Slashdot Mirror
SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort
An anonymous reader writes "SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers running in their business. SCO: 'This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO. We anticipate this being the first of many licensees that will properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property.'" kanly writes "The full text of IBM's countersuit against SCO is now online at LWN." M : Our own Roblimo has a pretty good take on it. Keep in mind that SCO could sell a blanket license for $1, for the publicity value.
SUCKERS. I really want to put some sort of useful comment in this post but that word just keeps repeating.
Though if it is true, I'd think though misc financial disclosures that one could find out which company supposedly paid SCO (for generating carbon dioxide, which plants need to live).
:)
Down with SCO.
--
+1 karma for low User ID and not being fond of SCO
SCO, why won't you tell us the name of this "Fortune 500" company?
P.T. Barnum called. He wants his cliche back.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
Or anyone else who contributed to Linux, isn't SCO liable for the same infringement?
sigh...
Newsfollow.com
The article is here...
-- search the web
If you look at their stock chart for Monday:
p =s &t=1d&l=on&z=m&q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&
You can see where it was really headed down the tubes, and then this announcement came along at 'just the right moment', and propped things up a bit.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Didn't SCO state that Microsoft was going to (has?) purchased "Linux licenses"? Coincedence?
We can't name the company because they don't exi-- er, because of legal reasons.
Knowing Calde^H^H^H^H^H, er, SCO they probably would do it.
Just like the infringing code...I bet both don't exist.
The SCO(R) Group (SCO) today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX Rights.
How could Microsoft NOT be forced into buying these for its "new" Linux Lab (mentioned here several times in the past week.)?
"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag
Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Is SCO a Fortune 500 company? That would explain this.
With their new 'testing labs', what's the bet that it's Microsoft?
I'm sure they'd love to further finance Caldera's extortion/FUD campaign.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
that the "Undisclosed Fortune 500 Company" is none other than Microsoft.
At least, it satisfies my sense of irony and suspicion. It would be convenient for Microsoft to lend credibility to SCO's claim on Microsoft's biggest thrat, Linux. Microsoft says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Start Running Better Polls
Article length: 184 words
Sales pitch: 169 words
Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
What happens when we win?
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool? Do they get their money back?
Do they sue for extortion?
The company that did it is a fool. It's probably Microsoft... registering their 2 copies.
ChiefArcher
They are setting up a Linux lab, and after all the noise they've made they'd have to buy a license, right?
IMO, "an anonymous Fortune 500 company" is exactly as convincing an argument as "lots of unidentified source code".
I.e., a completely useless as a basis for argument, even if it happens to be true.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Beacuse the company is either Microsoft or doesn't exist
What if SCO paid your company $2 for every $1 of license that you bought from them? Would you be wrong to do that?
SCO buys publicity, your company gets money.
Even though you know SCO is wrong... you couldn't feel bad about taking their money! They're going down in flames anyways, why not save some of their cash before it burns up?
(i guess wildly on the nature of the business deal)
no thanks
Agent Cowboy Neal: Tell me McBride, what good are your licenses if your servers can't even speak?
Anti SCO T-Shirt $1 donated to OSI Fund on each shirt.
News at 11
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
did the deed to the brooklyn bridge come with the license as well?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
"The SCO Group (SCOX - news) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday."...by taking all their money
Look at the place I work. A financial firm in downtown New York. A few months ago, we started to shift all the NT servers to Linux.
However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.
I have been an avid Linux user since '99, and while all this means nothing to me, big companies get worried at all this talk and all these lawsuits. Understandably so. They don't care about the politics. From their view, Linux has some illegal code which SCO is claiming is theirs. The IT Managers don't want to get fired or blamed, if the worst case comes to be that we indeed do have to pay license fees, when all this is resolved.
Such a shame....
Microsoft? They opened a linux test lab recently, right? They have the money to pay the fee, they are in the fortune 500, and they are willing to pay the fee even though they don't have to. Not to mention SCO did not say which company it is.
So an "undisclosed" Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses paying for "undisclosed" intellectual property ... real smart.
I think the company surely wishes to remained undisclosed as I for one would short their stock for being stupid.
To bad SCO is not a Fortune 500 company or we would know who bought the licence.
....I really DO like being shaken down by scum....
Perhaps they did it themselves? I guess this is kinda like seeding the tip jar with some change in order to generate more income....
I wonder if this will be refundable if SCO's claims are proven worthless?
Good news is SCOX closed down 14% today.
Help fight continental drift.
I read this interesting article over at The Register by Andrew Orlowski about taking GPL to court. My favorite quote:
The greatest strength of the GPL is that it's a social contract, one that makes the most powerful, who can buy the legal system, think twice before going to law. And that's pretty powerful.
But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply. As if he's supposed to know the difference.
The company that purchased the licenses wouldn't happen to have it's corporate headquarters just outside of Seattle, WA, USA, would it?
www.eFax.com are spammers
(church lady voice)
Now who could want SCO to sound legitimate?
Could it be MICROSOFT!?
Anyone wanna bet the fortune 500 company ahs a vested interest... ohhh... like maybe Microsoft or Sun?
:-)
Not that I wanna start rumours or anything...
'course could be some company whos got so much money like they really don't care (some rich oil company)
I posted this link under Linux Gaining Ground in India but it is worth repeating.
Corporate stupidity does not veracity make. Mendacity, now, ...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Maybe they're suckers, or maybe they just don't exist.
So an undisclosed company has bought thier license because SCO claims an undisclosed segment of the linux kernel source is their IP. This sounds like crap to me, for reasons I won't disclose.
