Slashdot Mirror
SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems
walterbyrd quotes: "'We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights.' SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003." Update: 08/05 18:24 GMT by M : After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!
What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic. Check out SCO's stock. And now with this announcement if the trend continues, investors may lean even more towards SCO (although, I am not sure why). Unbelievably insane.
Unique signatures are rare.
I was talking to my boss about putting a linux file server in here, and was making decent headway recently. Now, somehow he heard of this SCO BS, and hes got cold(er) feet. My angle was the cost savings, but now thats gone, so no linux here for a while...
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
RTFA. First of all, they specifically mention 2.4 and 2.5. They consider Linux a direct descendant of their UNIX IP so whatever the kernel version is it's all irrelevant to them.
Because their supposed intellectual property was added during the 2.4 development cycle. I suspect they will also apply this to 2.6 when there's enough deployment to make it worth money.
From the press release...
Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site
Actually, I believe XP Professional will support up to 2 CPUs.
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
CTO: We would like to remove all linux machines from our corporate network, please do this now.
Me: But SCO has shown no proof that any code exists within the linux kernel
CTO: After talking to the CEO, we would like you to put up any money that may be required if SCO were to win the case and name us in a lawsuit, are you willing to do this?
Me: um, no...
CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.
at least they didn't decide to just purchase an SCO license. Which is better?
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
SCO licensed me all their IPs for free. Sure, they are willing to license them to you for $699 but why not just accept their free offer? Go here and download the linux kernel and rest easy. It's not like SCO is unaware they are still willing to license the kernel under the GPL, I told them a couple of weeks back.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Darl just claimed the court date for the IBM suit is April 2005. He also surmised that the Red Hat suit would follow several months later.
He also claimed that for the time being their license will be a one time license.
Even though no one will know the truth about their code until 2005, selling licenses will begin immediately. Darl apparently wants us all to bend over and take it because the price will increase after their October deadline.
Can anyone say their business model is extortion?
There are ways to limit your losses when shorting a stock. One is to buy call options on it. For instance, say SCO is $30 now, and you've short-sold 1,000 shared at $20. If you buy call options at $70 for the same date, the most you can lose is $50,000. If SCO drops to $10, you don't excercise the options and make $10,000 minus the option price (which should be prety low).
"Linux" would probably be ruled lost by a court, because Linus Torvalds, the holder of the mark, has not enforced any rights he may have had to the mark. I am a lawyer.
GNU is an operating system. Are you thinking of the Free Software Foundation? They'll only sue if their copyrights are being infringed upon, as far as I know, they don't have any code in the kernel.
I sure hope nobody takes this seriously. If people do actually "buy the right to use Linux" at that price, then SCO can claim that their price is the market value usage of "their property" and begin the overvalued copyright violation suits. Somebody should send them an offer to pay $1 for a license and see what they say to that...
Hey, could someone cut-and-paste this into a comment so that I don't get slashdotted too badly?
http://www.shout.net/~mec/sco/call-2003-08-05.txt
These are raw notes. I'll put my analysis in a comment.
This is NOT capitalism in action. Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily. Capitalism is the absence of force.
Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.
SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
What SCO is trying to do is forever change the way Linux is licensed. They basically stated this in their conference call. They claim that Linux developers want to have their work protected and that the GPL is not really the way to go anymore. (at least if your SCO) Then, to top that off, they want to make their few lines of code worth more than the punch card it was written on! It's no wonder Microsoft paid for a license... It's the same kinda philosophy Micro-Soft came out with in 1976 in Bill's Open Letter to Hobbyists. It was just as misguided then as it is now.
SCO even went on to say that they would eventually target end-users as well. I guess they are taking lessons form the RIAA now too.
- Slew -
Even if they have the right to force a license on commercial Linux users (which they don't), their pricing structure just doesn't make any sense -- it's not competitive. Hell, Windows 200x Server doesn't cost as much as their $1399/cpu price...
This would make sense if SCO actually employed anyone but lawyers.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Their compliance, of course, would mean that they can't enforce this $699 thing.
I suspect you may have meant this anyway, but just to be clear: the GPL does not preclude you from charging for a distribution. However, you must release your distribution and its source code under the GPL, so someone else is perfectly well within their rights to release it for free.
