offering carbon-based lifeforms to protect themselves from possible litigation by lisencing out technology for a low upfront fee based on the cell count of the organism.
By chosing to forgo purchasing a lisence, you may be opening yourself to a potential injunctive action down the road.
Ñ'
What if SCO loses in court? What happens to all the companies that buy these licenses to license linux via Unixware? Do they demand a refund? Will SCO just claim "Hey you licensed SCO, not Linux" and keep their moneies?
Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
If I buy this SCO license it means I own Unix right? Do I own Linux? Netware is thrown in there somewhere too isn't it? What about the Brooklyn bridge?
You can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
"Yeah, it'z a real trad-jedy what happened to old Mr. Smith and his hosting bidness down da street. Poor guy. Hoid he was gonna retires in a few weeks. Simply tragic. So, bidness seems do be brisk today, eh? That's great news, iddnit, Bennie? I was was just sayin' to Bennie, 'Gosh, we loves seein local bidness thrive,' I was sayin'. 'Cuz ya know, we's all gots a stake in bidness bein' good, don't we? And we wants ta help make sure that your fine shop doesn't fall victim to the same thugs what so ruthlessly beat an' murdered Mr. Smith, God rest his soul..."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Ahh! so finally we can fill in the blank at point 2.
We'll see how it works out.
Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
What part of "GNU is not UNIX" don't you understand, SCO??
;-)
There... I feel better...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Rather than buying a license, why not just go to their ftp site and download the source code to the Linux kernel? SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources under the GPL.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Even giving SCO the best case argument. Even arguing that their distribution of of Linux didn't put their IP into the GPL domain.... Neither did their distribution of Linux absolve them from obeying the GPL surely?
What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?
i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
A sample of this, in perfect "Management-Speak":
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed.
Which, translated into English says:
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
Not at all
You go, RedHat!
Peace!
At what point can SCO finally be charged with fraud, extortion, and stock manipulation? When can SCO at least be sued in a civil court?
This is the most blantant racket I have ever witnessed. And the USA legal system seems to be completely incapible of doing anything about it. Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.
Germany shut down SCO a long time ago. Germany said put up or shut up - show us some evidence or stop making claims. Predictably, SCO ran away with it's tail between it's legs.
I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.
Why spend money on a primary injunction? While some predicted that this may have been a ruse to get bought out, others held to the premise that SCO is on a sinking ship and just wants money. Since the controversy started, their stock price has gone from $1.09 to upwards of $12 per share. Coincidence? Nope; controversy sells.
a tes/SRPMS/. If that's not donation, I don't know what is.
By spreading FUD and insisting everyone cease and desist without actually seeking an injunction, it seems that the dynamic duo of Sontag and McBride are hoping to make some money without doing any dirty work. However, as was noted before, we have seen the GPL stand up to the legal tests (remember Progress and MySQL fighting over Gemini?). I hope someone eventually nails these guys with a libel suit. They haven't proven anything and they talk about this magical "discovery" phase like the dirty laundry is about to be aired... but it hasn't. As of the time of this post, SCO still has GPL'd Linux up on their FTP: ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/upd
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
I see that you are new amongst us. Welcome. What you're referring to is what we slashdotters call a "dupe". Please report to the re-education center where you will learn many things including, but not limited to, "profit lists", and jokes about non longer in existance soviet nations.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
For desktops and servers, stay the course, but do your research now and be sure you're able to step back to 2.2 should SCO's claims prove valid. With 2.2, you give up some performance and compatibility with a few newer peripherals. But ducking down to 2.2 while the allegedly offending code is removed from 2.4 will cover your business. Be very surprised if it takes more than just a few weeks for an untainted 2.4 branch to be released.
The one thing you should not do is to purchase an SCO license without your legal department fully reviewing the terms of the license. By entering into a license agreement with SCO, your company could find itself vulnerable in all kinds of new ways. If SCO is turning into a pure litigation company, you don't want to be on their customer list!
Because every time the community thinks they know what SCO is talking about, they change their tune. First it was changes only in IBM's distribution, then it was in Red Hat, then it was in the stock 2.4 kernel, now it's in every kernel since 2.4.