And did you read the article? Christ, it sounds liek an SCO commercial. I'm not sure how "The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday" when it seems all they do is tax them on free software.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
So, after its all said and done, and SCO is found to be full of the crap that is spewing from their mouth, how many of their new "Licensees" will be lining up requesting a refund for the "license" for "absolutely nothing at all"?
The sad part is, once RedHat and IBM are done with SCO, there won't be enough of SCO left for even roaches to snack on.
Regards,
Fredrick
s/it's/its/g
It's been too long a day....
www.eFax.com are spammers
From the countersuit text:
"36. Rather than particularize its allegations of misconduct by IBM and others, SCO has obfuscated and altered its claims to foster fear, uncertainty and doubt about its rights and the righte others."
Not only "obfuscate", but also "FUD"... Not bad =)
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
they buy the "licenses" and when it's proven SCO's claims are fraudulent, they can sue.
...when you buy licenses from SCO, you're funding terrorism!
SCO's NOT Linux!! Loud and Proud:
http://www.cafeshops.com/politinerd
Say it! Wear it! Mean it! thx
When is SCO going to disclose something? Everything they've said so far is unsubstantiated, and now they won't even tell us which company bought licenses.
I can understand them wanting to protect their own code with an NDA, but why won't they just tell us which lines of the kernel contain their code?
They don't have to reveal anything that hasn't somehow already made public. We just need to know which parts to rewrite...
The unofficial
SPI
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Here's the introduction: Also from the article: This page provides the article in the UBB code that some message boards use, with plain text coming soon. I'm also starting to post examples of letters that others have sent to their Attorney's General.Thanks for your help.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
When the SCO suit is proven to be total BS, will all the companies who bought licenses sue SCO for extortion or something like that? Seems to me that if SCO loses the suit they're going to have a lot of civil (and almost as likely criminal) suits on their hands.
My guess is that this company will be the third in line (behind IBM and RedHat) to sue the ass off SCO once this starts to unravel a bit. Selling a bogus license to a fortune 500 company has got to have some serious repurcussions to it.
Slashdot to give this ongoing saga all this publicity ?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.
Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.
Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!
SCO stock tanking
If I am one of the 300 companies that have contacted them?
Also, it didn't say how many licenses were sold. Unfortunately, some companies don't use linux.
$699 * 0 = 0
And that's an easy deal to close.
-Dave
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
From the article:
``About SCO
The SCO Group (SCOX - news) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday.''
Hahahaahahahahahahahahahah
No idea what most of this means, but it sounds very impressive :-)
First Defense
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense
SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged,performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.
Third Defense
SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.
Fourth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Fifth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the dependent-duty doctrine.
Sixth Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.
Seventh Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
Eighth Defense
SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.
Ninth Defense
SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Tenth Defense
SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.
Take that, SCO! ;-)
I am thinking that I will buy one if they guarentee that it is required. I would like some legal letter from their CEO (and Ray Noorda) that will guarentee that this is necessary and that this is not a fraud to simply sell stock.
I am thinking of 3 little words
corporate veil piercing.
I wonder if I start calling on their 800 number How high I can go with this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Does anyone have a freakin' timeline on all of this?
There's "The SCO Group", there's "Original SCO", there's "The Santa Cruz Operation", there's "Tarantella", there's "Caldera", on and on...
I'm so confused.
The Santa Cruz Operation had that God-aweful operating system of years ago. But that OS dropped off the radar eons ago. What happened in between? I missed it. Where do these other companies fit in? Who bought whom? Who bought what? Who started what?
Thanks
...that SCO isn't still lying thier heads off...
What's the chance that they offered [undisclosed Fortune 500 Company] a smokin' deal like $150 per cpu, or $1 per cpu, or whathaveyou?
Put the fear of litigation into a company, then give em a way out through an offer they can't refuse.
All part of the plan to extort money.
Just sick man... real sick.
do() || do_not();
I'm sorry but all I can imagine after reading this is Vincent and Julius in the apartment.
Julius: Please allow me to retort...
insert machine gun fire.
It's SCO!
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
The SCOfflaw SCO SCOlds all Linux SCOuts, SCOffing the SCOed IBM SCOpe
SCOot, SCO, before we you SCOrch you, because we SCOrn you!
Could the unnamed company be sun micro?
Current close: US$9.289, down $1.461 from Friday's close. Opened at $10.45.
This sig no verb.
let them know what you think!
http://www.caldera.com/feedback
SCO's current market capitalization is $120 million. If 1 percent of the 2.4 million linux users out there were to file individual small claims actions, I suspect that SCO might go bankrupt before IBM or Redhat ever get hold of them.
That being the case, is there a valid pretext under which an individual or small company can sue SCO in small claims court over this licensing charge?
the insider trading allegations with sco execs?
Roblimo's text follows from newsforge.
Yes, they found someone gullible enough to bite. At least that's what they're claiming in a press release that's being spread all over the place, including on money.cnn.com. Naturally, SCO can't tell you who it is because of "confidentiality provisions," but the truth will certainly come out sooner or later.
Of course, if this anonymous Fortune 500 company later finds that SCO had no legitimate right to sell Linux licenses in the first place, they are going to be a bit upset, and since one characteristic shared by all Fortune 500 companies is the availability of nearly infinite numbers of inhouse lawyers and outside law firm attorneys, SCO is going to be in a world of hurt if it turns out, as IBM claims, that SCO released all the disputed Linux code under GPL.
