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!

Comments

Too much crack!

[thrillbert]

Well, it's finally happened.. they have smoked so much crack that now they've really started hallucinating...

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
Promotional License Fee
with 1 CPU $699
with 2 CPUs $1,149
with 4 CPUs $2,499
with 8 CPUs $4,999
Additional single CPU $749

So this puts Lawrence Livermore National Labs at around $190,751 for a 256CPU system.. of which, they have a few.. heh..

<sarcasm> Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!! </sarcasm>

---
Stupidity is the great constant in this universe.

Re:Too much crack!

[Osrin]

if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

Re:Too much crack!

[FortKnox]

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...

Re:Too much crack!

[ejaw5]

Hope they send the bill with a "postage paid by addressee" envelope. Let them have their $699 in pennies.

Re:Too much crack!

[Zigg]

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?

Re:Too much crack!

[Quietust]

Actually, I believe XP Professional will support up to 2 CPUs.

Re:Too much crack!

[micromoog]

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".

Re:Too much crack!

[frane]

1 CPU $699...Additional single CPU $749

This cost structure doesn't make much sense. A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't additional 'licenses' be sold at a discount to the first?

Re:Too much crack!

[kannibal_klown]

Sorta wrong comparison...

They are claiming for all commercial uses. Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.

However, SOME businesses do use Linux commercially, as desktops and workstations. In which case they'd also have to shell out that obscene amt of money.

Man, I though Microsoft was evil. Compared to these guys, Billy-G is a playground bully.

Re:Too much crack!

[cvbear0]

Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!!

If you purchased $699 of SCO stock on March 7th (day SCO vs. IBM on /.), you could cash out with about $3,000 today. (enough for the 4 CPU license)!

Re:Too much crack!

[Vindicator9000]

From the article:

"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 at http://www.sco.com/scosource ."

I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!

Re:Too much crack!

[gantrep]

It doesn't matter. How many do you really think they're going to sell, after all?

Re:Too much crack!

[innocent_white_lamb]

A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards?

Doesn't SCO claim that its properties include only SMP and related technologies? If that's the case, then a single CPU license would not be required at all because SCO's technologies apply only to multiple-CPU boxes.

Mind you, their story has changed so often it's hard to know what they actually claim now. Today's claims are probably different than yesterdays. Oh, it's after noon? Then the claims are different than they were this morning.

Re:Too much crack!

[Quietust]

Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.

Yes, except for the fact that the Windows server you mentioned has support for up to FOUR processors, while the Linux 699 is for ONE processor - for 4 processors, SCO wants $2,499.

Re:Too much crack!

[Aanallein]

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...

Are you kidding? SCO is showing a tremendous belief in Linux for the desktop, evaluating it as worth over three times as much as Windows!

Re:Too much crack!

[DJStealth]

I baught CALDera stock at their IPO for $27/share.

Since then, it has gone down to $0.20/share and did a 4x reverse split. Then merged with SCOX

Now at $12.80/share (divide by 4 = $3.20); I've lost..

Good thing I didn't buy too many.

Re:Too much crack!

[ccp]

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.

Re:Too much crack!

[richie2000]

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution with 1 CPU: $699

Legal fund to put Darl's ass in jail: $1,000,000

Sending Darl an extra slippery soap: Priceless.

Re:Too much crack!

[cheeseSource]

SCO Rep: "And how would you like to pay for your SCO IP license?"

Linux Customer: "I would, very much, like to pay in buckets of poop."

SCO Rep: "Buckets of what?"

Linux Customer: "Buckets of poop, Sir. I would be delighted to top off your 'full of Shit' meter. It will, of course, be the poop of the highest standard. Eat it with a silver spoon, you can."

fin

Re:Too much crack!

[Tackhead]

> If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

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.

Re:Too much crack!

[AndyFewt]

I've always wanted toilet paper worth $699!

Re:Too much crack!

[WEFUNK]

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.

Re:Too much crack!

[ratamacue]

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.

Re:Too much crack!

[luzrek]

This isn't even capitalism. I think that Copyright law, and anything else from the government that prevents anyone for selling anything they want for whatever they can get for it is Socialism. When the government is also the only distributor, it is called Communism.

What SCO is doing is called extortion/blackmail.

Re:Too much crack!

[Thing 1]

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.

As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) there are no options of any type for SCO.

This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.

Re:Too much crack!

[bigberk]

if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

And if you buy now, you will probably lose your investment once SCO is hauled to court and forced to put its money where its mouth is.

Re:Too much crack!

[kwiqsilver]

I prefer:
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.

Re:Too much crack!

[mce]

If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

And you would mindlessly have done exactly what SCO wanted you to do: inflate their stock.

Re:Too much crack!

[booch]

Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199 Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...

Actually, SCO is charging $199 for desktop Linux clients. See their FAQ, near the bottom.

Re:Too much crack!

[bahamat]

The really funny thing about this, is that SCO claims the infringing code is for SMP, NUMA, and RCU, which are all multi-proccessor technologies.

I think instead I'll just send SCO 1 copy of a picture of my middle finger for every processor I have that Linux is running on and call it even.

Re:Too much crack!

[Thu Anon Coward]

(hiding behind its lapdog SCOum)

I think you mean SCrOtum :)

Re:Too much crack!

[Nogami_Saeko]

SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association.

Well, I rather expect that rather than SCO as a whole, it's more their board of directors/president.

Regardless if they are eventually successful or not, the sudden stock leap after they started down the litigation path probably made all of the higher-ups in the company a big boatload of money. And they're gonna keep filling that boat as long as possible.

As soon as things starts to turn south, losing lawsuits, frustrated "customers" etc. - I'd imagine that most of the higher-ups in the company will cut the ropes and resign and the boat-o-cash will sail-off into the sunset.

Of course, this would leave the employees and investors of the company high and dry while the CEOs enjoy their money in the bahamas...

But that's how business is supposed to work these days, right?

N.

Re:Too much crack!

[Darth Yoshi]

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).

Well, Microsoft uses Linux in their test lab. I wonder how many licenses they'll be purchasing.

Re:Too much crack!

[hesiod]

> coughing up the doe.

Oh, man that's painful. But how did you get a deer down there to begin with?

Re:Too much crack!

[Joe U]

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.

Re:Too much crack!

[zerocool^]

The amount required to purchase a licence (at the discount rate) for every linux 2.4 machine on Netmar's (my employer) network would set us back about 18% of our yearly gross. At that rate, we'd end up going through and compiling 2.2 kernels for everyone.

But, think about it large scale - think about people who have many many servers, a. la. RackShack.

RackShack claims 14,000 servers online. Do the math.

It would cost RackShack 9.8 Million Dollars ($9,800,000) to come into compliance w/ SCO.

SCO, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely
~Will

Re:Too much crack!

[jbr439]

Yes, but by my read of said FAQ, the mere act of running a SSH service on your desktop Linux magically transforms it into a $699 Linux server.

From the FAQ:

What is the definition of a client vs a server system? How do I know which license to purchase?

A Linux (Client) Desktop system is a single user computer workstation running Linux. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.

Re:Too much crack!

[nobody69]

Luzrek -

You may want to be a little more careful with your use of the words 'anything' and 'anyone'. From a strict interpretation of your post, if I can't sell your CD collection on the street for $50, we're living in a socialist society. (How'd I get your CDs? I bought them from this guy whose name and description I have suddenly forgotten.) That would mean that capitalism is actually a kleptocracy, which is probably not what you had in mind.

nobody69

Re:Too much crack!

[segvio]

Thanks for destroying my LCD with hot beverages though my nose! Made my day ;)

Re:Too much crack!

[TheFrood]

I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!

All I know is that Mike Hunt and Hugh G. Rection are about to get themselves Linux licenses.

TheFrood

Investors ...

[Arthaed]

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.

Re:Investors ...

[tgd]

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.

Re:Investors ...

[aussersterne]

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.

Re:Investors ...

[dubbayu_d_40]

Know how to short a stock?

Re:Investors ...

[jmays]

For those who don't know how to 'short a stock', read this.

Re:Investors ...

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Investors ...

[Slashdolt]

...And the SCO execs are selling their stock as fast as they can, though trying to make it appear that they are simply "getting a good deal".

http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=SC OX &tag=1

Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.

In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.

As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.

--
Slashdolt

Re:Investors ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that if you short the stock, you end up driving up the stock price and making the company's CEOs, CTOs, etc (both past and present) fucking rich. In short, shorting a stock just makes the rich richer and you can see exactly how that corporate greed is destroying the United States economy right now.

Re:Investors ...

