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!
Bill Gates is laughing maniacly right now. Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199
Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003.
Linux users world-wide will be offering ass-kickings to SCO officials free of charge, for a non-determined length of time.
I need claim that MS stole my IP and put it in windows and then spam spam spam asking for my $700. If even a fraction of a fraction of a percent gave me money, i'd me a millionare
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Keep in mind that while some people will get rich betting on SCO, most people will lose their shirts doing it -- and those people will result in class action lawsuits, and perhaps criminal charges when the fit hits the shan.
I've seen Linux running on boxes that cost less than the liscence they want to sell.
.
I think this proves that A) either SCO is not serious and is just jacking around their stock or B) They're really, truly, clueless. Or possibly both.
How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
These people aren't SCO investors, they're simple race-trackers who are betting on the horse with the longest odds. There are people who are idle enough and rich enough to do such things, and unfortunately, they sometimes win.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
extort (v) - to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
In other words:
'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Easy answer.
If they showed where the alleged code was, then it would take approximately 30 minutes for the contributor(s) to remove the affected code, re-release kernel version(s), etc.
How, then, would SCO be able to charge $699 for a license?
This comment was randomly generated by a school of piranhas chewing on the PCB of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.
Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.
Dear SCO
Fuck OFF and don't waste my time anymore!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Unless there is proof, there is no need to pony up to SCO and fork out the dough.
And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever. Only accusations, NDAs, press releases.
Honestly, I'm not worried one bit and all my half a dozen servers are Linux. If you are worried about this for your business, then by all means, switch. But you've not been served any papers stating you're breaking some law, so screw it.
Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.
Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP license.
How in the hell can they say and do this when there hasn't been a case/judgement/ruling? They are truly pulling this right out of their asses, which brings me back to the Subject line of this post. :)
And they appear to only be attacking the commercial users so far.....
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
To me, it looks more like SCO is trying to convince investors that there is viable revenue stream in their "SCOsource" initiative. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy this "license", but people might buy SCO stock if the fantasy of licensing Linux can be maintained for a while. If this isn't a "pump and dump" scheme, I don't know what is. SEC take notice.
Far more than $199 if it's a server, which is the typical Linux config today.
As for desktop use -- Windows desktops also require client access licenses to the Windows server, do they not?
Sure, just call a stock broker. However shorting is something you do have to be careful with since there is no limit to how much you can loose. With normal, not-on-margin, stock trading you can loose nothing more than what you put in. If you buy $5000 of stock, you can never loose more than that $5000, even if the stock becomes totally worthless. However, when you short a stock, the more it goes up the more you owe. Since there is no real limit to how much a stock can go up, you can really loose a shitload of money.
Now I'll admit, SCO stock going up in the long run is about as likely as peace in the Middle East, but it COULD happen. You do have to be wary when shorting stocks.
I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".
What they are doing is setting up an enviroment where things look like a done deal. Folks shouldn't underestimate this.
Given the fact that IBM has been relatively silent if a judge looks at a future SCO case they have 600 people licensing software from them, that judge is simply going to have a harder time "giving it away for free" to the linux guys.
Now I hope to GOD people read these licenses with a very fine tooth comb. Their is an adge that you NEVER want to sign a contract with a company like SCO, because a contract gives them real power to make your life miserable. Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts. Be careful!
Ok, a note here before you loons all get too excited; if you take any two stocks, bring up the comparision chart, and start moving around the start date, you can pretty much make it look like what you want. In statistics this called "optional stopping" (or "optional starting" would be more appropriate here). There is a reason I picked a 5 day chart.
Remember this next time someone throws a bunch of graphs at you and tells you to invest in something.
*After* SCO loses, the licensees (if any) will not only be due refunds, but the stockholders will also be able to press cases with the SEC for this obvious and illegal stock price manipulation.
Does this apply to all Linux 2.4 kernels or just specific ones? Don't forget, the PPC version was forked from the main tree awhile ago, as have the microkernel versions and some other forks. Which, specific, 2.4 trees are SCO discussing here?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot code?