Not that we care, since we don't own any SCO stock, and we don't use any SCO (proprietary) software products that are likely to become unsupported orphans if SCO gets trampled by the combined legal might of the growing number of companies their license blackmail scheme has offended.
Linux is worth big money!
We should look at this latest episode in the SCO soap opera as heartening news. Somewhere out there, one of the world's largest corporations has decided Linux is worth paying plenty of money to use, even if that money is going to the least-deserving party possible. This certainly gives the lie to any statement about how Linux has only gained corporate acceptance because it's free.
SCO's antics may cause a few potential (corporate) Linux converts to hold off deployment for a bit, but in the long run this may be the most positive PR boost Linux has ever gotten.
This sig no verb.
Microsoft!
But then, we already knew that.
It's old news, folks. Nothing new here, move along...
-- CP
"SCO revealed today that the mystery license purchaser was SCO."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I wonder what a million phone calls and requests for written information would do for SCO? :) Perhaps all Linux users should at least request written (paper) documentation on all information from SCO.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
...welcome our new Mormon masters!
... then SCO would have made zero bucks. Time to invest, folks!
Seriously, this announcement means nothing. Even if this fortune 500 company were one which has several thousand copies of Linux deployed, SCO could still have handed over the license for like 50$, gratefully driving home the publicity.
I am not a lawyer, but -- not that someone *has* indeed paid their extortion money, SCO is now officially guilty of fraud, no?
I mean, can't every single developer of Linux who has contributed code now sue SCO for a portion of that "extortion money" / and/or sue them for illegally charging for something that is supposed to be free?
In other words, now that there has been an exchange of money, isn't the "john" as guilty now as the "prostitute"?
Sale of stolen goods and all that nonsense? I mean, lets say for a minute that it is Microsoft that just paid to license linux.
By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable. If you buy an illegal DVD on the street in Chinatown, can't you also be busted by the cops just as much as the seller?
So, this could be a double edged sword, even for those that want to appease their PHB's by forking over the money for the license, no?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
While I think the IBM and RedHat countersuits are good, there could be one thing better: A fortune 500 company (or any large company for that matter) standing up to SCO and saying "Show me the code!" (With all due respect to Jerry Mcguire)
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
The undisclosed company is microsoft.
Hey, if you own SCO stock, couldn't you find out? I don't really understand how you would go about it, as IANAL, but you partially own the company, and you could force them to disclose financial records right?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
SLASHDOT (to SCO)
When have you ever sold a license?
SCO
I've sold, lotsa times!
SLASHDOT
Name one!
SCO
The company lives in Canada, met it at
Niagara Falls. You wouldn't know
it.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
people should be fair to sco.
this page gives a phone number to call to discuss the linux license. people should ring up 1-800 726-8649 and hear sco out. and *please* remember to write down the details on all linux systems you have. it would be terribly annoying if you forgot a detail like the version of linux or the details for another machine and had to call back.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
is not that an unnamed Fortune 500 company bought "protection" from SCO.
Rather, it is that an unnamed Fortune 500 company has a significant Linux deployment.
That makes at least 2, assuming that IBM is not buying an SCO lie-sense.
If Fortune 500 companies have this kind of Linux effort, then maybe it's time for your company to look into Linux, too.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply.
If that's the case, maybe the social contract needs work. You certainly see the same in the legal system, people find new loopholes, legislators try to close them. Do you really expect every company under the sun to have a social integrity and uphold those social obligations on their own accord? They won't. And when they break them, the GPL had better have the necessary legal force to rein them in, because that is just about the only real countermeasure available. Any holes they manage to poke will only serve to be the foundation for a GPL 3.0
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ah yes, thank you IBM for leveraging your awesome might by throwing it right back in their face.
> Keep in mind that SCO could sell a blanket license
> for $1, for the publicity value.
1. They're getting a LOT more publicity via the legal action(s). IBM/RH are providing more publicity to SCO w/o SCO paying a dime.
2. SCO is successfully generating revenue via these legal actions.
3. The stock has gone up.
Why in the world would they sell a blanket license for $1? I mean, come on!
This guy doesn't own a fortune 500 company, does he?
So I was skimming along when all of a sudden, they got all preachy on me:
Huh?? Pray for relief?? Well, okay. Here it goes:
IBM is my shepherd; I shall not want.
IBM maketh me to lie down in green tinted monitors: IBM leadeth me beside the still line printers.
IBM restoreth my deleted files: IBM leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for the heck of it.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of SCO, I will fear no eavil: for IBM art with me; their rod and their staff and their lawyers, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a legal brief before me in the presence of mine enemies: though anointest my code with gdb; my buffer does not runneth over.
Surely goodess and mercy shall follow me all the days I code: and I will dwell in the house of Stallman forever.
Okay, so SCO just licensed a product containing (according to them) their proprietary source code combined with GPL'd source code. By the very act of bundling the two, doesn't this now give the licensee the right to modify and/or redistribute said work?
In other words... SCO can claim (*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*) that they had no idea their IP was in linux when they distributed it previously, but now that they have SPECIFICALLY given someone rights to their particular IP, in a product bundled with GPL'd code, aren't they now EXPLICITLY releasing their IP as GPL?
DiscDividers tabbed plastic CD dividers: divider cards f
heres the link to the download locations for sco's distro on linux.org some of the foreign ones work. lol
Y'all always like to quote Ghandi about Linux v. Microsoft etc:
:-)
"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you when" or however it goes.
Well, this is like the part of the movie where the English lined up everybody in the Football stadium and Machine-gunned them from the tank. The analogy being a company collecting $699 from YOUR hard work.
