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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[kwiqsilver]

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

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!

[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.

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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[sisukapalli1]

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

S

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.

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?

[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"

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.

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...

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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'.

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

[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.

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.

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???

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[mt_nixnut]

and ignorance is strength

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

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: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.

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.

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.

-

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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

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