Good start, but I think a better way of wording it would be:
"Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot type?"
That's a pretty close analogy of going on, except the guy would tell you that there is a part on your car that is his, and that he won't tell you what it is because then you'll replace it. They first said it was a screw, then it was a muffler, and now it's the whole engine block.
I don't think this sort of badgery and legal abuse falls under "Capitalism."
There a many different definitions and conceptions of capitalism, but they usually involve things like investment in capital, competion, and freedom. Unless you consider investing in lawyers "capital," this is a pretty anti-capitalist, anti-free-market sort of manuever on SCO's part.
Using the courts (read: government) to try to extract money from people, rather than providing goods or services to be purchased on a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit model for comapnies if you want to maintain a healthy capitalist system.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Actually, another article linked states that the later fee will be $1,399 which is more in-line with their UnixWare licenses, which makes sense since they've been talking about "indemnifying us poor miscreants" with UnixWare licensing. The $699 is just a 50% off type deal.
An interesting link in the other SCO/Caldera article today (i wish I could find the link) stated something along the lines of "whenever anything threatens their stock price, the SCO/Caldera execs release some more bit of news to pump it up." After being hit slightly by the RedHat announcement, well, here you go. Some traders probably will see the number, make a back of the envelope calculation "well, there are millions of Linux boxes, they're gonna get $699 or $1399 for every one, I want a piece of that" and pump up their stock. The more McBride pulls stuff out of his ass like this, the more obvious that it's just a stock ploy becomes.
I'd be interested to know what the percentage of machines out there running Linux are less than the $1400 price point. Granted, SCO/Caldera is (currently) only talking about commercial licenses so it's likely the machines are better than the overall average box, but still likely to be cheaper than the license. If this is the cost of a UnixWare license, no wonder they went into the toilet.
BTW: I call it SCO/Caldera because McBride's company is really just SCO in name and IP rights only. The real SCO people are at Tarantella, where they are soldiering on, doing real work.
How can SCO get away with charging $699 for a license to code that they claim is on your computer, when they have offered no proof that it is on your computer?
Then again, if you paid the fee, they'd have to give you their part of the Linux kernel, outlining what you're paying for right? Like on the receipt or something.
It doesn't matter. How many do you really think they're going to sell, after all?
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic.
It is insane, but I guess given the media coverage SCO's getting, it's not completely unbelievable.
It's the media coverage that I find unbelievably insane.
What I find amazing is the whole tone of the coverage of each side of the issue: SCO's position comes across as quite reasonable, and you hardly ever see the words "alleged copyright violations." OTOH, there doesn't seem to be a coherent "Linux" side showing up in the media... there are lots of individual points being made, but they don't get reported consistently.
What's really needed is for someone (I'm not sure who, maybe IBM, maybe RedHat, maybe Linux, ??) to consistenly comment on every single event with the same points: the violation is only alleged (with very sketchy real data at this point), the issue would be with distributers, not end users, etc.
Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme. Let's see - an organization that owns a few companies (let's call it Canopy) buys a down-on-it's-luck company (let's call it Caldera) that has some worthless IP. They decide, wisely, to pay their executives (coincidently, themselves) in options.
Then, they make obscene claims and sue a big-name target (let's call it IBM) for a ton of cash. Then, instead of filing court documents in a timely fashion to win their suit with minimum expenditure, they FUD like crazy. They get interviews wherever they can, especially in the mass media like CNBC, which moron daytraders watch to get "stock tips." This drives up share price, making their options worth a ton of cash. Then, they sell out, literally and figuratively.
This is where we are now. The interesting part is, though, that after they sell out they may not even care about the result of the suit all that much.
Bottom line is this needs to be investigated as the pump-n-dump scheme that it is. Why is it illegal for some morons on a chat board to do it, but perfectly legal for a management team to do it? It's a scheme/scam either way.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Ok. Let's all go back to RH 6.2 and rewrite. Guh.
The problem here is that this is the model for attacked OSS now. Refuse to disclose the "stolen" IP , and claim that IP has been stolen. Wait years for the case to be cleared up in the courts, and by then, the next batch of proprietary software will have FUDded the OSS alternative into oblivion.