It's time to put your philosophy into action. In the movie, this is where you have to take the high road, the high road here being let 'em collect all their blood $$$ and don't stoop to their level. After that comes the winning part
The way these clown are going it will be NoFortune 500 soon
Help fight continental drift.
now, are they really suckers? how would you or i know? say this company did their own internal investigation into SCO's claims... had a team of techies and lawyers sign the NDA, and sit down to examine SCO's findings. say this team came back to the high ups and was convinced that SCO would win this legal battle and the high ups decided it was better to pay the $699 now rather than the $1399 (or possible more if SCO wins) later.
in my mind, paying SCO right now is utter nonsense. they are hand-waiving to the fullest. but my mind is neither corporate nor legal. maybe for those who are "in the know" buying up the licenses now is not such a bad move.
only time will tell...
An undisclosed company buys a lincence to undisclosed IP for an undisclosed sum of money...
Hey guys, I have an undisclosed bridge in an undisclosed city I'd be happy to sell you! You know, you want to make sure you secure your water-crossing rights!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game. Go play!
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
So they COULD have bought a license all the same.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Well, here's The List of Fortune 500 companies.
One of these companies is a HUGE SUCKER.
Which one is it?
I think it's time to turn in that 300 baud modem failer.
So, an undisclosed company has purchased an undisclosed amount of licenses for an undisclosed amount of undisclosed code for an undisclosed sum of money...and we call this news?
We're sorry. We meant to say a Fortune *500,000,000* company. It was actually a lemonade stand, and they were using old RedHat disks as coasters. We traded them a license for 2 cups of lemonade.
--Darl
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Gosh, if only the Internet provided some way of looking things up....
When IBM let their lawyers lose, the SCO stock was in free fall. SCO simply had to put out a press release to control the damages. Even after the press release the stock is still below $10. It looks like
l
McBride et al is running out of ammo.
The pressrelease doesn't tell who the poor victim is, but if there is one at all, I guess it is Microsoft. They wouldn't mind paying to support SCO in their battle against Linux
In other news it seams that SCO is not doing much other than pressreleases to defend themselves see
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5061548.htm
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Wow. Wow. Not even close, my friend. I mean, there's close and there's not close. What were you thinking?
I'm buying the $200 license from SCO next week. I personally don't agree with GNU, in fact I agree with Microsoft that it's viral, however I don't particularly care for Microsoft either. While I like the BSDs (and support them by having a subscription to various BSD CD sets), I also like auto-setup, so I currently use and own a Linux distribution that automatically sets everything up upon install using some proprietary software, making it nice and easy. And just as I rewarded the makers of the Linux distribution I use by my purchasing the distribution and every version that has followed, I also want to reward SCO for any of its hard work that might, and probably did, wind up inside Linux. In the meantime, I get to learn how to work around UNIX-like operating systems which will come in very handy. If it means I spend $200 to reward SCO's hard work and another $60 a year supporting the Linux distribution , so be it.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Since we're sharing news
From Caldera's own site
"Regardless of the outcome of the suit, SCO has lost significant goodwill in the Linux community."
Just thought y'all might want to know...
Sitting around all day like a housewife jonesing for her soaps, and I'll I get is this limp SCO news release about a 'Fortune 500 company'.
:(
So disheartening.
Where are my bon bons?
They decided that since the claims were baseless that SCO would say more and more outlandish things as time went on. Looking at the complaint, you can see several specific instances of SCO execs making these public claims, and IBM using them almost as testimony. IBM waited until SCO had made so many claims that some of them are likely to be very bad for SCO.
Army of One!
SCO will come out looking the fool when it turns out the undisclosed company is a big backer of SCO.
-- thinkyhead software and media
My favorite quote from the article is that after selling just one license, Sontag of SCOsource states that "we are very pleased with the licensing interest to date". Apparently, they didn't expect anyone to fall for it.
However I do understand why the buyer wants to be anonymous. I would rather be caught buying penis enlargement pills from spammers than SCO licenses. Both prove that you are sucker, but at least with the pills you aren't the only one.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner
The SCO group has decided to shoot 1% of all U.S. babies.
Microsoft ... for their one Linux server on there network
I'm sure you meant "for their one Linux server on that there network."
c-hack.com |
It was IBM hedging their bets.
c'mon robbIE. you know there's stuff you're avoiding that really matters. all this corepirate pretense/nonsense. it seems you've become what you used to addwhore.
yuk
back on task. we'll continue doing it buy the #'s. lookout bullow.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with YOUR wallet. that's the spirit.
pay no heed to the last gasper greed/fear based distrcations presented by the walking dead et AL.
tell 'em robbIE.
I propose that IBM just drop its' countersuit in favor of backing the effort that Red Hat is making with its' suit. This is one of the few areas where IBM should learn from M$. Just stay in the background, secretly directing your pro-Linux policy (as opposed to M$'s anti-linux agenda).
One for the TiVO and another for the Zaurus of the CEO. 64$ deal! ;-)
the distractions are myriad. stay on task.
Anyone got time to patent the act of sueing someone for infringment of IP without letting them know what IP is being infringed?
You can then sue SCO for infringing your IP by sueing for IP infringement without letting them know which IP of yours is being infringed by them not declaring their infringed IP.
See, I can talk total bollocks too. Can I be a lawyer now please and get lots of money for doing it full time?
I have a feeling that Fortune 500 company is Microsoft. They buy one license (even though they have no Linux servers), and SCO issues a press release.
they have a clause in their licence that say:
"you will not run chase us with heavy battle axes if
our claim on linux IP rights are dismissed"
That would just be wrong. I wouldn't do that even to be a /. moderator.
