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.
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."
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
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
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.
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.
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!
Actually, it's a bit more than that. Since nothing has yet been proven and all of this is allegation, isn't this just a form of blackmail? Isn't that illegal? Here is a definition of "blackmail", which I find very interesting indeed:
It isn't much of a stretch to see how today the threat of "exposing a criminal act or discreditable information" has the same effect as "threatening to sue the pants off of someone for alleged and unproven wrongdoing." Perhaps even more interesting is the relationship of this next definition to SCO's current approach:
(All of these from dictionary.com) That last one is all about what SCO wants: "We're the pirates, pay us and we won't harm you."
I may be wrong (hey, it's happened before), but I find it interesting that the people who shout most loudly about their legal rights are often those quickest to disregard the rights of others.
-1 : Redundant
Trolling using another account since 2005.
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.
(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.
We have heard some of it, but mostly from user's comments. The article from this morning was focused on code and a way to track some contributions by Caldera employees to the kernel.
I for one welcome any news regarding this issue. Slashdot is known for it's huge Linux audience and is very handy to have a unified source of information and comments.
Why bother? A lot of us work on companies that use Linux (myself included), even some of us have helped our employers move from proprietary Unices to Linux (myself included), and in my case I also work as a independent consultant and have helped a lot of clients to make UN*X->Linux and WIN->Linux transitions (I make all the solutions using free software and license them under the GPL to my clients, if they want to redistribute the system or a modified version of it they must release the source, if not they are free to keep it secret) so this SCO issue is affecting (and has a lot of potential to affect really badly) my job and bussiness.
You never have too much information, and in any case, you can always not click on the link and let it pass. A lot of us even want to see more stories about this issue.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
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).
"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.
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'm not sure if it's legal either, but it sure reeks of a protection racket to me. (It's especially galling given that they haven't even established in court that they do in fact own what they claim to.) I've complained to my state attourney general about it. I'd like to think they'll look into it, but my state AG is one of the ones who caved on the MS antitrust settlement...
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
>>most of these guys got options when the stock was at $.66 just before all of this craziness started.
C OX &selected=SCOX
Actually, in January, when scox was still planning the lawsuit. SCOX insiders gave themselves a boatload of shares for - get this - $0.001 each. So insiders could sell shares for one cent each and still make 1000% profit. SCOX stock is now $13/share. Insiders are selling like mad.
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S