People are saying "hey -- just go to BSD". Guess what? That will come under attack, too, as it is developed. A different process for controlling what code goes into OSS and where it comes from may be needed, but that is what SCO and the proprietary software business wants -- they want it to be more difficult to develop software outside of the traditional code it and hide methods.
This suit has nothing to do with the linux kernel. It has everything to do with the entire OSS model. McBride as much as said that community developed software is the target here, referring to RMS in the same breath as the "OSS wants don't ask, don't tell when it comes to the source of code". Again, this is about OSS, not linux.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Am I the only one who notices that SCO times their press releases at about the same time their stock starts tanking?
IANAL, but I wonder if the SEC should start looking into this?
... if they do, they know it will be replaced in a heartbeat with GPL'd code.
:-)
If it gets replaced, SCO has no revenue stream because they would have no IP in the kernel.
They will keep the code secret as long as possible for this simple reason.
To me, what they are doing sounds like extortion. Plain and simple. They give them no recourse (other than paying them) to use the linux kernel.
"We'll license you this technology for the low low price of $XXX. If you license it from us we promise not to sue you!
Your post makes me sick. But not at SCO. SCO is achieving what it set out to achieve. I'm disgusted by the lack of fight on the pro-Linux side. We have plenty of whining, but what is needed here is aggressive counter litigation. Several weeks ago I posted that unless kernel contributors (companies and/or individuals) sue SCO for violating their copyrights (which they are in about as blatent a way as possible), unfair competition, patent infringement, and anything and everything else that they can, that Linux would suffer serious damage.
Finally, at least Red Hat has taken action. Better late than never. Still, other stakeholders must take actions. SCO does not have the bandwidth to fight even the existing lawsuits (they've already non-responded in Germany).
At the end of this, SCO is going to get bitch-slapped by the courts. However, it's likely that MS and/or Sun (or other parties) are using SCO to slow down Linux and are happy to sacrifice the company to that end.
It is critical that this be recognized for what it is. We are hard core into step 3.
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you
4. Then you win.
I think the reason they say 2.4 is that that's when IBM submitted the code from AIX. While IBM owns the copyrights on that code, IBM's agreement with SCO (nee AT&T) says that the code they add to UNIX becomes "a part of" UNIX. What that means is unclear. But even if IBM violated that contract, they still owned the code and the right to publish it elsewhere. For one thing, because they already had published it in OS/2.
You'll note that SCO still doesn't say that you need to buy the license for copyright reasons. They just say that they have procured the copyright registration, and let you make (an invalid) assumption that the "intellectual property rights" they are asserting mean copyright. "Intellectual Property" is a vague term with no legal meaning.
SCO is being coy with their language, because they know that they do not have a valid copyright infringement case.
It's also possible that they are trying not to piss people off *too* much, because this would only apply to future commercial distros, not current Linux distros. (Although their FAQ says that SCO/Caldera Linux users require a license, and I don't think they distribute 2.4.)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Considering you have until October 15th to get the license at the "discounted" price, it would be much smarter to wait until around that time to see how this all plays out. Besides if SCO is just being a bully, and a court of law decides that the Linux kernel has none of SCO's code in it, do you get your money back? It would be a good thing to look into.
I know, you're trolling, but anyway:
This is not capitalism. This is corporate war, using an outdated legal system as a weapon.
This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
Linux is killing them in the server market, so they'll try the law (and their bought lawmakers).
This is just the beginning.
This is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.
I would be willing to wager money that almost anyone working on the kernel from the 'net honestly doesn't want to infringe on code from anyone else. I know I would want a project I work on to be 100% my teams work.
There have been NUMEROUS cases of license violations against the GPL by other groups/companies, and the Linux communities approach is typcially "remove it and we're cool".
This SCO CRAP not at all about protecting their business, it's not about them having a strong product, and someone else threating the uniqueness of some product.
Instead, it's about SCO blackmailing, bulling, and threatening innocent bystanders and keeping them innocent bystanders by not allowing a code violation to be corrected. Instead they are attempting to profit from that 'mistake'.