No, I'm doing this because I think it's the right thing to do.
It's not like I'm trying to keep it any kind of secret that I have posted this in the past.
May I should post as A-C so no one can claim I'm whoring.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Why did IBM go and do that??
I know who bought the license..
Straight from yahoo.com
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/47/4393.html
Oemga Protein Corp..
Wilson, M Senior Vice President of SCO Group is also
Vice President of Omega Protein Corp..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I bet the license was "bought" as part of normal license renewal for a major customer. McDonald as far as I know uses OpenServer in fairly large numbers. They probably gave then a significant discount on the OpenServer deal and mentione that for a nominal fee they could get a "Linux" License as well. Why wouldn't they take it just to avoid hassle, and they most likely have some linux servers up and running so it's not such a assinine thing to do.
Help fight continental drift.
SCO would have made a much bigger deal out of it if it was MS. For one, they would have said it was a "Fortune 100" or "Fortune 50" company instead of just "Fortune 500." I'm sure they would try to make it sound as impressive as they possibly could.
We can always hope that that company bought the licenses intentionally so they could file a fraud and extortion complaint with their state attorney general or the FTC.
So... SCO has been making noise about this for weeks and as of today one single Fortune 500 company has bought a license? And SCO thinks this is positive news that a whopping 0.2% of the major industrial powers of the world drank their Kool Aid? Funny, when I saw this it immediately leaped to mind that despite the threats of legal action, making major parts of IT departments effectively illegal, etc., 499 of 500 (i.e. 99.8%) bigtime companies decided that SCO was full of crap. Yeah, that's something I would tout to the media...
YOU FAIL IT, again! You will not be left alone until we rid your pathetic presence from this website. You're awful dude. What is your bite count average? .2/comment? You give us all a bad name. FUCK OFF!
Here is what I don't understand. How can SCO prove that a company is running Linux? I doubt that evidence from netcraft.com is going to hold very much weight in court.
If you run Microsoft software, they may audit your organization to see if you are in full compliance. If you run Solaris, and only Solaris, Microsoft has no business auditing your systems. They will get a nice boot from the security guard and get charged with trespassing if they even try to get in the front door.
Without an audit - an audit of the source code that was used to compile the kernel - SCO has no case against any of these Fortune 500 companies. All any company has to do is create their own "custom" kernel, compile it, declare there is no IP violations in their own custom kernel, and they are off the hook. The best part is that the Fortune 500 company doesn't have to prove anything. It would become SCO's responsibility to prove that the kernel that is being used to run Linux within that Fortune 500 company was compiled with source code that infringes their IP.
If a company's legal department makes sure there is no offending code in their own custom kernel that they compiled for themselves, I really don't see how SCO, or anyone, can prove in court that their IP is being violated without some sort of criminal trespass.
So if you sign that SCO license, then they can audit you for the rest of forever - DON'T sign anything with SCO. They can't "bust" you anyway.
It would take an insider, an employee "turning in" their employer to get the evidence, if that would even work, because that person would have to have access to the source code that those custom kernels were compiled from. So with a security measure that locks up that kernel source, and prevents employees from getting at that source unless they actually are compiling a kernel, combined with a 24 hour security guard and a strict policy that all hardware and software representatives must have appointments, and even perhaps have someone come to the door to meet them.
SCO is not going to get anywhere without an audit, if you sign the contract with them they will audit you until kingdom come. If you don't sign with them, they can't really catch you anyway. With Kazaa, for instance, when someone is sharing copyrighted material against the wishes of the organization that protects that copyright, there is evidence that can be presented in court that this infringement took place. Nothing of the sort can happen in the SCO-Linux situation unless SCO can get their hands on the actual source code that was used to compile the kernel that is running.
Sure, SCO lawyers can say 2.4 kernel or 2.5 kernel is this or that, but the nice thing about Linux is that an organization can have its IT staff go in there and change the source code - that's the nice thing about Linux - you can change the source - and then compile. Now the responsibility shifts to SCO's side to prove that your kernel violates their IP. Maybe a "stock" 2.4 kernel does violate, but it doesn't matter, the Fortune 500 company is under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. SCO has to prove that the Fortune 500 company violated the IP, and there is no way of doing that short of auditing every hard drive and hunting down every bit of source code that organization has in its possession, and how do they propose to do that? It's called trespassing -- they can't. Or unauthorized access to the Fortune 500 company's network, which could mean criminal consequences for any individual who wants to attempt that.
Maybe the best way to look at this is that there is no way in hell that SCO can "bust" you for using Linux if you run a tight ship. If any employee can browse your source code that you use for your Linux deployment, you may be having some problems. If hardware and software vendors come and go freely, and your staff don't have a clue as to who these people are, what vendor they are from, and what they are doing, you will have problems anyway, sooner or later.
The reason is simple. To give SCO money to continue it's battle against Linux. Why did they want licenses for linux? Simple, they have a Linux lab at MS.
http://www.linux.org/news/2000/09/01/0001.html
I guess now we know how it is going to be used to combat linux.
Microsoft!
Yes. I expect them to do that.
They won't.
Those bastards! They never live up to my expectations.
--
me
I wonder if this fortune 500 company is either: Global Crossing, WorldCom, AOLTimeWarner,Martha Stewart Inc, Tyco, Ikon....et al..... LOL
Well, I may live in a bubble where I value integrity maybe most, and where I believe many companies indeed have and display social and ethical obligations that goes beyond our current laws and regulations.