[sisukapalli1]

The SCO stock is so much shorted that is has become diffcult to borrow the stock to short. Datek (Ameritrade now) did not let me short SCO for a long time (it doesn't let me even now, but I stopped trying).

Very funny coincedence -- when NOVL said they own the IP for UNIX, I sold SUN and tried to short SCO. Now, after the shit SUN pulled with SCO, I put that money yesterday into RHAT (small amount of money, so it is more like a fun story)

S

Re:Investors ...

[u-235-sentinel]

Actually SCO's stock has been steadily going up not to mention their volume has sharply increased.

Look at their chart Shows a definite increase since they started talking trash in March. I've already complained to the SEC regarding their pump and dump tactics. I only wish I owned their stock so I could join a stock holders lawsuit against them.

Oh and btw, I'm offering to any SCO VP, Director and board member a license for a mere $2250 per license. What's it for? You must sign my NDA to find out.

Sorry but the offer only available to SCO employees.

Re:Investors ...

[rsheridan6]

At MSN money, SCOX gets a "D" for ownership, meaning that the insiders at SCO are selling their own stock. I'm sure they know things we don't know, and this would seem to indicate that they know they're full of shit (OK, so maybe we all knew that). I'm not exactly Warren Buffet, but this seems like a case of some sleazes hyping their worthless stock, finding some fools to buy it at an inflated price, and counting their money while those same fools find themselves with worthless stock.. A fool and his money are soon parted. BTW the stock is up about %1100 since this thing started so it's working admirably.

Re: Investors ...

[Black Parrot]

> PS: SCO is going down, and everybody know it (including SCO). The question is: will they drag Linux too....

It's a kamakazi attack. Remember that these people don't have any interest in SCO as a software firm. They're ambulance chasers, jackals who bought a moribund enterprise in hopes of squeezing some cash out of it and discarding the husk. If they can get the most cash by hurling it at other companies as a bomb, then that's exactly what they'll do with it.

And it appears that that is the course they decided on.

Re:Investors ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This was predicted yesterday...

by dmaxwell (43234) on Monday August 04, @03:29PM (#6608641) As seen on Yahoo Finance. Time to buy? :) I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat

I think this is right on.....this is likely a response to sagging stock prices after RedHat's decision to sue. What I want to know is: Is manipulating stock prices like this legal?

Re:Investors ...

[wfbush]

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.

Re: Investors ...

[198348726583297634]

You make investing sound like so much fun.. where can I sign up? I already have the body-armor and a can of that expanding insulation-spray-foam..

Re:Investors ...

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

What does Sunoco (NYSE:SUN) have to do with this?

Re:Investors ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually.. getting a sco license might be a good investment after all. Frame it, and in a couple of months you'll be able to sell it at triple value on ebay. I mean, who wouldn't want the best joke _EVER_ in his posession? :)

Re:Investors ...

[sisukapalli1]

I have the margin account -- the broker said that there were no shares to borrow.

S

Re:Investors ...

[nelsonal]

He's correct, while the short ratio is very low, the stock is mostly owned by insiders (42% or so) who are not going to loan their shares to shorts. Institutions only own about 2% or 3% of the stock. Most retail investors don't even know how to allow their shares to be loaned. For those that do it can be a nice little kicker, if their broker pays them to do it. IIRC the online brokers loan the shares and keep the proceeds, as a cost cutting measure.

SCO: ***Read Carefully***

[tomstdenis]

Go fuck yourselves!

Ha!

[waldoj]

Haaaahhhaaaaah haha ha ha ha!

*snort*

HAAAAAhaahahahahaaa!

*tear*

Aahhh...

*wipes eyes*

Gosh, that's funny.

No, seriously, how much do they want?

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Ha!

[NaugaHunter]

Haaaahhhaaaaah haha ha ha ha!

*snort*

At first I thought this was a description of what SCO was doing when they started this.

Re:Ha!

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

Yeah, some guy called me out of the blue yesterday. He said the muffler on my car came from his minivan. He said I can keep it on my car if I want, but I owe him $699.00.

Re:Ha!

[VistaBoy]

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.

v2.6 is safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, luckily for me I am running Kernel v2.6 so I am free from the chains of SCO! What I plan to do instead is start charging everyone the fee of $6.99/license so that you can all run Linux v2.6 (binary only so that you can be in compliance with the GPL!)

I have 2 lines of code which are completely indentical to 2 lines of code in 2.6. I showed it to a few people and they see that what I am saying is true! Just because they are reporters and not programmers is irrelevant.

I would love to have the ability to show these in court but I am too busy with watching the stock tickers.

If you have any questions, feel free to send a check or money order to the P.O. box below (located in a UPS Store).

Remember, complete use of Linux for only $6.99, and no, I will not cover you if SCO sues you.

Re:v2.6 is safe!

[louferd]

I'll share the two I have which are identical to lines in both Linux and in SCO:
Line one:
}
Line two:
};
I think I'll ask $500/infringement.

Re:v2.6 is safe!

[vt0asta]

Well, luckily for me I am running Kernel v2.6 so I am free from the chains of SCO! What I plan to do instead is start charging everyone the fee of $6.99/license so that you can all run Linux v2.6 (binary only so that you can be in compliance with the GPL!)

You bring up an interesting point that isn't being well addressed. SCO has stated in the conference call that their intentions are to release a binary only run time license. Since the code is covered under the GPL, they are then required to provide you the source code free of charge except for reasonable media expenses. If they fail to do so, they are in violation and their license can be revoked, and if I remember correctly, this would mean they are infringing on all of the linux kernel developers copyright.

Once they cross the threshold of denying you the source and your ability to freely modify and distribute the source normal developers can turn on the hot water. I think what is needed is a Linux Legal "Offense" fund, to help developers go after companies that violate the GPL.

SCO needs to be reminded of which end is up. Distributing binaries, without releasing the code under the GPL is in direct violation of the GPL. Apparently they are going to directly test the very thing that needs to be tested in the courts with regards to the GPL.

Stallman wasn't awarded the title of Genius for creating the GPL for nothing. Stallman designed it so that if the GPL ends up not holding water, then basic Copyright laws take effect (which includes the often feared DMCA). Red Hat and others are not actually selling you a license, they are just charging you for the cost of putting the source code onto the media, documentation, and a nice pretty box if you would like.

SCO intends to take the work of others (which is currently protected by copyright) and sell it. At that point, at the very least they are infringing on copyright of linux developers, and they will have to reap the whirlwind of _all_ of the IP they are violating.

I believe there is more than enough kernel developers over the course of linux, to warrant a class action lawsuit against SCO for copyright infringement.

If SCO collects one penny for any binary distribution sans offering GPL'd source code, they are in direct violation and damages and other remedies can be sought under copyright law and the DMCA.

Re:v2.6 is safe!

[alain1234]

I know what is the code Linux and SCO Unix have in common:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your ...

At least now we know what their business model is

[kalidasa]

Are they only talking about Linux 2.4? If so, is there a reason for that?

Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[JohnGrahamCumming]

And asked for

$666

which would have made everything so clear? I mean it's only $33 difference. I hope when you buy these licenses you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.

SCO needs to put up or shut up. If they think they have IP in Linux then show us. Dammit if the code is already in Linux it's already public so point to the code.

John.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[dook43]

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?

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[VistaBoy]

and what about once they show their evidence in court? It will be public then, and all that kernel hackers are going to do is get rid of it then. The REAL reason they aren't showing code is either they don't have any solid proof, or they want to wait as long as possible to spread a bunch of FUD. Or both. That's why I salute Red Hat for slapping SCO in the face. Their "put up or shut up" campaign will work, and either SCO has proof (we delete it) or they have absolutely nothing and lose a shiatload of money.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[realdpk]

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.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[toganet]

Actually, the T-shirt should say:

"I bought a license from SCO and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[hackstraw]

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?

Call them up. 1-800-726-8649 I've left a message and they are supposed to call me back.

slashdot that phone!

Get Ready

[Skevin]

I'm sure glad my girlfriend made me stock up on extra KY....

Solomon

Re:Get Ready

[Spunk]

Everyone here, please raise your hand if you needed to know that.

That's what I thought.

SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

We had Red Hat enter the game yesterday. With SCO requiring money for a Linux license, I think it is time for GNU to enter the game and sue SCO for violating terms of the GPL.

Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU

[Znork]

The FSF definitely has the resources and the legal counsel, in Eben Moglen, itching to wipe the courtroom with a GPL violator.

However, depending on wether any developers have or have not signed over their copyrights the FSF may or may not be able to file a lawsuit.

However, again, the severity of SCO's violation falls well within the range of criminal copyright violation which means our good friends the feds will have the privilidge of dragging Dear Darl in chains to prison where he gets to be some nice big guys McBride. Civil lawsuits for damages would be easier to file after criminal charges have gone through.

Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU

[WCMI92]

"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...

Tell you what SCO.

[MongooseCN]

I'll give you the finger and you can give me my Linux Kernel.

Re:Tell you what SCO.

[1s44c]

Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot code?

Re:Tell you what SCO.

[BRock97]

Your quote was close:

SCO--We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known IP rights violator to justice.

Linux Users--Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about I give you the finger [gives SCO the finger] and you give me my kernel.

Shamelessly ripped from the Matrix. Thank you.

I've already paid...

[Broadcatch]

...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO

Re:I've already paid...

[imadork]

...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO

For that matter, my company has already paid by my reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO on company time...

Re:I've already paid...

[Reziac]

Hell, I've gotten at least $699 worth of entertainment value from this whole fiasco. What a bargain!

Outlandish.

[eddy]

Pure humor. WTF is going on here? I mean, it's just PR to pump stock we all get that, but doesn't requesting outlandish sums of money put SCO at risk with regards to "extortion"?

I ante your offer, and raise you...

[mopslik]

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.

Re:One word

[Obliquitous Cowherd]

You took one of the words right out of my mouth...the other being, of course, "HA!"

Oh man, if this works

[cheezus]

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

Proof of ownership

[Platinum Dragon]

SCO wants money. I want code, and I want proof that they can legally do this. No code? No proof? No money.

It's that simple.

I strongly suspect some major holders of Linux copyrights are about to jump in with Red Hat, demanding that SCO prove it can do this.

Re:Proof of ownership

[Platinum Dragon]

Either the next three months when the Red Hat injunction is decided upon, or April 5, 2005, the date for the SCO-IBM contract dispute lawsuit.

Or, possibly sooner--I'm seeing rumblings on the Yahoo SCOX message board about lawsuits against Darl's crew being prepared from many quarters.

Windows!

[nherc]

Wow, that makes a Windows 2003 Server cluster look cheap! Windows 2003 Web Edition is only like $400. The standard edition is around $600.

The next Microsoft

[ender1598]

This seems to be costing even more than Windows! Will this outrageous cost include all the support similar to Microsoft?

Truly amusing

[Badgerman]

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 . . .

*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[Ummagumma]

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...

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[1s44c]

There is always FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[greechneb]

Funny, my boss doesn't care - must be the ruleset I have to block any website with SCO in it. Just hope he doesn't notice that he can't get quotes for his ciSCO stock anymore. Plus it also blocks slashdot almost every day, so he can't see how anti-productive I am.

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[wolf-]

As a contractor and an consultant, I'm documenting all lost sales and damages. Should SCO lose, and it be shown in court that this was truly BS/FUD, I'll have legal recourse.

The SCO folks are making such GENERAL statements against Linux, Linux Users, and Linux consultants, that it should NOT be hard to prove their negligence/libel/slander in court.

But by the end of the SCO/IBM lawsuit, the SCO bigwhigs will have unloaded all their stock anyway, and there won't be much to collect on.

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[DavidinAla]

Assuming that SCO loses this battle, I doubt there will be much left of the company to go after. Of course, it might be interesting for you to file suit NOW, even if you don't expect to win any substantial monetary damages. (And if you were to win, your subsequent damages could continue to be added to the total later.) The PR for your company would be worth something all by itself, because the news coverage in your local area could let companies see you as something as a leader among Linux consultants.

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[bwt]

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.

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[zericm]

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

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co.

[fishbowl]

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.

Domain names still available

[sheddd]

bitemedarl.com

darlmcbridesucks.com

I haven't got enough time but I'll be happy to paypal someone $50 to set up a nice site with a messageboard... c'mon.

Re:Domain names still available

[blinder]

I got darlmcbridesucks.com :)

I'll have a forum set up on it later tonight or tomorrow.

I got it for a year, hopefully in a year's time this will all be ancient history :)

I have a deal for you too

[Hangtime]

I own some IP inside the Linux Kernel, but won't disclose what it is either. I am lot more generous then SCO though and will only charge you $500 for a enterprise wide license for Linux. See that wasn't so hard now was it. Please forward your payments to Hangtime.

Re:I have a deal for you too

[Elwood P Dowd]

No, no, no.

I own a copyright on some of the boilerplate included in the SCO Linux IP License. Feel free to use Linux, but if you buy the SCO License, then you're infringing on my copyright.

I'll license you the ability to use SCO's Linux IP License for the small, one time fee of $15,000. Per user.

Well, OK, but...

[mhotas]

That's the last straw.

Dear SCO.

[Civil_Disobedient]

Dear SCO,

Thank you for the good laugh this afternoon. Our network administrator actually wet his pants, while the rest of us were in such hysterics and tears that work became all but unmanageable. I don't get all the bad press about you guys... I think you've got a great sense of humor.

Sincerely,
LinuxCorp.

Ok

[nebaz]

extort (v) - to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

We Need Money!

[Foofoobar]

In other words:

'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.

Re:Only $699???

[RGRistroph]

I wonder if Microsoft is going to pony up for all the linux machines they have in that lab and elsewhere ?

They likely will, to increase the FUD and fund SCO. But as a side benefit, we will find out about a lot more linux use in Microsoft than we now know of.

oh man

[Tumbleweed]

And just think, that's the special 'introductory' price!

Linux may be free if my time is worth nothing, but my time sure ain't worth *that* much! :)

Business Tactics

[Dr. Transparent]

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.

No Linux Trademark recognition?

[afniv]

I notice how they list the trademarks at the bottom of the press release, except for Linux.

Re:No Linux Trademark recognition?

[fatboy]

"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.

Think again.

Re:At least now we know what their business model

[garcia]

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.

Re:At least now we know what their business model

[mackman]

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.

WTF

[SuperHighImpact]

an someone explain the logic behind this quote from the article?

Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.

Re:WTF

[squiggleslash]

Don't know. Let's hope SCO also plan to comply with the GPL, which they agreed to when they redistributed Linux.

Their compliance, of course, would mean that they can't enforce this $699 thing. If they ever tried, and succeeded, well, that'd put them in violation, and each and every contributor to the Linux kernel (well, technically, each and every copyright holder on the Linux kernel) would be able to sue. Presumably, the number of violations would end up being the number of licences SCO had sold until then.

So, this might even be a positive thing. It'll take a while, but the contributors to Linux might finally get paid for the valuable work they've done - money that'll come from idiots who sign up for licences they don't need, and from the Canopy Group's shareholders.

Re:WTF

[s20451]

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.

Give em a call!

[SoCalChris]

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

Re:Give em a call!

[chrisatslashdot]

I did. When I asked if it was true that I had to pay SCO $699 to run RedHat Linux the operator chuckeled and said 'Yes, sorry about that sir.' It was not a sarcastic laugh, she actually found the situation funny.

"Free" system?

[twoallbeefpatties]

Um... How much does one license of Windows cost now? I think I'm converting.

...Heh. Just kidding. ...I'm giving up on the PC completely and buying a Mac. ^__^

Profit margin

[Jonah Hex]

Hmmm $666 with an additional 5% profit margin = 699.3

Jonah Hex

if a tree falls...

[kenl999]

oh, so that's the noise 1 million eyeballs make as they roll back...

Michael Corleone

[cyc]

"My offer to you is this. Nothing."

Re:Michael Corleone

[TopShelf]

Does this mean Darl McBride's going to wake up with a penguin head in his bed???

Re:Michael Corleone

[BorgCopyeditor]

"My offer [...] is this. Nothing."

Excellent quote, but you've got to give the next line:

Not even the fee for the [...] license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. (emphasis added)

Re:Michael Corleone

[Zoop]

Does this mean Darl McBride's going to wake up with a penguin head in his bed???

Nah, why kill your own? Better use Clippy.

This is irrelevant, period!

[Lysol]

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.

Re:This is irrelevant, period!

[MatthewB79]

And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever.

That hasn't stopped them so far. I think the strategy they are using is forcing news reporters and investors to use thier language in regards to any questions they may have. If you try to ask them a question outside of thier realm, such as the first question of the conference call by the gentleman from the Wall Street Journal "Why don't you show the infringing code to the general public?". McBride answers "We have, we have made the code available to anyone who wants to see it". Totally ignoring the NDA. What reporters need to learn is the need to be VERY specific when asking McBride questions since he's obviously brushed up on his weasel-wording skills. I'd like to hear his answer if someone asked "Is the reason you have not made the code available for public viewing without a NDA or other restriction, that you do not wish to allow Red Hat or the general linux community the chance to remove the code?"
If there was really a 100% airtight case for infringing code then it could not possibly hurt them to show the code. Even if it did risk the code being removed from a future kernel. The only reason to not publish the code is to make sure it stays in there to secure future extortion and FUD efforts by SCO.