It's NUMA, it's RCU, it's JFS, it's low-level subroutines, but they won't tell you exactly what it is. How can you change something when you don't know what needs changing?
Check out this posting from yesterday. You can download a GPLed copy of the Linux kernel from SCO, if you feel you need a license from them.
Problem solved, let's go back to writing code.
SMP came from Alan Cox's work with Caldera-sponsored equipment. A portion of NUMA came from IBM, as did the RCU which allowed greater scalability of the SMP kernel, mostly from removing overhead and latency with talking to many procs. The RCU which was sponsored through IBM, actually came from an acquisition of IBM, who essentially wrote it from scratch. It is the licensing terms and 'derivative work' stipulations which cast doubt on much of the validity of the added code.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.
And oh yeah, go back under the bridge, troll. That wasn't even creative. j00 ()w|\|z3r3d nobody.
Let's suppose that SCO's claim is valid and IBM put some code in Linux that shouldn't have been there.
:P
Why are the end users responsible for licensing SCO's code? They got the product (the linux kernel), under a license from the linux developers, and they're following the license they recieved the product from. If there was a license violation, it's on the developer's head (in this case, IBM).
Think about it: If closed source software stole code and sold it, could the company that originally owned the code sue all the users of that code for violating their license? This doesn't make sense to me -- they'd sue the offending closed source company, and perhaps have them issue some sort of recall or licensing program for the code, but they wouldn't go oafter individuals who thought they bought the software legitimately...
How about another example: if a magazine puts some copyrighted content that they're not supposed to use in their magazine, is the copyright owner going to go after every single person who bought the magazine? No! They're going to go after the distributer, who did the illegal *copying* in the first place!
I really don't understand why companies are giving money to SCO under their legal pressure, when it seems like they have absolutely no legal leg to stand on.
anyone know the real legal implications here? IANAL, Obviously
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
...things are not always as they appear.
I am confident (though possibly wrong of course) that SCO is doing ALL of this for one reason and one reason only. Stock price manipulation. Look at the following issues and contrast them with the timing on this whole fiasco.
52 week stock price of SCO (SCOX)
Price of stock after each insane press release (while SCO has yet to show anything of substance, press releases feed the hungry speculative buyers out there).
Issuance of stock options at very low ($.6x) prices.
Exercising of options.
Sale of stock from exercised options.
I mean come on, most of these guys got options when the stock was at $.66 just before all of this craziness started. Then they crank up the stock price (fueled by nothing more than baseless accusations in the form of press releases) to $10-$12/share, exercise and dump. Where the heck is the SEC on this!!!
I believe that basically the execs at SCO new the ship was going down. They are doing what they're doing to squeeze what blood they can out of the turnip that is SCO. Once they have gotten what they can from stock games, they'll pull an "Oops, I guess we were wrong about that whole Linux intellectual property thing.", turn out the lights and call it quits...money in the bank.
Anyone disagree?
ER
(1) These features were never present in your own UNIX offering. They were not even developed by SCO/Caldera; they were developed by Dynix, which is now a subsidiary of IBM. Because these features were developed for SVR5, you claim they are derivative works of SVR5 and therefore your own intellectual property. The legitimacy of this claim depends upon your contracts with IBM; it is not as black and white as you make it out to be. When asked whether the code supposedly copied from SVR5 originated in BSD, you respond that this is high end "enterprise" code which isn't present in BSD--but it's not present in SVR5 either. Your claims on this matter are misleading.
(2) To state that Linux stole your market is preposterous, since you yourself were a Linux value-added reseller. In fact, you actively contributed to the development of enterprise features for the Linux kernel. You even cooperated with IBM in the Trillian Project (SMP on Linux). Your previous CEO, Ransom Love, spoke of unifying UNIX and Linux into a single platform. Now you turn and say that an enterprise-ready Linux took you completely by surprise, even though you helped bring it where it is.