The one thing this does tell me is that, if there was EVER a justification for the philosophies behind the FSF and the GPL, this is the perfect one.
Companies treat code as if it's the holy-grail of their business, when, in reality, it's the people who came UP with that IDEA, and implemented that are actually the real 'asset'.
At the pace of this industry, as soon as code is released, it's almost obsolete. But the ability to generate the ideas, or further develop them is what's important. If you're 'looking over your shoulder' all the time, then you've already behind.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.
> Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Amen to that. But it takes two (a buyer and a seller) to make a market.
Speaking of which, I hope the SEC is investigating the trades made by insiders in SCOX, particularly with regard to whether the lawsuits in question have any basis in fact whatsoever.
If something untwoward is happening at SCOX, it wuldn't be the first time in the securities industry that individuals of questionable ethical standards have done something to artifically inflate their company's stock price in order to sell at the top. But the word for that is fraud, not capitalism.
I don't think this has anything to do with their lack of belief in Linux on the desktop. I think it's just further evidence that they have no interest in carrying on as a business entity and are entirely focused on litigation.
This certainly isn't a business decision - if it was they would continue to encourage the price advantage of Linux and offer much more reasonable fees, say $10 per seat, and maybe offer some support packages. Enough large businesses that already have Linux deployments would probably consider such a fee relatively incidental as an effective insurance policy. It might even encourage adoption at some companies who don't believe you can get anything for free. At anywhere between $5 and $50 per seat I bet they could do very well for themselves.
At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them. This is only being done for legal reasons so they can easily quantify the damages they are seeking in court. I think they'll use these numbers (along with some comparable MSRP's for Windows and Unix seats) when trying to establish their "lost revenues" due to Linux.
Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA. Hopefully the judge will see right through this ploy and nail them for flagrant abuse of the legal the system.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
GPL is about distribution because copyright law is about distribution. Copyright law doesn't place any restrictions on use -- once you have a copy, you can do whatever you want with it, unless you've entered into some sort of agreement beforehand (such as a Microsoft EULA).
Suppose that there really is SCO code in the kernel, and suppose that the GPL is found to not apply to it because whoever put it there didn't have the right to GPL it. In that case, if you've distributed Linux -- made copies -- then you could concievably be found in violation for that, but in no case do you infringe anyone's copyright by running Linux.
The fact that they're trying to sell licenses granting the right to run Linux without violating their copyrights means that either their lawyers are a bunch of idiots who only passed the bar exam by cheating, or (more likely) they're not really serious and this is just a tactic to see how much they can get before everything comes crashing down.
(Note that this only applies to copyrights; if SCO has a patent on something in the kernel then you could indeed be held responsible for running it. SCO has not filed any patent claims AFAIK, but they use the general term "intellectual property" -- which covers both copyright and patent -- in talking about their license. I imagine the ambiguity is intentional, because if I can recognize what I've just pointed out, I'm sure a judge can too.)
IANAL, but I pay attention to the people here who say they are.
I prefer:
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.
And you would mindlessly have done exactly what SCO wanted you to do: inflate their stock.
Linux user since early January 1992.
I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and walk away. Do nothing. Three weeks later, your CTO is likely to not even remember this was an issue.
If you're really concerned for your job, install Free/Net/OpenBSD.
You're right, there was a lot of cheering for the Microsoft Anti-trust case around here and in general, and I disagreed with that too.
Don't get me wrong: I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy. I think their business practices are deplorable. But I don't think they had a Monopoly or qualified for anti-trust prosecution, even for their extremely obnoxious licensing agreements. Get linux. get a Mac. There were always alternatves, no one was ever forced against their will to support Microsoft. They had enough market share to leverage it in bad ways, but they never had a monopoly.
And I think the market was and is working towards sorting this out . Microsoft had huge market share and leveraged it in nasty ways to try to maintain it and to try to make people pay them more. They made a LOT of enemies in the process, and while many companies & individuals still grudginly paid Microsoft for their buggy products, I think that that huge reserve of ill-will they built up around the world is sooner or later going to come back to hurt them in a big way.