Re:This is irrelevant, period!

[worldcitizen]

> Unless there is proof, there is no need to pony up to SCO and fork out the dough

Actually, even if there is proof, this "license" is still worthless. If SCOX is finally found to have some proprietary IP (doubtful, but let's examine the possibility for the sake of the analysis) the GPL would forbid distribution of the combined result so your license would basically enable you to use only SCOX's pieces but it would effectively prevent you from legally using the rest of the kernel. You just paid for something that in the end has no use.

Companies buying this license are throwing away their money. If your company is thinking about purchasing one, it is your duty to warn the decision makers that the purchased item is unuseable.

Competing with Microsoft

[CodeZombie]

Anyone wonder why the price just happens to be so close to that of a Windows Server?

Re:Competing with Microsoft

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

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.

PUT A SHOE IN IT !

[curtisk]

From their Linux license FAQ website:

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.....

What a scam!

[dcavanaugh]

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.

I don't have to pay....

[Fapestniegd]

Because I commented the infringing lines out, and recompiled.
"Exactly which lines did I comment out?" you ask. That's *my* trade secret.
But I did manage to get all of the infringing lines SCO disclosed."

Re:SCO: Looking Good

[Glock27]

The stock market is ALWAYS right - by definition.

Geez, Anonymous, I've seen you make some damn silly posts but this one tops 'em all.

The stock market is always right?!? Sure, like when it sent Enron stock over $80/share? What's it worth now?

Right. Now crawl back under your rock.

George Soros and PAM...

[MosesJones]

George Soros (top investment guy who once made a billion in a day) has said that the markets represent wishes rather than reality. This is also why that "buy terrorist stock" thing from the DoD was complete rubbish.

Look at SCO, if they were Antartica in PAM the DoD would be saying "BIG terrorist threat at the south pole"

Markets != reality. Lets face it this is a place where analysts say Sun is in trouble and they have $5.5bn in the bank, I wish I was in that much trouble!

Re:SCO: ***Read Carefully***

[Anonymous Coward]

I normally would say that you should make a good case.. but in that ridicoulus case you have the only valid point.

One Hundred BILLION DOLLARS

[per unit analyzer]

SCO in their best Dr. Evil voice:

"That's a number. Okay then. We hold the world ransom for.....One hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!"

Hmm Hmm Ha Ha Ha!!!

Actually a smart move

[augustz]

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!

Don't Poke the Penguin

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Poke the Penguin, SCO

SCOX vs. RHAT

[MrRudeDude]

SCO vs. RHAT

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.

Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund?

[robogun]

*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.

Show's You how much Linux is worth

[Hamfist]

Just goes to show you how much Linux is worth. SCO seems to have it valued about right. Of course, Linux is GPL and FREE! Were one to charge for Linux, based on it's high end features, the price is close.

Let me check this....

[downix]

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?

My Experiences...

[The Slashdolt]

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?

Re:My Experiences...

[faedle]

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.

Re:My Experiences...

[16K Ram Pack]

Can I have your CEO's name?

I have a huge amount of money sitting in my Nigerian bank account which needs to be taken out of the country. Only $699 in fees for the paperwork.

Re:My Experiences...

[downix]

There is, of course, a simple fix that will not require changing your software in most likelihood:

Replace Linux with Hurd.

Linux remains *just* the kernel, the OS remains GNU.

I got my license for free

[yamla]

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.

This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock.

[reporter]

People who actually understand how operating-system code works should be able to earn a ton of money by shorting the stock of SCO. At some point, we just ask a group of Ph.D. students in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University to write a clean-room version of the disputed code. Problem solved. SCO stock collapses.

Many of the Wall Street analysts hyping up the SCO stock to their clients have no idea about the ease with which the disputed code can be re-written by capable graduate students of computer science. The analysts are fools, and so are their clients.

Let us keep this secret to ourselves, the Slashdotters. We will make a bundle of money. Some of us need downpayments on a new house.

Re:This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock.

[B3ryllium]

... there are two problems with that:

1) The disputed code is under NDA, and SCO are being tightwads and not letting it escape. They know that the instant the disputed code escapes, it will be re-coded and re-integrated in a way that removes this aspect of their case.

2) SCO also claims that it has process-patents, which I think means that no matter how you rewrite the code, it still DOES the same thing, which makes it a violation of their IP.

In summary, I think that what SCO should really do is bottle up whatever drugs they're smoking, and start selling them for these licensing prices. At least there would be a demand for the drugs, they seem rather potent.

New Slogan

[gers0667]

Linux! Free as in $699!

From the conference call

[Jsprat23]

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?

Other SCO numbers

[Black Parrot]

> 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

I call them "455-4013".

I think "347-5417" might be relevant as well.

What is capitalism?

[Phat_Tony]

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.

Re:What is capitalism?

[GenSolo]

Nobody was trying to extract money from Microsoft. Microsoft was attacked because they abused their monopoly status in an anti-capitalistic manner.

Re:What is capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody. I was opposed to the antitrust lawsuit against MS (Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because it was included with Windows? Bull! Netscape was a vastly inferior product, something even their own freaking developers admit).

But remember, this is Slashdot-- we're pro-capitalism when it suits us, we're anti-capitalism when it suits us.

Microsoft is evil, Linux is God, and BSD is dying. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength.

Re:What is capitalism?

[eryk]

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?

Re:What is capitalism?

[cluckshot]

Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment. Skipping a few details this is about it. Funny how today every Government Hallucination is called Capitalism. NOT LIKELY to be Capitalism just called capitalism.

We see a lot of devices like the SCO team and many others today calling themselves "Capitalism" but bluntly they are thieft by device, the definition of fraud.

I sincerely doubt that the stock holders of SCO or whatever will even participate in the "benefits" if there are any. As such the company should be charged with violation of the "Blue Sky Laws" where they are selling the Blue sky and not any factual thing when they sell stock. They are inducing investors with the intend of never paying them their just return. Does anyone take note that Microsoft might just fit this category too?!

Re:What is capitalism?

[ADRA]

This system is capitalism with baggage. In true capticalism, SCO would never sue anyone because there would be no laws copyrights, IP, etc.. for them to use. That is where the free market idea comes in. You can do whatever you like even if it monopolizes the markets. You would have a very few very powerful corporations, much like G8 countries of today. These countries control the world economic system to the extent that it maintains their perpetual leadership in the market.

Re:What is capitalism?

[Kaa]

Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment.

Basically, capitalism is a system where individuals are personally free (as opposed to feudalism) and can own means of productions, e.g. factories (as opposed to socialism/communism).

Investors were putting money into ventures and expecting a return long time before capitalism.

Re:What is capitalism?

[mt_nixnut]

and ignorance is strength

It was a very strong individual indeed that modded this insightful.

Re:What is capitalism?

[SlashDread]

Capitalism means what the speaker intended to mean when he utters the word. Nothing more nothing less. I dont want to go into a semantics discussion if it wasnt crusial.
Its like socialsm: Europens have a vastly different view on what socialism is than Americans. Americans predominantly see Socialsm as a central governement thing (where all is arranged in favour of some social belief), but Europeans belief it just means governing with a social face, and in fact the "less regulation" wing is the more dominant right now. So simply put Americans think "Ethics first" then money == Capitalism, whereas Europeans think "Money first" then maybe some law (but not ethics) == Capitalism.

Well from my European POV it seems anyway... /Dread

Re:What is capitalism?

[hng_rval]

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.

Re:What is capitalism?

[einhverfr]

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?

Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. In the Microsoft case, we use laws in a way which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist in the purest sense of the term in order to protect the foundation of our capitalism (the free market).

The difference is one of right and wrong. Caldera was right to sue Microsoft based on my research and much third-party documentation, but they were wrong to buy DR DOS for little other reason than to sue Microsoft. It should have been left to someone who wanted to do something with the product. Or at least have it contributed to the FreeDOS project, etc.

The real problem is that Caldera saw a legal opportunity and took it (suing Microsoft) and as a result they were too distracted to see that their business model (selling Linux as if it was proprietary software) was becoming irrelevant. So even now they are holding to it and trying to extort money from all Linux users.

I expect SCO to lose because they have no third-party backing (except perhaps Microsoft, but they can't say too much or they could be sued for the same things that RedHat is suing SCO for). Furthermore, in pursuing this, SCO is trying to break their own contracts witht heir customers (the GPL) which they knowingly entered into even AFTER they sued IBM. Even if they win some counts of the IBM suit, they will I think, lose to RedHat.