Typically, distributors burn GPL programs on CD collections and charge a fee to recover media and distribution costs, for those who either don't have a T1 line at home or can't be bothered to download code. This activity is perfectly proper under the GPL.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
... ...
... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
... just remove the infringing code.
... important debate ...
... now we're going to take matters in our own hands.
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain.
Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.
2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400
800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.
2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400
Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.
2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400
McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.
Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.
Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model.
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.
Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.
Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can
What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy.
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.
Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.
2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400
Assemble roster for Q and A.
#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal
Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.
#2 David Becker, CNET
Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative
#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week
Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions
A: It's time to start marching onward again.
#4 Michael Singer, Jupiter Media
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
Regards ...
[this
The client access licenses (CAL) are only for users authenticating and using the operating system directly. Web hits, either anonymous or authenticated by an external database are excluded. Anonymous FTP is excluded. Printer sharing needs a CAL. Authenticated FTP needs a CAL. Basically, if it has an account in the windows user manager, it needs a CAL.
And on that note, the german SCO site is back. Let's hope they fuck up and post some anti-linux propaganda.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Great quote, but doesn't anyone site sources anymore? Sheesh! Isn't that just plagiarism?
"Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty."
Winston S. Churchill
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I just looked up my home state's definition of extortion on the google cache, and found this part to be interesting:
514.080 Theft by extortion.
(1) A person is guilty of theft by extortion when he intentionally obtains property of another by threatening to
(emphasis mine in section f).
Have they crossed the line with their arcane "sign-a-NDA-and-wreck-your-career-in-the-process" antics, yet? Because, if they have, then the penalty is:
Each and every $699 fee that they collect is a FELONY (in Kentucky), if they have stepped over this line . . . And there are definitely people here in this state that use Linux.
And, if some big company is behind this lawsuit and is using SCO to simply cast FUD upon Linux, then that third (hidden) party may run afoul of (e).
Microsoft certainly does NOT fit this category. They have provided substantial returns to investors for years. They make $8 billion dollars in PROFIT every year.
SCO, on the other hand, doesn't produce anything substantial, and thus is a better fit for your Blue Sky Law.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
According to conventional economic theory, a firm is values as its (discounted) future stream of cash flows. If you believe Sun will provide enough future cash flow for the shareholder you should buy the share, if not, you shouldn't.
i got two copies of SCO software 6 years ago through the free sco program. like sun's program at the same time, i only had to pay for shipping nad got two free licenses. SCO can go f*ck themselves. how does free go to $699?? i want to meet their accountants.
You see a problem, I see potential. - Vincent 'Vinnie' Antonelli
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html
Gordon Staines
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1059478724020
Some people are talking about SCO's actions as if The SCO Group is a dying company that will try anything to stay alive. If that were the case, a good strategy would be to stay out of their way while they die.
However, the real organization making the decisions is the Canopy Group. The Canopy Group has done this before. They set up a company, Caldera International (sound familiar?). They purchased some copyrighted source code, DR-DOS. Then they filed suit against a huge corporation (Microsoft) for $1.5 billion. They settled the suite for an estimated $150 million to $200 million.
All this shit happened before!
The Canopy Group isn't dying. They are alive and healthy. They don't use their own name -- they set up front corporations to pursue these activities.
Treating the Canopy Group as a dying entity would be a mistake. Their current avatar, The SCO Group, might die. So what? They'll just respawn and do this again.
(How do I know that Canopy is calling the shots at SCO? Because Darl McBride admitted, in an interview with CNET around 2003-06-04 or so, that the Canopy Group was choosing SCO's lawyers and laying out their legal strategy. And that's the most important activity there is at SCO, which means that Canopy doesn't just own shares -- they are driving).
You're absolutely right: it isn't in there anywhere. That's why they can't sue any end users for copyright infringment, and never will.
What they are doing is making loud noises about taking end users to task, but making no indication about how they plan to do so. Why? Because they can't and won't! They only want everyone to think they can.
As endless others have pointed out, SCO's (probable) reasons for their current actions are:
Bottom line, end users have no risk of getting sued by SCO. Adoption of Linux may be hurt by all of this for a while, but even if it goes all the way to a 2005 court date, Linux will be vindicated.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!