But as Andrew wrote, this might just be one of the differences between Europe and USA. At least where I come from there's still room for civil disobedience, and I prefer that to the vast amount of American lawsuits that doesn't make sense (like spilling hot coffee on yourself). Now, I'm not saying the GPL lawsuit "doesn't make sense", I'm just concerned that the "harsh and cold" technicalities of a court ruling will overshadow GPL's "social obligations" in the future.
Though, I hafta admit, $76K (minus various fees) ain't bad in one day, for tossing around FUD and threats of lawyers... Bastard......
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
Third counterclaim para 59 & 60 talk about misappropriation and confusion in the market place due to SCO's campaign of FUD.
A fortune 500 company being extorted like this would seem to support these claims. So clearly it would seem that IBM's case is building.
OTOH, by the time this gets to court there will be no money in the SCO treasury and the A**holes behind this will have long since dumped their shares and left for more pleasant climes. So where is the justice?
IMHO it will become necessary for the US legal system to mature to the point where the perpetrators of this crap are actually held personally responsible. But I'll not hold my breath for that development because I see absolutely no sign there there is anything in the way of "accountability" on the horizon.
SCO announces a record profit for the year!
They probably don't have many servers, or won't admit to having many, and it is in their business interests...
... that's like buying the enlargment pills you learned about in a spam mail. They'll quickly figure out that money went into /dev/null.
But it's all maybe part of a bigger scheme. (Conspiracy theorists wanted here!)
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
William the Great at stage center, staring at Baron Darl, Duke Steve stands besides William, holding a stack of paper.
William: The progress has been less than satisfactory, Baron.
Darl: [trembels]I am terribly sorry for that Sire, but companies, even if they called in, never bought any license in the end...
Darl: [sees that William is not happy with the answer, interrupts him]Is that the best you can do, one excuse after the other? [turns to William] My lord, maybe we should have some change of the plan...
William: No. We've been this far into it...[thinking] I will give you another chance.
Darl: [wipes forehead] Thank you sire, thank you.
William: I will buy some licenses from you, so you can annouce it to the public.
Darl: [pleasantly surprised] Thank you Sire, I really appreciate it, I really do...
Steve: My lord, I am thinking, we can have them for one dollar each...as a small punishment...[look up to william's face]
[Darl looks eagerly at William, wants to say something, but eventually didn't say it]
William: Yes. You take care of it. [looks outside the window] It's time we left.
[Steve and Darl both runs to the coatrack, but Steve is faster and get William's cape]
Steve: [Helps William put on the cape] Let me help you with the cape, my lord.
[William walks toward the door, Steve walks quickly past him to open the door]
Darl: [humbly] Brilliant strategy, Sire, I can wait to see the emotion the peasants will have when they read "His Majesty is fully compliant with Linux licensing..."
William: [halts abruptly, turns back to Darl] You fool! Do not mention our name!
Steve: [to Darl] How can you be so foolish! [to William, smiling amicably] My lord, please ignore his incompetence, it's not good for your blood pressure...I will superwise him on this if my lord allows me to.
[William stares at Darl coldly for a few more seconds, turns back, exits stage left. Steve walks quickly to follow him, while being very careful not to walk in front of him.]
Darl: [bowing]Forgive me Sire...Have a safe trip Sire..[sees that they walked out, waves his fist] Huh, just wait till I get the three-billion dollars!
[curtain]
I wish they'd tell me who this company is. I've recently decided that, based on some code I refuse to publicize, I have a copyright in Linux. These sucke....uh....prudent business-persons may have purchased the SCO license, but have they purchased MY license?!?!?!
I guess I'll just have to toss my hat in the fray and file a baseless lawsuit to get my way (and my millions...bwahahaha).
Not check but sure they are, and they ought to have some Linux box, at least for looking for there IP inside. ...
There is a small, 22-KB gzip version of the entire IBM answer and counterclaimon mozillaquest.com in their IBM counterclaim story. The first part of IBM's filing with the answers is just boring boiler-plate. If you scroll right on down (about half-way) to the counterclaim stuff it is very informative. Download that file and read what IBM has to say in IBM's own words
A fool and his gold are soon parted.
Actually, I think it's probably the Canopy Group that bought it. Or maybe one of their companies.
Are any of the Canopy Group companies in the Fortune 500?
Darl: Ralph, will you buy one of our licenses?
Ralph Yarro: Why? I don't run any your crappy operating systems.
Darl: No, Ralph, the Linux IP license.
Ralph: I don't run that either. We're all MS here.
Darl: For the suit, Ralph. Remember: The Suit?
I need to tell other companies that someone has bought a license.
Ralph: Oh. Oh, yeah. Right. OK, put me down for one. How much is it?
Darl: $699
Ralph: Corporate Discount?
Darl: OK. 50%.
Ralph: Done. Now get out of here. One of my wives is on the phone.
"That's the way it is with a wiseguy partner. He gets his money no matter what. You got no business? Fuck you, pay me. You had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. The place got hit by lightning and World War Three started in the lounge? Fuck you, pay me." - Henry Hill.
I'd love to find out who this chickenshit company is.
Does anybody have any inkling when SCO/IBM/(Red Hat?)/whoever else might finally come before a judge, even if it's just to set another court date?
Question: Is the company Microsoft?
:-)
Answer: Could be...
Reason: Well, how many LINUX computers are being used to run MICROSOFT, or at least how many do they publically state that they are using to run the business.
Lets face it, if they pay $6000 for a server license, and the publicity convinces 50 people to buy Windows Server 2003 licenses, they have a fantastic return on investment...