Re:What is capitalism?

[Khyeron]

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with FREEDOM. Capitalism deals with making money and that is that.
Same goes with democracy, do recall a famous quote
"The greatest tyranny of all is that of the ignorant majority."-Author Unknown

-Khyeron

Re:What is capitalism?

[Spellbinder]

i as European think US == money first then everything else

Re:What is capitalism?

[cluckshot]

Sorry but Microsoft including their recent "Dividend" still fits this category probably better than any other company in history. They have "Made the most money" and paid literally NOTHING until this year in dividends. The largest company in America pays a dividend of 0.25% return on investment. Come on! Wake up this is stock fraud to the limit.

So they make 8 Billion in profit but they don't pay it to their stockholders do they? This is prima facia evidence of what I am talking about but as usual people are not looking closely. They are just ignorantly going about squalking with all the intelligence of three rocks and one large brick.

There is practically no company in America of any size which in any way resembles capitalism. At this time, most big companies are sucking down massive tax exemptions. Their facilities as with MS are paid for and built by the Taxpayers who they intend to defy at every turn. They will refuse any request that they pay this back. Just to set you streight, what I am talking about is called "Jobs" by your Congress critters and is called "Industrial Development" by your city or town or state and is nothing of the sort. It is Faschism or National Socialism Pure and simple. Doubt me? Try financing an operation with real investment money with you at risk. The bank will say NO!

In the Case of MS everyone forgets a company set in business essentially by the US Department of Defense with massive help and "Deep Black" support who now ships all this tech off to our sworn enemy China in return for our generous support and assistance. China is openly planning Nuclear War with the USA and this is not an accusation, it is their word.

No MS is the worst of the lot. They took the most and have paid back such a small amount that it is a bad joke. The fraud at MS is MILES DEEP. But the "Capitalists" at the stock market are all believers who are awaiting even bigger suckers to follow their bad investment with more money.

In the case of MS those who chose "Appreciation" over Dividends will find that the "Profits" of $8 Billion are easy to report but when they have to be shelled out in cash, they will evaporate like Verga. It will never hit the ground. This is why Linux is a threat to MS. The top heavy structure is hollow to the core riddled with mechanisms where the big guys can take it all leaving the stockholders in the shorts. The organization is like a great oak fully hollowed out by termintes. When the wind blows it falls to splinters. It is already happening just watch.

If MS is your idea of capitalism, hold tight it is going to be a bumpy night. (Just a Hint: I am a true capitalist who has run businesses for may years with my own money until they were essentially crushed by these "Tax Advantaged" companies given advantages under Industrial Development Boards)

Darl the Angry Drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see a picture of Darl I get this image of a drunk in a bar swinging a broken bottle accusing everyone that they slept with his girlfriend; which everyone knows he doesn't have.

Selling short

[Cato the Elder]

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).

but

[jefu]

It looks to me like SCO is really claiming that they own the idea of Unix somehow (their phrase "an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX") and that they may then go after the BSD branch next.

Legally this may be untenable, I don't know - but it would probably pump up SCO stock prices and I think this is all they care about.

Linux is finaly warez!!!

[mike_scheck]

Now instead of fighting my way though ftp/cvs mirrors to download the latest distro of linux, I can just download it from a friendly neighborhood warez site! Its a win win situation really :)

Gotta have a price to have damages...

[LostCluster]

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...

Pump-n-Dump

[siskbc]

In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high.

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.

Re:Pump-n-Dump

[Darth Yoshi]

Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme.

Quibble. I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy them out, and then exercise their stock options. This pump-n-dump scheme is probably Plan B.

Re:Pump-n-Dump

[siskbc]

Quibble. I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy them out, and then exercise their stock options. This pump-n-dump scheme is probably Plan B.

No quibble at all. You say that they wanted IBM to buy them out - yes, and how do buyouts work? On a per-share basis. So the more they pump this stock, the more the IBM buyout would have been worth. Didn't matter if they sell the stock (or, indeed, all the stock) to IBM or the world at large, except that they would have gotten a slightly higher price from IBM and sold it all at once. Either way, the share price is critical, and had to be driven up.

So the pump part of the pump-n-dump would have been critical from the outset.

No, five words!

[Tackhead]

> BITE ME.

(No, five words!)

BITE MY SHINY METAL ASS!

(Three, Sir!)

TONGUE MY LOINS!

This is Great!

[alernon]

I finally get to go over to the linux guys where I work and talk about how affordable my dual processor mac actually is!!!

Dual 2ghz g5, $2999 w/ OS X

A dual ghz machine will cost the linux guys $2800 in the OS alone after October 15th!

*cackles manically* Ahhh revenge for the Mac community!

p.s. -- Yes this is a joke... don't flame me. ;)

OSS under attack, not linux

[guacamolefoo]

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.

SCO increasing fees

[Alsee]

$699 for a single CPU system through October 15th
After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399.
After October 20, SCO says they'll want $49999.
After October 25, SCO says they'll want three billion.
SCO will release October and November prices after they contract a mathematician to construct new super exponential and trans-finite numbering systems.

-

Securities Fraud???

[wayward_son]

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?

SCO will not show the code because...

[KRL]

... 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! :-)

This can't be legal . . . can it?

[pete-classic]

Could I claim I hold copyrights to code in, say, Photoshop or Windows, refuse to substantiate those claims, then extort money from users of those programs? People I don't even have a business relationship with? People who aren't even infringing on my (supposed) copyrights, but are merely using the software under license from a third party.

That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to.

-Peter

Re:This can't be legal . . . can it?

[geekoid]

"That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to."

no, the mob wouldn't stoop so low.

So be carefull, Insulting a mob boss has never been, shall we say, a long term endeavor.

caldera

[ianfs]

And to think I only paid $148.94 for Caldera last week!

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC =4 94073

Re: Linux 2.4

[booch]

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.)

excellent

[andih8u]

I was gonna go ahead and get this and the optional Brooklyn Bridge package they're selling.

SCO Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what SCO Germany is saying:

"...die urheberrechtlichen Anspruche, die SCO geltend macht, hatten kaum Substanz..."

The copyright issues SCO is claiming don't have much substance.

In Europe SCO don't have the Right to force money (by several court decisions).

So, it's an american problem only.
Bring them to court! Everyone. Now!

Re:I already bought a licence...

[bafraid2b1]

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.

SCO's still a prick

[iceT]

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.

thoughts on SCOX for the day

[invalid_address]

i just got off the conference call with the CEO and some other chodes from SCO Group. darl mcbride used vague references and subtle threatening words, but what's new.

-> he made use of the RIAA reference and the 'billions of dollars' in losses to the companies and artists. and how illegal copyright theft of internet music declined 30% once the RIAA layed the smack down on end users with individual lawsuits.

-> SCO is prepared to head down that path, but would prefer to remedy the situation without this. yadda yadda lip service. expect your subpoena soon

please send your 'special compliance synergy introductory value-added tiered schedule pricing' check to lindon, utah ASAP. failure to comply will result in you being hit by a meteor or slapped with a 6-7 figure lawsuit for 'hurting a faceless entity's feelings'.

SCOX - +0.78 so far today. this is disappointing.

please wsj, reuters, and other major news organizations make these evil men and women look like the corporate terrorists they are. but oh wait, darl mcbride is a CEO, he's SOMEONE!!! he's SPECIAL!!! don't hurt his or SCO's feelings, give them 700$ to go away...

for now.

Did I miss something

[jbaltz]

I haven't been following as carefully as I could have, but did SCO already win, or have I been transported to Bizarroworld (again)?

//jbaltz

Notes from the conference call

[mec]

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.

Re:Notes from the conference call

[kmac06]

Haha, way to mod him up rather than respond...thus /.ing him exactly as he didn't ask. Here is the text:

Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
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 ... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
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. ... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
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 ... just remove the infringing code.

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. ... important debate ...
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 ... now we're going to t

SCO's SEC Filings

[Trolocsis]

The scoop on who at the company is selling their stock can be found here in SCO's SEC filings. It appears that some of the chief people in charge are dumping thousands of shares of stock.

FAQ

[booch]

SCO has a FAQ on their website. There are also several other pages on the Linux licensing.

There are a lot of weird answers in the FAQ. One is a statement about not offering the license to Linux distro vendors, because that would conflict with the GPL. Also of note is that Caldera/SCO Linux users need to register for a license. It doesn't say if it's free for them or not. Embedded devices can be registered for $32, but it never says what constitutes and embedded device.

Open Letter to SCO geeks

[marienf]

Dear fellow geek,

Consider your future as laughing-stock at your next employer. The shame in working for SCO is fast approaching that of working for Microsoft.