As alternatives to Microsoft become more viable, people won't just want to switch if the competiton is superior. There are hordes of people who are dying to switch as soon as the competiton appears usable to them. I think that as alternatives gain momentum and business decision makers don't feel the "nobody ever got fired fro buying IBM" pressure about Microsoft anymore, that Microsoft will lose market share very rapidly.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
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...
Tell your boss to watch the Fortune 500 companies that have already commited to Linux. These are companies that have full time legal staff who have -- I'm sure -- been watching these events unfold with a very careful eye.
Until the big boys flinch, I see nothing to worry about here.
thx,
eric
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
This is factually incorrect, and a common misconception of those who profess to the false ideology of libertarianism.
Capitalism can only exist by the threat of force. For example, you claim to own the things you sell, but in reality you don't. Lets take your car (literally)! The only reason I cannot drive away with your car without paying you for it is that you (or someone who is on your side), will use force to keep it from me. This force can take the form of simply gun-play to a social agreement whereby members of society agree to adhere to certain "laws" that define the concept of "property". In other words, GOVERNMENT. Capitalism, like communism and every other false ideology, relies on the use of force for its very existence. The concept of money is simply an abstraction of force that we developed in order to lessen the bloodiness of everyday life.
If your boss won't go for Linux, don't cave in (if you can help it) and get M$ XP server. Use another Free OS. Resist SCO *and* M$ benefitting from this fiasco.
Rage against the Machine
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
But if you tell me that I'm breaking the law by not buying your Internet licence, then that's fraud and that's illegal.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That is a benefit. Seperating the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, along with systems of checks and balaneces between them, helps to prevent any one branch of government form becoming too powerful. Or so every high-school American History textbook tells us.
But I'm not sure I see your point. They're all still government, and SCO's still trying to use government (or at least a vague threat of government action) to coerce their profits retroactively from users of Linux. Who cares which branch of government they're using?
If the Judicial branch does end up ruling in their favor on weak evidence, then maybe the legislative branch could get involved with reformed laws regarding copyright and patents on software. This should be done anyway (read: "one-click").
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I just deleted the violating code from my kernel and recompiled it. Of course I can't show you [or SCO] what I've taken out. But that should be fine to SCO, because they use a similar argument, right? :)
We all should just "remove" the "offending code" and "recompile" our kernels...
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What SCO is doing, in common terms, is this: Suppose I own an art store, and have paintings in the window for display. Some of these paintings are my own original work; most aren't. I claim that you have a painting in your store, purchased from your supplier, that is a copy of one of my originals. I won't say which painting it is, or even demonstrate that it was one of my originals and not a public-domain copy of a classical work, but I'm suing you for a grand for having the alleged copy all the same. I've offered to show art experts the painting in question, but they had to sign a document promising not to ID the painting in question. I believe that IDing the painting would reveal some kind of secret that would damage me if it became known, despite the fact that my paintings are mounted in a window on a public street for all to see, and hold that only by removing all paintings from your store and leaving the art business or else paying me for a license to sell my art (that I won't say what it is) can you protect yourself. I'm offering to let you settle right now for $500, and intend to use this offer as proof that you do indeed have a copy of whatever painting it is that I won't say.
And now, the art buying public is nervous, and don't want to buy art from you until this is settled, lest I sue them too, which I have already threatened to do. Of course you could pay the settlement, but remember: if you pay me the $500, you cede that I own the rights to potentially all the paintings in your store (I never said which one!), and that I have the right to unilaterally set and collect fees from you for the privelege of selling art. If you don't, you'll spend much more on lawyers and continue to lose income in the meantime.
Clear now?
No, what is going on here is that SCO is trying to make linux closed source.
They are claiming their code in the source, but they are not selling the source code license. As it vaguely says in their FAQ, you simply cannot compile and use your own kernel -- they tell you to outsource the compilation of the kernel or buy a "shrink wrapped boxed set" from somewhere, but they don't explain how those outsourcers or the sellers of the boxed set got a valid source license.