Additional Question: Was it the full organisation, or one part of it?
Comment: Well, most of these organisations are large, so just imagine if one division spent $50,000 on licenses and only for that division. Would this press release still be true... probably
SCOX was tanking hard today. Down over 24%. Then out of blue this PR was issued, and sco partially recovered to close down about 14%.
Still, miraculous timing.
Aren't they gonna feel kind of silly when SCO loses the lawsuit.
Upon reading this post, one realizes that it closely resembles going to dinner with a buddy, asking, "How's business?" and writing it off as a business expense. Further, this post closely resembles a sandwich that appears large but, once eaten, proves unsatisfyingly small. A staid, steadfast comment, it resembles a pantomime of images.
Because this post is supposed to be about SCO, Darl McBribe / McBlackmail / McExtort / McThreaten / McLose / Mc-Go-To-Jail-Do-Not-Pass-Go-Do-Not-Collect-Two-Hu ndred-Billion-Dollars. But the meat of this post is decidedly unsatisfying: SCO is trying to play hard ball with the big boys when SCO, unfit even to be called a little boy, is barely a hole in some dead goat's ass. (See what I mean about "pantomime of images?" And that's a pretty gross image, if you ask me.)
This post constitutes gobbledygook. Like the unfulfilling sandwich, it first appears large but contains nothing of value. And what the author has done fits well within the aforementioned business dinner analogy, as the author has said about 2 words that were on topic, yet all that followed diverted from that original focus, nay, is completely off topic.
Just like SCO's business plan.
By the way, check out Verity Stob in the September, 2003 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal... I've never liked Verity Stob before, but this month's column is almost as good as some of the Bastard Operator From Hell episodes.
Hasn't ms allready bought unix stuff from SCO for their unix services for windows software? If that's the case, that probably allows them to use Linux.
Photos.
Right. Check out the revenues for Omega Protein Corp. 25.1 Million probably isn't going to get them into the Fortune 500.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"(like spilling hot coffee on yourself)"
The coffee was over 200 degrees farenheit- she got 3rd degree burns on her tongue, and then when she dropped it, on her crotch. She had to have a skin graft.
Seriously, maybe you should move past the "AMERIKKKA SUX LOL" phase and try to get an informed opinion about the world.
eom.
Linux obviosly has none of sco's ip in it. if it did IBM would have at the very least released a clean version of linux which they could easily do since they obviously have the code which they supposedly put in linux. What worries me is the ease with which a dishonest company "cough" microsoft "cough" could plant their own code into linux so that they could then claim their ip was stolen and how easily they could change the comments on their own pieces of code to make them the same their linux equivilents. These would appear to be evidence that code was illegaly copied into it when the competing companies "cough" microsoft "cough" are simply trying to slow down work on it and sow fud.
I didn't know SCO could consider themselves a Fortune 500 company.
More spin from the SCO publicity machine...I guess it's better than announcing layoffs.
Here's a thought I've had. What if this whole thing was actually engineered by IBM? They get SCO to sue them (IBM), spreading all kinds of anti-Linux noise in the process. The benefit to the SCO people is all the money they've been making on their stock since the lawsuit was filed. Microsoft, taking any opportunity to discredit Linux it can jumps on board by purchasing "licenses" to SCO's UNIX property. IBM then countersues SCO, bitchslapping them with patent violations. Microsoft eventually is revealed as the only company stupid enough to buy SCO's license (announced today). IBM eventually wins its countersuit, legitimizing both Linux and the GPL. Microsoft's support of SCO makes them look foolish, causing them to lose credibility. Linux starts getting bigger and bigger marketshare, driving Microsoft out of business, and IBM gets vengeance on M$ for stealing IBM's business back in the day! What, it's better than the other conspiracy theories going around...
Why not?
SCO are clearly in breach of the GPL since they have imposed ...further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights... contrary to paragraph 6; and clearly they may not distribute Linux (or anything linked to any part of Linux) at all. But in accepting SCO's claim to have the right to charge these fees, in paying these fees, the unnamed company is effectively in breach of paragraph 6, and may not redistribute to itself...
In other words, the poor schmucks have got themselves in some very tortuous legal soup, and they end up losing out no matter who wins.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Interesting info, but Omega Protein is not a Fortune 500 company.
-- CP
As long as SCO-Linux licensees keep their licenses stacked up near the crapper and don't include same in any distros, they should be OK.
No wonder the Fortune 500 companies are caving in - check the name of SCO's PR firm on the press release!
I explained that I had several linux systems, and that I understood there were some intellectual property issues, so I wanted to be sure to be covered.
The helpful and polite lady on the phone told me that the license program had been "suspended until further notice". She said she was pretty sure it had to do with the lawsuit.
May you should call too (800 726 8649) just to be sure.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Didn't MS just start some Linux lab? Well, now we know who that fortune 500 company is. The money is a drop in the bucket for MS and then get to help the SCO FUD campaign.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
CONTACT: Blake Stowell of The SCO Group, +1-801-932-5703, bstowell@sco.com;
Seventh Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
I think the unclean hands part is the "they made new victims by continuing to distribute the software under the GPL" argument.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
But that's not a Fortune 500 company.
Sigged!
Request your free CD of my piano music.
No, it's not true and you are right. SCO can be sued for selling the license and thereby violating the copyright terms of the other contributors.
The licensees (if any) are not violating the GPL; they are just being stupid.
Whomever bought the license from SCO seems to have screwed themselves as far as the GPL if they ever intend to distribute any part of their GPL's software.