Consider that you will need a job after SCO Enrons (hey, any noun can be verbed), and that I, for one, would be suspicious about taking you on, if I knew you had stayed throughout this outrage.

So for your own good, WALK OUT NOW and make it a public walk-out! Do it while your options are still worth money, at least. Hurry!

WKR,
A concerned fellow geek.

Re:A license to use Linux kernel binaries?

[Wyzard]

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.

No!

[xant]

A live penguin.

And several fresh dead fish, right around his crotch region.

I for one...

[ScoLgo]

will be glad when SCO is no more. I really, really dislike sharing my initials with such a sleazy company. I long for the day when I can apply my initials to paperwork without the chorus of accompanying snickers, (I even got it from the financing person last time I re-financed my mortgage, ferchrissakes!)

I'm just glad I had the foresight, (blind luck), to have added the 'Lgo' to the end of my username. I don't think I could stand the slashdot backlash if I hadn't... ;-]

SCO Logo

[Vampyre_Dark]

This is about the right time for SCO to change their logo to a little chihuahua humping Tux the penguin's leg.

Linux Licensing?

[slewfo0t]

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 -

They have lost their minds...

[confused one]

When you consider I could buy a Solarix x86, 4-cpu server license for $1500 ($375 per cpu) or a 2-cpu workgroup server license for $250 ($125 per cpu) direct from Sun.

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...

Here's what I've been wondering

[mcc]

Assuming that SCO loses this battle, I doubt there will be much left of the company to go after.

Once SCO has lost the battle, there will still be the Canopy Group and the SCO board members, McBride and the rest. I am willing to bet that once SCO dies miserably, Canopy Group will have made more than many times over enough money they extracted from the stock manipulations they put SCOX through to have made the whole exercise more than worthwhile.

Is there any way at all persons like Mr. Wolf- would have the ability to go after Canopy Group, as the majority shareholder and pretty clearly the one guiding SCOX through all this, for the damages he would be able to demand from SCOX had not Canopy Group and Mr. McBride driven SCOX into the ground?

Is there any way that, once the intellectual-property thing serves useless except as a stock scam, people who were originally shareholders of Caldera and wound up with their Caldera stock becoming worthless paper after Canopy Group drove SCOX into the ground with their new "strategy" (and absconded with the money) could sue Canopy Group?

I realize most of our corporate law seems to be designed to ensure stockholders are not responsible for the actions of the company. However, recently, in the wake of the Enron Witchhunt, CEOs and other corporates who engage in openly deceptive practices actually have been getting in trouble.

Surely there's some sort of laws on the books to prevent individuals like McBride and groups like Canopy from taking over a small company like Caldera and using it as a shell to perform illegal actions (like libel, and barratry, and deceptive trade practices) with no intent or purpose for the company except to allow themselves to perform illegal acts without being legally liable? Surely the fact that it will be possible to show the Canopy Group's sudden majority ownership coincided with the strategies that led to SCOX being wiped out in counterlawsuits from IBM and Redhat and people like Wolf-, and the fact it will be possible to show the Canopy Group benefited GREATLY from the stock actions they performed during these strategies, means that once SCOX has been wiped out Canopy Group will be in some way liable for whatever damages post-bankruptcy SCOX couldn't be made to pay?

Yes? No? Is there an investment lawyer in the house?

Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD

[msobkow]

In the unlikely chance that SCO wins before I win the lottery or am struck by lightning, I'll just be redeploying with a BSD instead of SCO.

And if they go after BSD, I'll shift to Plan9 or QNX rather than giving one thin dime to the leeches running SCO.

Should those get nailed, GNU should finally have a decent "Hurd" kernel running by then (15-20 years of lawsuits.)

congratulations!

[hendrix69]

Linux now costs more than Windows. Cool, perhaps now those shitheads upstairs that run my company will consider switching to it!

All According to Plan

[FreeUser]

Wow, that makes a Windows 2003 Server cluster look cheap! Windows 2003 Web Edition is only like $400. The standard edition is around $600.

That's the whole idea. Why do you think $CO priced their bogus (and illegal) licenses the way they did, so soon after Micro$oft purchased that expensive, utterly unnecessary license in order to prop them up (and $un added to their kitty as well)?

This is about FUD and misinformation, with Microsoft as the primary beneficiary and Sun as ugly and despicable opportunist. Both had better exploit it well, because it won't last, SCO will almost certainly not survive any legal activities that actually take place within the court room, and anyone found to be in collaboration on this may well end up in prison or in debt as well.

Which will be a delightful pleasure to watch, although if Enron is any indication, most of these rich fucks will walk away with their ill-gotten wealth, stepping over the corpses of those they defrauded on their way to the bank, laughing all the way.

So much for capitalism, or justice, in America.

I called

[radon28]

And they refuse to provide any information until you give them your phone number and name. Yeah, I don't see them sending me any bills in the mail.

Re:I'll be rich!

[gordie]

The RIAA has copyrighted the sound of a flushing toilet, so now you will have to pay 87% of your $50.00 in royalties to them!

Obvious things to do

[kroyd]

Just off the top of my mind:

• Make a proper worldwide list of SCO resellers, and have people from each contry conntact each reseller. Just a few press releases saying "we are no longer a SCO reseller" would be worth it. (The SCO / Caldera site is not surprisingly broken for finding official resellers.)
• Check if The Canopy group is dumping SCO stock. The used to own 65% or so, if they're dumping stock it should be worth a FP on slashdot, if not news.com.. I'm not sure how you do this, you probably have to have a bit higher market access than most people.
• Check if Unixware contains any obvious code stolen from Linux. Later versions have ext2 support and such, and there is the linux compability layer. Is all that _really_ written from scratch? If someone can show that "SCO stole thousands of lines of code from Linux and here is the proof" it would take a LOT of the wind out of their sales. And then there is device drivers.. In 10 years I doubt that they haven't copied anything from Linux.
• What more? Oh.. Perhaps the people at www.thesmokinggun.com could dig something up on a SCO exec? Like this mugshot (not safe for work or anywhere).

Oh, and I got the partner page to work on sco.com: For where I live the first listed is a privat person, then there is a huge dairy (i.e. milk and cheese producer).. I wonder if they know they sell SCO products ;)

SCO icon?

[ed.han]

aren't we overdue for a new, less sympathetic SCO icon? i mean, if we borgify M$ surely something similar is way past warranted for these guys?

ed

Cheering for attacks on Microsoft

[Phat_Tony]

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.

Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft

[nobody69]

AIUI, you don't have to have 100% market saturation to be considered a monopoly. Also, you don't get nailed with anti-trust violations just by being a monopoly. If you are a dominant player in the market ("huge market share" in your words) and you abuse that power ("leveraged it in nasty ways to try to maintain it and to try to make people pay them more" in your wordsa)You May Be Violating Anti-Trust Laws. While abusing your monopoly on computer OS's isn't as big a deal as doing it on generating electricity or making antibiotics, I still think MS qualified for anti-trust protection.

Where's my Monopoly money....

[nortcele]

As soon as I find my Parker Brothers Monopoly game, they will have their $699. And a shoe.

What they heck do they think they own... Boardwalk? That's just crazy.

Mec's notes from the teleconference

[nedwidek]

Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
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 ... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
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. ... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
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 ... just remove the infringing code.

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. ... important debate ...
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 ... now we're going to take matters in our own hands.
A: It's time to start marching onward again.

#4 Michael Singer, Jupiter Media

"terrorist market" actually a good idea

[Brown Line]

The so-called "terrorist market" was an information market, which is modelled after a futures market, not the stock market. The Iowa Electronic Markets, which are run by the University of Iowa, have proved themselves useful both in pooling information about possible future events (e.g., who will elected president) and in attracting ideas about possible outcomes. Information markets clearly are a good idea - though it makes sense for something like this to be run by a university rather than the Pentagon.

Regards ...

Indemnity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a serious issue. Even if RH has a defense fund, why has no organization offered indemnity?

An article like this at forbes I think is enough to scare a CTO. We can't keep looking at this like an absurd joke, IBM needs to setup to the plate.

good luck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I pay for linux when I don't even pay for Windows!

More interesting info...

[demonbug]

The complaint filed by SCO. Fairly interesting in a legal sort of way. An interesting segment from the complaint...

Limitations of Linux Before IBM's Involvement

82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.

83. As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors, for at least two major reasons: (a) Linux quality was inadequate since it was not developed and tested in coordination for enterprise use and (b) enterprise customer acceptance was non-existent because Linux was viewed by enterprise customers as a "fringe" software product.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

86. It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM.

Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc.