You portray yourself as a protector of intellectual property rights, but then you seek to wrest control of Linux from its creators on the basis of unproven allegations of copyright infringement. Your arrogance and hypocrisy know no bounds. Linux development has been very transparent, as Linus Torvalds has said. If you were really interested in protecting the intellectual property of all parties involved, you would work with the kernel developers to find out which parties contributed your intellectual property to the kernel and seek relief from them and/or allow the infringing code to be removed. Even if this would disable Linux SMP for a time, there are millions of Linux users running uniprocessor systems who were never infringing on your IP in the first place, and should not have to pay you a license fee. Furthermore, your move to collect license payments from Linux users without identifying specifically what they are licensing or even proving that you have a claim on Linux at all is fraudulent.
Your proposed Linux licensing program amounts to the wholesale theft of years of effort from thousands of Linux contributors. You have profited from their efforts for nearly a decade, and now you stab them in the back and bite the hand that fed you. Since you could not compete in the marketplace, you resort to barratry, racketeering, and extortion.
You can mod me down as a paranoiac, but think about this for a second...
What is the one major difference between MS software and OSS software from a business standpoint?
Licensing.
What has Microsoft had so much trouble getting their customers on board about?
Licensing.
What is the one thing that SCO is now saying that Linux users must now purchase from them?
Licensing.
If you're the average run of the mill CTO, and you were thinking of switching to Linux... you now must think about licensing.
Furthermore, you must think about licensing it from a company embroiled in a lawsuit with IBM, whose future is uncertain.
So, given the choice between free software with no one company behind it, or closed-source software with a company behind it, and licensing on both sides... which do you pick?
The answer is obvious. And that is why Microsoft must be sitting pretty, grinning to themselves - they have effectively nullified the main argument for going with OSS. (Since some of the software can be at least considered on par, technical merits are equal.)
libertarianswag.com
I include it verbatim, to save you using the link
SCO has made a big noise about registering SVR4
copyrights and announced their linux liscensing
plan, which they call a UNIX liscensing plan. Looks
like they're going for $1500 per LINUX seat for Unixware
liscense to emdemnify from lawsuit.
HOWEVER everything is not as the media is reporting...
The copyright they registered is a 20 page revision
to SVR4 (i.e SVR4.1ES) registration number TX-5-705-356.
You can verify this at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
The original UNIX copyright was never registered to Novell,
and is currently registered to (SURPRISE!) AT&T.
I'm not sure about the legal ramnifications, I believe
that SCO has the right to copyright derivitive works
in their aggreement with Novell. However, a search at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
under the tab "Copyright ownership documents,
such as name changes and transfers" shows no
record of any copyright transfers to SCO Group.
In short, despite what is being widely reported,
SCO still has not acquired (and may not be able
to acquire) the copyright that they are
threatening to use to sue LINUX users.
(Copyrights MUST be registered before lawsuits
may be filed).
Face the facts. All SCO has done is blabber on and on about how they think that Linux contains UNIX code and not backing up their claims about it with any substantial information. Their claims about SMP and business related aspects are total BS, as even before IBM involvement, Linux was a very mature OS. Right now, their third rate OS Unixware is capable of 8 processor SMP, while Linux is capable of up to 64. Why would any intelligent person take parts for a Mustang from an Escort?
Their claims will not hold up in a court of law. If you think that any company can just make random claims and extort money off of the hard work of others, then you obviously are not familliar with the legal process. The very notion that SCO is selling licenses to UnixWare for Linux, BEFORE a trial even started, just proves that they are dishonest in making a licensing scheme for a product that they did not prove was theirs.
The only solid evidence that SCO may have is the fact that there are portions of similar code in Linux and in SVR4 UNIX, the latter of which they own. Recently, the code, all 80 lines of it, was shown to some people who signed a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently, not all the people who viewed it had to sign, a mistake on their part, and it seems that even these 80 lines are kind of a stretch. There were no line numbers, no filenames, no function names on the demosnstration packet. Sometimes, there were portions that made no sense at all, like identical comments next to completely different portions of code. SCO claims that there are tens of thousands more, and Sontag even made that claim that there were files that were directly taken from UNIX. If any of that crap is true, then why did they show only 80 lines of it, where most of it was kind of a stretch?
Linux was developed through the most transparent means possible, and it is possible to see where almost every feature of the kernel came from. The developers were even very careful about the small portions that IBM did contribute, and added it in after much verification.