The truth is that they can't distribute binaries themselves, because then Torvalds can sue them under the GPL. So they can't distribute themselves, but they are going to try to "license" your use of it from other parties.
those who purchased redhat were not the ones infringing on copyright laws, redhat was infringing on copyright laws, thus SCO is simply undermining its credibility when it chooses to go after the users rather than those who actualy violated copyright laws.
Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.
my guess is that either SCO will be subpoena'd and unable to reveal the code or they will be taken to court on charges of extortion...and lose.
Red Hat is for people who hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.
www.putertech.net
From everything I have read, SCO is not claiming their own code is in Linux. It is code that IBM developed for The System V Unix and because of the contract with SCO any developments that were added to the Unix was essentially theirs. IBM is saying that anything they developed is theirs and they can do with it what they please. This isn't a simple case of copying SCO's handywork. In many businesses if you write some code while employed by the company it becomes the property of the company so this is not entirely unheard of. Instead of a company they are relating it to the parent code. So that any code that was added to the SCO owned code is SCO's. I personally hate SCO and would like to see them burn for what they are doing, but there is a chance they might be able to pull this off with this point of view though.
Perhaps I am being a bit slow, but surely, when you stand up in court at the start of a prosecution case you have to begin by identifying a law passed by Congress which you claim that the other side has broken. The fact that the other side did something which you didn't like isn't sufficient, is it? Surely Congress has to have agreed at some point that that action should be illegal. Having identified the law you then go on to try to prove that the defence broke it. Or am I missing something about US law here?
Be careful, he might enjoy that!
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I thought SCO's beef was with infected SMP code? Therefore, if you do not use multiple processors, you don't use SMP code, therefore there is no need to license a run-time license. Right?
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
if that's the case, maybe these companies should donate 10% of their projected costs to comply with SCO's blackmailing to the Linux defense fund that Red Hat started. It'll also be tax deductible too.
You know....come to think of it...I would think there's like a statute of limitations for this kind of thing.
Why does it seem to always be the less-empowered employee suggesting linux, and the "Boss" resisting or rejecting it?
To me this is a symptom of something else: People who pursue technical careers do not gain positions of authority in corporations.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"So in words this thing really is a money grab, because if they are wrong about their copyright ownership, there is no reason to pay, and if they are right, there is no reason to pay. The whole idea of the GPL is to prevent someone from somehow contributing to a GPL'd project and then somehow restricting distribution of the whole project."
Seems to me the GPL was designed to prevent exactly what SCO is attempting.
Clearly, Caldera was aware of what was in the kernel. They contributed to it. They CONTINUED to release Linux distros after acquiring SCO. They even continued to sell a Linux distro AFTER making their claims and suing IBM! And they STILL make the kernel available for download, with GPL license attatched.
SCaldera is basically attempting to TAKE BACK what they contributed, and oh by the way, grab ownership of the 99.9% they don't have any claim to at all...
Corporatism != Free Market
"SCO would probably make more money if the charged less for their "license". Let's say below $100. At that price people might actually have payed to be on the safe side from SCO lawsuits. At the current prices most companies are probably waiting until they are taken to court or the outcome of the Red Hat counter suit."
Being reasonable is not their goal. Sure, they could charge, say, $50 per CPU for their "license" and probably get tens of thousands of people who'd do it just to avoid the possibility of a suit.
But they don't want to do that. They want to OWN that which they don't own. And charge $1,000 for it.
For a company that is paranoid about losing their "trade secrets" and their intellectual property, they aren't acting like it. Their failure to disclose what is infringing means that the infringement isn't able to be ceased... Their charging of an exorbitant license fee makes it more likely that people will laugh at them, and snarl in defiance, rather than suck it up, and send in $50 to not worry about a lawsuit...
Corporatism != Free Market
If you remove code without proof that it isn't Free, then every dying company and MS shill will line up to demand this or that or the other thing be removed.
Pay the danegeld once, and guess what happens ?
I'm not removing anything from MY kernel. You can delete what you want from your copy.