[mhesseltine]

On my system:

#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep smp
#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep numa
#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep rtc
#grep NUMA /usr/src/linux/.config
#grep RTC /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_RTC is not set
#grep SMP /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_SMP=n

Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.

As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.

As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.

If the naughty code is for SMP...

[The Lord of Chaos]

Then why are SCO charging for single processor licenses? Sure a SMP compiled kernel will use SMP code but a kernel compiled without SMP should be exempt since it doesn't use the SMP code that SCO allegedly owns.

My analysis

[mec]

Read McBride's opening statement closely:

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. ... important debate ... [about] proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.

He is calling out RMS by name. This is a lot worse than "hey your product infringes on our product". This is a declaration that proprietary source and open source cannot co-exist in the same world.

In his closing remarks, McBride likens SCO's actions against Linux end users to the RIAA's actions against P2P copyright infringers.

This is some lethal FUD here. There is a huge difference between music thieves and open source developers. Music thieves are in fact making using other people's work without their consent, whereas open source developers create their own independent content and distibute it on their own chosen terms. We are indies. We are not warez d00dz.

Back to SCO ... the key part here is that SCO has developed a new business model.

Classical company: make products and services, sell them to customers for money, profit.

F/OSS community: make products and services, give them away, self-generating funding, community rewards (but not much profit).

SCO: generate FUD, sell "ScoSource licenses" to Microsoft and Sun, profit.

Classical companies took some time to adjust to the radically different approach of the F/OSS Community. We don't breath the same oxygen that they do, so strategies that worked against, say, Netscape, do not work against, say, Apache.

Similarly, SCO has a radically different model. SCO throws shit like a mad monkey at the Bronx zoo. For a classical corporation, there is huge backlash to this, because customers tend to avoid the products and services of the shit-thrower. But SCO doesn't care, because they don't make their profit from selling products and services ... they make it by filing lawsuits (Caldera International versus Microsoft) and by selling their services as fudmongers!

How to fight something like this?

Well, Linuxtag did something effective. Red Hat's lawsuit may or may not be effective, but it sure is good for morale. I asked RMS to boycott SCO -- remove support for SCO operating systems from GNU products -- but he replied that he didn't think it would be effective (because SCO can just maintain their own branch). I disagree with that and I urge more developers to follow Fyodor's lead and remove OpenServer and UnixWare as configuration options in their software.

SCO makes money by throwing shit at Linux -- not indirectly by increasing sales of their products (which does not work very well), but directly, in the form of checks from Microsoft and Sun.

SCO has essentially two assets and is fighting on two levels. They have legal claims and are pursuing those in court. But they also have PR assets. It is deadly for us to reply to their PR attacks with legal defenses. We have to attack SCO's PR assets.

Some ideas for an attack:

. SCO claims they spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and purchasing the rights to Unix. Well, actually, they probably spent a lot less than that. Check how much they raised in their IPO and how much revenue they've made since then and how much they've actually spent on engineering.

. SCO even bought their name! The SCO Group didn't build a reputation on that name. They used to be Caldera International, but when that didn't work, they bought the name from the Santa Cruz Operation.

. SCO isn't a product and service company. Their revenues are tiny and declining. Their VP of Engineering sold all his stock (and I've heard a rumor that he left the company, haven't tracked it down yet). It's not enough to point out that they are litigious. Point out that they have nil legitimate technology to bring to the table.

Sorry this rambles a bit, I should write an essay instead of just rambling in a comment box.

Once again, Billy Connolly said it best...

[marsvin]

"Fuck off. Just... fuck off!"

Don't Cave In

[Exousia]

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

Re:this is illegal

[nagora]

Seems to me that I could sell you a license to use the Internet, for as much money as I want.

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

Linux is Dead

[nt2UNIX]

Damn, just had to say it.

Long live BSD!!!!!!!

How about Gentoo and LFS?

[axxackall]

The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights

I guess the keyword here is binary - those who compiled Linux from scratch may relax and safe money. Perhaps that's b/c the "secret IP" code of SCO is only in binary format. I wonder, do they petent x86 instruction code set? If so, how about Linux users on PPCs and SPARCs? If not then what makes the binary deployment to be so special comparing to the source-code based ones?

Re:Separation from Government

[Phat_Tony]

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").

Put it in escrow!

[gbulmash]

How about this? Anyone who is truly wetting their pants over this should buy a license, but should put the $699 in an interest bearing escrow account with payment being conditional on SCO winning their cases on all counts and proving unequivocably that they own all the necessary rights to make the demands they've made.

It's actually a fairly well-used method of payment in cases of dispute.

If I live in California and dispute my phone bill, I can put the full payment on deposit with the Public Utilities Commission pending resolution of the dispute. This way my local telephone service provider can't file a negative credit report on me for not paying my bill, but they don't get any of my money until the dispute is resolved. Once it's resolved, the PUC gives the phone company the amount to which they're entitled, and if I've successfully argued my case, I get the disputed portion back.

If SCO is so sure of their claims, they should have no problem with this solution. Your only loss is getting passbook-style interest on the money rather than the interest you could get from more aggressive investments.

- Greg

I just removed the violating code from my system.

[OrangeTide]

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...

Interesting comments from Linuxtoday

[Markos]

From the Linuxtoday article:

Thomas C. Carey, a partner at of the Boston IP and business law firm Bromberg & Sunstein and chairman of the firm's Business Practice Group, thinks Red Hat has a very good case. "Assuming for the moment that SCO is off-base in its allegations, this complaint is enough to rock SCO to its foundations." Still, "A lot will depend upon the vigor with which the matter is pursued. My presumption is that the suit is serious and will be pursued with full force."

But Carey warns, "SCO is in some danger even if its allegations are correct, simply because SCO has put everyone in an impossible position. What can they (a Linux distributor or end-user) do if they don't know which code is infringing? If, to that unfairness, you add a conclusion that SCO has its facts wrong, then SCO's liability to Red Hat and others could be very substantial. And if SCO knows (or should know) that its facts are wrong, then you can kiss the company good-bye."

Last, but far from least, Carey thinks that there's "a potential securities fraud action is buried within the pleadings. Red Hat speaks of Canopy Group (SCO's primary owner) having raked in millions in cash since the start of this affair. Red Hat notes that its own stock price has declined 20% in a month. This is the stuff of securities lawsuits. Red Hat could amend its claims to include a securities law claim, or another law firm could bring a class action lawsuit against SCO on behalf of selling Red Hat shareholders who have been harmed by the low price they get. Finally, it is conceivable that the SEC or the Justice Department could take an interest in this, viewing it as market manipulation."

Let's send them some cheques!

[multipartmixed]

I'm halfway tempted to print up some cheques with the goatse.cx picture on them, make out to the personal account of Darl McBride... and see if he cashes the bastards!

Reporting SCO to the BBB

[defwu]

Maybe some of us should try complaining to someone who actually looksinto bad business practices?
http://complaints.bbb.org/Welcome.asp
I am going to file a complaint.
They do take these things seriously, and I firmly beleive that these announcements amount to nothing more than misleading business practices.

SCO german site back up.

[eddy]

And on that note, the german SCO site is back. Let's hope they fuck up and post some anti-linux propaganda.

Re:What is the proof either way?

[BigRedFish]

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?

Hello Mountian Home AFB?

[LWATCDR]

NSA: NSA We don't exist. How my I direct your call.

SCO:We here you have been adding code to Linux and have even used it in house. We have a large bill for you that you have to pay or we will sue you.

NSA:That is very interesting we will give you our answer in about an hour. CLICK

Mountain Home AFB: Mountian Home Air Force Base how can I help you?

NSA: This is the NSA we have a terrorist take over in Utah.

Mountian Home AFB: Is it SCO?

NSA: Yes have you already heard?

Mountian Home AFB: Yea they have already called the Army to try and bill them. They even called some of the Oil Companies and that got the White House involved.

NSA: So you have already tasked a strike mission?

Mountian Home AFB: No need. They also sent a bill to Disney! They will never know what hit them. Have a nice day.

Simple

[booch]

The GPL explicitly states that agreeing to the GPL license is not required to use the software. It is only required to modify or distribute the code (in binary or source). The SCO license only applies to running the software, not distributing or modifying it. So the 2 licenses are for completely separate things -- they can't conflict. From section 0 of the GPL:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Of course, there are a few problems with SCO's attempt to steer clear of a conflict with the GPL. Section 6 of the GPL states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

and section 7 says:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

The question is whether "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in section 0 is considered to be one of "the rights granted herein". Technically, it is not, since the right to use a software program is not one of the rights granted to a copyright holder. The GPL relies on the fact that the right to run a program is not restricted by Copyright law. But if somehow that turns out not to be the case, SCO may have found a loophole in the GPL.