In conclusion, if you're not trolling, then you're either misinformed, hate Linux, or are just ignorant. I don't care whether or not you hate Linux or free software, but telling lies about it makes you no better than SCO.
Well Linus is only providing a part of the Linux O/S and one that is least likely to actually infringe. So Linus is perhaps not the best test.
A better test would be IBM who seems to be completely unphased by the situation and has racks of the best IP lawyers that money can buy.
SCO faces a big problem trying to make its case. This is not a normal copyright infringement case where the ownership of the copyright is beyond doubt. Proving SCO's case will take many years - if that is actually possible at all. In the process SCO will be forced to specify exactly the portions of the code that are alleged to infringe. It is beyond doubt that by the time any case came to court for a judgement that any infringing components would have been removed.
That is before any consideration of the GPL. SCO continued to distribute Linux under the GPL long after they acquired the rights to UnixWare. Even if their Linux claim were true they have licensed the relevant code under the GPL.
This is nothing but the death throes of a dying company that has gambled on one last chance to show a return. They could well keep the stock price high for some time while the management sell out their shares.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group, August 2002 Linux Journal Article #6293
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.
I don't think Linux can afford to wait until 2005. The way corporate suits think, SCO will (and this is their aim) scare them away from Linux forever.
In the end, (puts tinfoil hat on) I think we will see that there is some deal between M$ and SCO. I think in the end, we will see M$ gobble up SCO, but not before M$ completely whores out SCO. Have you ever been to Red West? It's the way these people operate (removes tinfoil hat).
This gives them a nice out: they don't offer a "linux license" but they threaten you if you don't have a Unixware one.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Because SCO will only show someone the "offending code" if they sign an NDA. The NDA would then prevent them from removing the code if it exists.
This shouldn't be a surprise. SCO doesn't want any alleged code to be removed. As soon as it is removed they no longer have anything to threaten customers with and force a license purchase. After all, a threat of "upgrade your kernel or pay us $1000" won't make nearly as much money as a threat of "pay us $1000 or risk a lawsuit."
The worst thing that could happen to SCO right now would be if the case was mainlined and taken to court quickly. I think this would also be the best thing for Linux too.
Note to SCO lawyers... this posting is mearly my opinion and IANAL.
I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.
The system works.
It is the best in the world.
We are a shining beacon of justice to humanity.
As we recall, when we demonstrated to the world how perfectly the American legal system works, showing the rest of humanity once again How to Live Properly(tm, Bush & Co.) with the historical supreme court ruled that a Florida recount really wasn't necessary through the most convulated and strained logic quite possibly ever set to paper and handed the presidency to a man most of the world correctly recognizes as not having been elected by the American People (but "it was a victory for democracy" quoth the spinmeisters).
America has the best system in the world. I know. I saw it on TV.
[/sarcasm]
The legal system in America is so broken, and in such disrepute among the common man, that even my republican voting mother has absolutely no faith in it. As a liberal voter on the other end of the spectrum I share her lack of confidence in that system fully, as does everyone I know or have spoken with, a couple of attorneys and one retired judge excepted.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
See the thing is, attorneys cost money. May as well use the licensing to get your money. Also it makes you look confident that you will win which doesn't hurt the stock price.
My thought, is that if SCO starts going to companies using Linux and threatening them saying they will sue if they don't license their code, the correct response is, "show me the code." If I'm not mistaken they have to proove you KNOWINGLY violated their copyright, and given the legally indeterminate nature of this case right now, that doesn't seem plausible.
Maybe I should go and claim that my IP is in Linux too. It's not, but as long as nobody else knows that for certain, maybe I can get a few litigously nervous companies to write me nice checks.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Although I hear the next release might take the kernel up from 2.0 to 2.2, so watch out!
-- Hulver's site
I work at a software vendor who produces software for numerous large commercial instituations such as banks, telco's, etc. We have recently had a number of these companies request that we sign an agreement stating that software we have provided them DOES NOT contain any "Free Software". This has been a headache as of late, especially for my team. We work in Java and have used numerous LGPL libraries from various locations in our product to save time during development. We now have to get rid of all of these and rewrite it ourselves. Not fun.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
The problem is, SCO isn't telling what code is tainted, or how. If SCO actually wanted Linux users to stop infringing on the use of this hypothetical code, they would tell us what it is so that we could remove it. But that's not what SCO wants; instead, it's in their best interests to spread FUD and extort what money they can from IBM and anyone else who's willing to pay.