SCO is not distributing any Linux code (source or binary) with this license. They are assuming you've already purchased "infringing" software. So they're not distributing anything. Of course, they've already modified and distributed the Linux code, so they've already agreed to the GPL on that code.

Since the right to use a software program is not specified as a restriction in the Copyright Act, there's really no reason you need to buy a license from SCO to use the Linux code in question. And I'd suspect that their license will put restrictions on your modification and distribution of Linux. Which of course would conflict with the GPL. And they'd probably turn around and sue you for breaching their license. Sounds more risky to accept their license offer than to risk being sued for violating their copyright, for which their case is very weak.

But there is some logic in what SCO is doing, trying to weave their way around the GPL.

Great quote but...

[Phat_Tony]

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

Trying to purchase licenses from SCO

[maxmo74]

We tried to purchase the licenses we need for our offices. In order to we looked in their site anything about the possibility to buy them (online or with other methods). We didn't succeed so we posted a couple of questions to SCO online (that was possible, even if their site seems to be a little slow).

One of the requests we made:

Hello,

We would like to purchase Linux licenses for our servers.
We couldn't find a link on your home page. Is online payment possible?
Can we keep using our RedHat linux installations in the meanwhile?

Thank you.

We are now waiting for a quick answer from them (their form said You will be hearing from us soon), and very very curious about their answer.

who infringes

[chrismg2003]

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.

Buy SCO

[Knaldgas]

LinuxCounter estimates approx 18 million Linux users (=linux machines?).
Whats the worth of SCO? $200 mill.?

Let's put in $20 for each Linux we have, then:

• buy SCO
• license all their IP/code to GNU
• and if we are in a real evil mood: dissolve the company.

Let me see, I have 3 Linuxes running = $60
SCO wants $699 per Linux = $2097
I save $2037 and probably will get an even better Linux ;-)

Perhaps it's time for the world to meet Open Capitalism

What does the law say?

[HuskyDog]

Well, this had been going on for weeks and I have still to see the fundamental question addressed. Where, precisely, in the laws of the USA does it state that end users are liable for copyright infringement? Isn't copyright infringement the act of copying or distributing some copyrighted work owned by somebody else?

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?

Re:What does the law say?

[debest]

Where, precisely, in the laws of the USA does it state that end users are liable for copyright infringement?

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:

• pumping up the stock for the shareholders,
  
• making themselves so annoying that someone (IBM) will buy them,
  
• someone (Microsoft) is quietly pulling the strings, since litigation and FUD are the only weapons that have any effect on OSS's rate of growth.

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.

SCO: 1-800-726-8649 - Call it - often

[Kevoco]

It's their phone bill :-)
Can anyone say Telephone Denial of Service attack?

Get others to help like this:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/cas/14497372.html

Send Monopoly Money!

[aschlemm]

I'm sure a lot of people have old Monopoly games laying around unused. I good use of all that paper Monopoly money would be to send the appropriate amount to SCO for their licensing fee.

My experience calling SCO just now...

[dstone]

For those interested or those who couldn't get through on the phone today...

I just called their toll-free number 1-800-726-8649, hit option 5 to speak to a representative. I explained that I may be interested in purchasing license(s) but needed clarification on their policy. Note that I don't currently own or operate any Linux systems that their license would apply to, but that I'm calling for some clarification of their policy.

Anyways, they wanted my company name, my name, and a return phone number. A sales rep will call me back. When I asked how long it would take, I was told it probably would not be this week since they've been backlogged with so many calls. Their sales director wasn't prepared for this large of a response. So either sales are going to be great for SCO this quarter, or their staff is going to be talking to a lot of time-wasters, money-wasters, and tire-kickers.

Tell SCO How Much You Love Them

[InfiniteWisdom]

SCO Sales and product enquiries

1-800-726-8649

How many phone calls will it take to empty SCO's coffers?

The SCO Group (Formerly known as Caldera)

[stock]

FYI:

Last year Caldera Inc. changed its Company name into a new Company name called "The SCO Group Inc." In 2000 Caldera Inc. publicly announced to donate their UNIX stuff into the Linux 2.4 kernel. That was just after Caldera Inc. had bought the orginal SCO Inc. company.

bottom line : "The SCO Group Inc." today has no rights whatsoever to charge $699,= for a Linux License

Robert

license what???

[two_tone]

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.

Single CPU Systems?

[giantsfan89]

• SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003

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?

9.8 mill for R-shack

[MoFoQ]

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.

Leave em some nice feedback

[gstaines]

Let these cretins know what we think about them

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

Gordon Staines

Financial Times sez IBM reply is a few days

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1059478724020

Re:Financial Times sez IBM reply is a few days

[richg74]

There is a serious error of fact in the FT article:

SCO's legal team has adopted an interesting legal strategy, choosing to claim contract violation instead of copyright or patent infringement, which would be governed by federal laws. Because it is a contract dispute, the case will probably be tried by a local court in Utah, where SCO is based, which could be friendlier to local companies.

This is just plain wrong. SCO v. IBM will be tried in the Federal District Court in Utah. Because of the amount in dispute (more than $75,000), and because IBM and SCO are incorporated in different states (IBM in New York, SCO in Delaware), IBM has the right to have the trial moved to Federal court. They filed the "Notice of Removal" on March 25.

This is not "death throes of a dinosaur"

[mec]

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).

My turn

[davmoo]

For a limited time, for $29.99 I will offer all employees and officers of SCO a perpetual license to kiss my ass. After October, the price rises to $59.99. This license entitles said SCO employee the right to kiss my left butt cheek one time. For the rights to kiss multiple times, or for the use of both butt cheeks, please contact me for additional fees.

Re:Tactical error by SCO

[WCMI92]

"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...

What a Coincidence !

[richg74]

After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!

So the price is going to go up in October. And it just so happens that the restrictions on the common stock that was given to the SCO directors expire on October 31. (Once the restrictions expire, they can sell it.) Here is the relevant paragraph from SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC:

During the six months ended April 30, 2003, the Company issued 218,000 shares of restricted stock to certain key employees and 150,000 shares of restricted common stock to members of the Company's board of directors. The restricted common stock issued to the board of directors was in lieu of cash compensation for their services to the Company during the 2003 fiscal year and the restrictions lapse at October 31, 2003. The restrictions on the restricted stock awards granted to key employees lapse over a period of 24 months. The fair value of the restricted stock awards granted of $549,000 was recorded as a component of deferred compensation and is amortized to stock-based compensation as the restrictions lapse or as the services are performed.

Isn't it odd how these strange coincidences occur?

Let's Put SCO Behind Bars

[MichaelCrawford]

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends use to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time.

Before I ever used Linux, I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Rather than paying their fee, my response will be to write a letter to the Maine State Attorney General to ask that they prosecute SCO. I'm going to include substantive documentation, like a hardcopy of SCO's claim that I must pay them this fee, as well as IBM's and RedHat's responses to SCO.

I'm also going to write to the Federal Trade Commission to ask that SCO be investigated for illegal trade practices.

If you live in the United States, I ask you to write a similar letter to your state Attorney General, as well as to the Federal Trade Commission. If you live in a state where a Linux distro vendor is located, or a company that has a lot of Linux installations - doesn't Amazon use it? - write to your elected representatives to ask that they work with the state and fede

Well *BSD is safe

[bsdguy]

One thing that many folks that have come to Linux in the last 5 years may not be aware of is that AT&T about 10 years ago (around the time of the first releases of Linux) brought suit against the now defunct BSDI claiming that there was ATT code in BSD. BSDI spent lots of $$, on it and in the end it was found that AT&T had grabbed BSD code and stripped out the copyright notices. In the end the court said the BSD folks can't call their stuff Unix (thus we no longer talk about BSD Unix, only *BSD) and AT&T had to respect the BSD license and put the notices back in the code.

So what does this have to do with the price of ice in Alaska? Glad you asked..... BSD development got very slow and many good developers that I know went over to doing Linux development durring the years of the suit, thus giving Linux a much needed boost. These folks did this because they did not want to lose their code to AT&T if BSDI lost the case. Since then the BSD family has not had the popular or press following that Linux has, but it has still grown to become the robust system it is today and the great thing is that SCO/Caldera can not move against the BSDs because the court already ruled against them (they bought what AT&T had). So while the new owners of Unix, like many recent Linux converts, have not learned from history and are doomed to repeat it the BSD groups do not have to go through it all over again!

I sure hope that discovery in these trials shows that SCO is in violation of the GPL. Sure would love to see the FSF or some one get some damages on that one!

-bsdguy

--
DRM is theft! We are the stakeholders! - http://www.nyfairuse.org/