There isn't any proprietary code in the Linux kernel. Anything that goes in it is owned by the copyright holder and released under the GPL. If IBM put violated some license agreement with SCO and put code in the kernel that doesn't belong (highly unlikely indeed), SCO's suit is against IBM for whatever damages that releasing such code is worth.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
In other news, Lawrence Ellison of Oracle Corp announced that he intended to launch a hostile buyout offer for SCO... "we don't really want their products, we just want their lawyers."
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
If that's the case, I'm moving to europe (or at least canada) where they don't have legal systems where parasite companies can take advantage of people and businesses.
The real question here is what is more viral - SCO's Unix licenses or the GPL.
SCO's license is for Derivitive Works of UNIX. IBM developed AIX from the Unix source tree. They can't just come up with AIX version 2 and decide not to pay SCO.
The GPL says that any software released under GPL must be released under GPL in any and all future versions and source code must be given. BOTH says all Derivative works must fall under the same license.
SCO is implying that IBM tried to take UNIX technology, put it into Linux and then ditch SCO licenses. Assume they are correct in their allegations. IBM, SCO or someone else released some code from a SCO Derivitive Work into the Linux Kernel.
Does Linux then become a Derivitive work of UNIX? Do parts of UNIX suddely become GPL? What if the code was originally from a 3rd party and in UNIX first, but freely available elsewhere? How much code must be transferred for these licenses to apply? Do the licenses cover the actual implementation or the algorithms used? Is removal of the code an acceptable solution when the order to do so may come down years later? What person or method could we trust enough to audit the code bases and decide what goes and stays?
Whatever the case may be, this long and drawn out lawsuit is bound to set some important precedents. The longer we wait, the more work that will be required *IF* code must be removed in the future after being built upon. The results of the Microsoft Monopoly case may have been disappointing, but this is IBM vs SCO battle with a Billion dollar prize.
In the end only the lawyers will be left standing.
Sun even more so. Unlike Msft, Sun insisted that their contributions remain confidenctial. Also, unlike msft, Sun got a buttload of option given to them by scox.
Sun is saying that they were just buying drivers from scox. Since when does a purchase like that come with a few hundred thousand options? The options are for $1.83, SCOX now selling for $13.
Amongst many gems there is this,
I would strongly recommend reading the whole of the article I have linked. Moglen's stuff starts with the heading "Legally Speaking". It is very informative and quite reassuring.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
...but I figured this was the best approach for figuring out exactly what SCO is trying to sell. Nowhere on the SCO page could I find any reference to this new "license" for UnixWare. In fact, the only place I could find any of their EULA information was by trying to download some of there software (I decided to check the EULA on UnixWare 7.1.3).
The only place that I can even see a mention of source code is here:
"Software" is the machine-readable (object) code portion of the Product and any human readable code contained on the media.
which reads to me that they don't give out their source code. Also, they have admitted here:
Caldera, the Caldera logos, Caldera OpenLearning, Caldera Volution, OpenLinux, Lizard, Webmin, SCO, The SCO Group, and associated logo, SCO OpenServer, SCO Open Server, ODT, Open Desktop, AIM Benchmark, and Hot Iron Awards are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S.A. and other countries. Caldera Global Services is a service mark of Caldera International, Inc. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. SCO Legal Notice
that Linux is not SCO, and SCO is not Linux. As well as a reference in the EULA that there may be free software adhering to the GNU Public License included with their products.
So unless someone who was authorized to view their code (ie a real SCO developer), there should be no way that SCO Unix code could have found its way into the kernel. They also make no claims about Unix being SCO property in either their legal documentation or their EULA.
Either they haven't drafted this new license, or they're talking out of their asses. Any votes as to which??
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
From SCO's reply to Novell's copyright allegations:
"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.... SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees."
So now SCO wants me to have a contract with them, by purchasing a UnixWare license? Why, so they can use it as a more effective weapon against me later? No thanks, Darl.
the no
My pending lawsuit against the toothfairy (illicit confiscation and commercial usage of my (copyrighted) DNA) speaks otherwise!
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
For a mere 10 bucks, I'll send them a photo of me giving them the finger. Until SCO produces real evidence, fuck SCO.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Not really no. Even in America, you can't sue something that doesn't exist, and the chances of SCO existing after they've lost are very low indeed.
By this do you mean that the chances of SCO the organization remaining solvent are very low, or that the chances of the current SCO leadership not being assassinated by berzerk Linux zealots are very low?
(note for the humor impaired: even as a borderline Linux zealot I would not support acts of violence against any SCO executive... although forcing them to to spend a long time incarcerated for securities fraud while in constant fear of prison rape is kind of a grey area, particularly if the other inmates make apropos jokes like "So you think if I inject you with a tiny bit of my property, that means I own you, right?")
In SCO's case, the damages could be easily mitigated by releasing enough detailed information so that the offending modules can be rewritten. Now we have a good idea why SCO has chosen not to do this, it is not to their short term advantage. They are relying on FUD to boost their stock prices and provide a cash stream to pay Bois and friends.
So the real question is, how will the court interpret the fact that they have refused to mitigate damages? Any lawyers out there that can answer this question?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
I would really hate any company to read this, and think that SCO has any legal ground vs. the linux community whatsoever, so I will repost my message, from yesterday, here to clarify SCO's idiocy:
. org/copyleft/gpl.html
...
Here, is where I think SCOs major flaw in their argument is, the GPL circa Jan 28, 1999 explicitly states in its preamble:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Refer to way back machine: http://web.archive.org/web/19990128195748/www.gnu
And seeing as how SCO has been distributing Linux which had their code in the kernel. They have thusly, knowingly or not, distributed their rights, to the GPLd code in question, to the public. Because, of the statement above. Or if you want to hear it straight from GNU's statement:
Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution.
...
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
...what would happen if we tried "attacking" SCO the best way we know how - ignore them!
/. is falling into the trap of making a point of the amount of smoke the SCO is generating - and (accepting the golden rule about managers being sheep and not thinking for themselves) managers believe that where there's smoke....
/.'ers and the press are doing is pumping this information up and ramping up the share price of a company that was very near to having death throws not so long back.
/.'ers, the general populas) can do.
Treat them the same way you'd treat an abnoxious, rude kid that is throwing a tantrum - walk away. When the kid sees there isn't an audiance they normally stop.
All that this sort of reporting does is create more FUD - and
All
Until the Judge that hears the prelim falls about laughing before chucking the case out, there is nothing we (linux community,
So sit back, relax and when people go "What about SCO' case" go "BAH", wave them away with the words "shoo shoo" and then go back to making a difference.
And remember, you can't spell Scoundrels with out the letters s c o
Jaj
That's right let's all pay SCO the "license fee". Just remember to send them the right amount of Monopoly(tm) bills, because they don't give change.
As I posted in another thread, after reading a fairly good article on the subject in eWeek this morning, I think the SCO suit is going to be completely irrelevant to most people for the following reasons (IANAL, this is my opinion based on articles I've read and etc):
1. The suit isn't due to come into court until 2005. Until the court makes some kind of judgement, SCO has absolutely zero legal power to demand anything from anyone. They can send all the letters they want; but until a court makes a decision, they're just letters.
2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net.
3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?
4. 2005 gives the market a full two years to crush SCO. The court case will probably drag on for another two or three years, giving the market even more time. How is a company like SCO going to stay aloat that long? How is it going to avoid a hostile takeover for that long? Two to five years is an eternity when it comes to software.
5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Add it all together, and you'll see that buying SCO right now is a sucker move. If you just continue with business as usual, keeping the option of switching to BSD down the road, or updating to a new, unencumbered kernel, or migrating from X86 to whatever new platform is the vogue in 2005, you can (I think) pretty much ignore SCO. If, and this is remote, they win, it won't matter anyway. You can still dodge their sad attempts at extortion as I've pointed out.
This whole thing is a total non-issue.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Can I borrow ten bucks?
General Nuisance: "Let's threaten to sue the world, and maybe we'll get bought" (If I scream loud enough, Mom or Dad will just give me ten bucks to get me to shut the hell up.)
Impotent attempt at Intimidation: "You'd better quit using Linux right now!" (Gimme the ten bucks, dammit!)
Appeal to authority: "I'll sue you if you don't quit using Linux" (I'll tell mommy you're being a hog if you don't share!)
Appeal to justice: "That code was developed here. Linux wouldn't exist without SCO." (You stole ten bucks from me last week. Give it back, ya big bully!). Note that Scooter's a little twerp who's way more likely to steal from someone else, than get stolen from.
Harrassing your Target: "Dear Linux User...you're using our code." (Can I borrow ten bucks? How 'bout now? How 'bout now?)
Appeal to pity: "How can you leave our company and all its employees without jobs?" (If you don't lend me ten bucks, I can't go see "Finding Nemo").
Bargaining: "Just buy this cheap license. I know it's worthless, but it'll get us to leave you alone." (Just give me five bucks and I'll quit bothering you)
Earning the ten bucks: "SCO begins developing a useful project (Maybe a financial program that interoperates with Quicken) & puts it up on sourceforge for us to all share & enjoy. Then they ask for donations to keep them afloat." (OK, Sis. I did all your chores for the week. Can I have the ten bucks now?)
Oops--that last one was how everyone else got their ten bucks. Scooter's looking for an easier way.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Ok, I did my part and filed a complaint with the SEC, concerning the allegations that this whole lawsuit was just a scheme to artificially inflate the price of SCOX stock, so the big shareholders could bail out and profit.
0 00 104746903023599/a2114384zs-3.htm
C OX %20&selected=SCOX
0 20 4&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185
/ 05 28203&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185
6 24 0&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid= 88
5 26 NWBZLL
Here's what I sent the SEC:
Names, Address, Telephone #s and Other Biographical Information
about Individuals Involved
Darl McBride, CEO, other executives
How you Learned about the Transaction or other Activity
Published media report, SEC filings, Internet postings on Slashdot.org
Details About the Transaction(S)
It appears that top executives at SCOX gave (and exercised) generous stock options at an artificially low price, to themselves, immediately before filing a lawsuit against IBM; regarding alleged IP violations relating to the Linux operating system. Since that time, SCOX stock has increased in value dramatically. Based on the volume of insider trades that have taken place since the suit was file, it appears that this suit was filed only to inflate the value of the SCOX stock, so they could "cash out" and pocket millions. There is also a strong possibility that these same executives know the suit is without merit, as they knowingly distributed the disputed code under the terms of the GPL license, which Linux is provided under. It also appears that if any IP made it's way from SCOX's code into Linux' code, it was done by an employee of SCOX (when they were previously known as Caldera ).
If on the Internet, All Relevant Internet Addresses
www.caldera.com, www.sco.com
Any Additional Information
Use this area to add any additional information that you wish.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22/141
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/151
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003072201
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
It's not a problem for the latest tactic. If a Judge determines that SCO bought Calera -- without knowing that Caldera was distributing their stolen copyrighted code -- and they continued the normal operations of Caldera until such time as they figured out that "Hey, this is our code!" , then they promptly took legal action, it could be argued that they did not knowingly agree to the license.
Under this tactic, SCO is saying "well, fine, we won't distribute Linux (thus we won't be subject to the GPL), we'll just attack distributors who don't have licenses for our copyrighted code by taking them to court for copyright infringement.
Under this scenario, SCO doesn't care if the GPL is valid or invalid. SCO doesn't care if the IP was wrongfully contributed and distributed under the GPL... Under this scenario, SCO would be arguing that they haven't done any distributing, and thus they can prevent people from distributing these unauthorized copies of their work... unless they have a license... because SCO is a third party who has nothing to do with the GPL granted between the code-theif and the recipient.
Of course this means that they can't knowingly continue to violate the GPL by distributing Linux in any form.
The critical flaw with this whole scenario is in the GPL's clause indicating that the code cannot be distributed period if there is a license encumbrument. It goes a little weird when the contribution is by a code-theif who can't be trusted to reveal all their contributions and that the copyright is in the hands of a third party who won't reveal what the code-theif contributed either.
Unfortunately, if SCO is aruging that the code is a trade secret and is protected by copyright, they might just make it nearly impossible for anyone to definitively purge the secretly copyrighted code from the kernel.
So under this maligned idea, this will either push the kernel back a few years, or blow over when a Judge decides that either 1. SCO did release the code under the GPL, 2. The code is not stolen, 3. that the code is not a trade secret and SCO has an obligation to minimize everyone's damages by revealing where the copyrighted code resides.
IANAL, etc, it's just an idea. I think any judge in their right mind would at least argue #3. #1 and #2 are not crystal clear to me. After all, if Caldera for example, was cooking their books, would SCO be on the hook by discovering it and revealing it, even months after buying them?
SCO is arguing that Caldera, like everyone else distributing Linux is/was guilty of an illegal act.
I agree with some of your points, and I agree with ignoring SCO, but I have this compulsive need to correct what I see as some rather large oversites in your post. No offense intended.
"2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net."
Linux and BSD have coexisted for what...12 years now, and they have nevertheless maintained distinctive personalities. Do you honestly believe that in 2 more years they will suddenly be interchangable? It's not as if that's the sort of thing anyone is even working on. It's just silly.
"3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?"
There are still people running 2.2 now. Heck, there are still people running 2.0 now. I'm sure in 2005 there will be plenty of people still running 2.4. 2.6 isn't even done yet. Never underestimate the power of legacy software.
"5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?"
Another case of a strange conception of time. x86 has been with us for a very long time, and it is set to be with us for longer. Particularly if AMD's x86-64 extensions take off. Talking about 486s is a tad erroneous (even ignoring the fact that many of us, including me, still have 486s in their basements doing useful things) since the processors we use today are still based on the same exact ISA that those 486s were based on. So you just disproved your own point!
But nevermind that. What exactly does x86 have to do with anything anyway? Linux is a many-architecture OS. That is one if its strengths. To my knowledge there is nothing in SCO's lawsuit that is x86 specific.
Physics is good
2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net.
SCO does not consider BSD to be unencumbered, so that won't necessarily save you from being sued. As far as SCO is concerned, basically everyone who has put out an OS in the last 30 years owes them money. They've specifically mentioned Linux (2.4 and 2.5), AIX, Windows, OSX, Solaris, etc. Don't think that you'll be safe from the raving lunatics at SCO just because you switch from Linux.
3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?
Linux kernel 2.0 is still maintained, and it was released in 1997 (IIRC). Think about that. Enough people are are still using 2.0 that it's still being maintained!
5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
x86 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Who's still using 486's? Well, TV production studios and broadcasters are using them in their media servers. The 486 just runs the OS, and everything else is done by specialized cards (MPEG encoding/decoding, disk I/O, audio processing, etc). More importantly, though, Intel has shown no interest in moving the consumer market off of IA32, much less x86 in general, and AMD is even more dedicated to x86. That covers over 90% of the consumer PC market, so what's left? Cellphones and PDAs? Nobody uses their PDA for serious work, and that isn't going to change by 2008. Even the slim chance that PPC970 will take over the world, leaving x86 irrelevant, will not save you since, as I've already pointed out, SCO doesn't consider the BSDs to be unencumbered.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I have a problem with what SCO is doing. I have bought and downloaded and used Caldera Linux in the past and recently from Caldera/SCO. So my question is do their customers need a license? If they don't and the product is GPLed then why does anyone need a license at all. If the product isn't GPL then I should be able to sue for "bait and switch" as well as misrepresentation of the product. I bought it, and it was suppose to be a GPLed Linux distribution. Also I should be able to sue for false advertisement since SCO/Caldera advertised a product that was suppose to be a GPLed Linux product with a few extra commercial programs and commercial support.
SCO can't say that everyone using Linux needs a license but their customers, because their customers are covered under their purchase and the GPL. If so then I can give my stuff away for free and SCO can't do anything about it. If not then I should sue SCO for lying to me both in the sale of the product and in the advertising of the product.
SCO can't have it both ways. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either it was covered under the GPL and thus everyone should ignore SCO, or they are facing major lawsuits from all of their customers for misrepresentation of the product and out and out lying about the product.
Which is it?