Since they have made an agreement with SCO by buying a license, they now seem to be subject to the restrictions in section 7 of the GPL and are apparently now obligated to not distribute.
But this also could be yet another big fat lie by SCO. And the more brazen and outrageous the lie, the easier it is believed.
So far it seems as if SCO is all bluff and FUD.
Seems like IBM is going to nail certain balls to a certain wall. They do seem to have substantive facts, while SCO has evidently presented none. So IBM is likely gonna rip through them like a skilsaw through a jock strap.
Linux can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned and find it amazing that any company, organization, or individuals continues to use an OS that has no commercial viability, has little to no release engineering, and is anything but stable in terms of the code or even the features. There are vastly supperior operating systems available that are engineering wise supperior, legally clean, idealogically/license wise free to use by all for anything. Folks, go pick up a copy of FreeBSD and let this god forsaken topic die already. Linux is a sink hole for time and you're just throwing your efforts at something that will never be viable in terms of anything but personal reward (think of Linux as a hobby). As a business owner, there's no chance in hell I'd use an OS that's developed by hobbiests and find that to be as astonishing as people continuing to use Windows on the desktop when KDE's available. I've been a Linux user, it was great... it opened my eyes to FreeBSD and I haven't turned back since.
....though I have to laught at myself 'cause the one day of the month that I go back to read slashdot and revisit some of my youthful/geeky stomping grounds is the one day of the month I post a comment that I'm sure droves of teenaged nerdy pimple ridden masses will be enraged and will miss the point about Linux being a cluster fuck of galactic proportions and the businessmen techie-wannabies will continue to wave the Linux flag for no reason other than they don't know better and feel "safer" in terms of job security.
To the savvy business leader or middle manager who's out to glean a small truth from this anger riddled post, glean this: Save yourself a headache, start migrating to FreeBSD. Use BSD/MIT licensed software and avoid GPL bits like the plauge. A paid engineer working on GPL software is as good as throwing money away with no possible return on your investment: an engineer working on BSD licensed bits is a product waiting to be sold. A stable code base with actual release engineering will save your business money and man hours, trust me, I've managed the books and seen the savings.
We had Enron lined up too, because they had the sort of ethics and businness acumen we can really relate to.
--Darl
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
An undisclosed company bought an undisclosed number of licenses for an undisclosed amount of money, protecting it from undisclosed intellectual property claims.
Yep, I'm convinced!
It's unbelievable how far SCO has taken this without presenting a single shred of evidence that can independently verify their claims.
Even IF, in the unlikely case that SCO code DID make it into Linux, it is NOT WORTH the $699 licensing fee that SCO is trying to extort.
Think about it, the entire suit makes no sense. This is like a publishing company that's suing another publishing company because it alledgedly steals one quote from a book of the former, then that company threatens all users who have bought the book, and makes them pay full price for that one quote, without even saying which quote it really is, or giving any evidence at all.
Every day, I keep wondering if this is a SERIOUS LAWSUIT involving SANE PEOPLE, or an experiment to see how impressionable and ignorant some people are, or how fast people are to jump to conclusions.
"SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses"
For gods sake, SCO go stick your fud and your lies up your ass. Disclose something, anything, or shut the hell up.
You talk a lot of shit but you've done N-O-T-H-I-N-G...
Shit or get off the pot.
And when are the counter suits going to kick in and shut these bastards up?
I've been beating the Linux drum but now people are hearing this FUD and are afraid of the "big bad wolf" now. They say they would rather stick with windows than get sued for stealing something. This is really pissing me off.
When RedHat or IBM wins their lawsuit against SCO, I will probably join in a class action lawsuit against SCO for damages to my business.
Are there anyone else who would like to join in a class action lawsuit against SCO?
just like there is some mythical vaporware code in linux that belongs to sco and some mythical copyright or patent of theirs violated. They've never managed to point out a single line of code, never managed to name a licensee, and never managed to come up with any technology they had first to begin with in thier claims. If anybody has purchased a license it might be microsoft for all the linux boxes they run in house.
,bad, give me money, you stole it, it's MINE!!
SCO: they violated our patents! yeah our patents!
NOVELL: Those are our patents, you don't have any.
SCO: your wrong, but umm, it's our copyrights they violated, yeah that's it, our copyrights!
NOVELL: So your saying they used your code?
SCO: code? err umm... *confers with tech* yeah that's it, it's our code umm hmm they stole our cookies err code!
Novell: Well lets have a lo...
SCO: NO! It's MY code, mine mine mine, nobody can see it, is MMMMMMMYYYY code!!!!
SCO: Linux is bad, bad
IBM: *picks up fly swatter and starts to slowly take aim*
REDHAT: *picks up baseball bat and glares*
SCO: hey guys, guess what? guess what?
combined: what the hell is it now?
SCO: somebody paid me, they did, na na na na sombody paid me!
combined: *yawn* who?
SCO: errr ummm who, yeah who, I dunno but somebody! and they have lots of money and they paid me, yeah that's it!!!
First they ignore you (1991-1998 ?) Then they laugh at you (1998-2002 ?) Then they fight you (2003-????) Then you win.
Wow, what a page!
Notice that this is https link with authentic certificate. This means everything is authentic and comes from SCO itself or seomthing like that
http://no.spam.ee/~tonu/
count me in. My email is spammesilly@gt.rr.com
(yes, it's a real email address...)
I'm sick of this SCO shit. If someone will file a REAL lawsuit against these assholes, I'll put my name on the list. I've already emailed SCO and informed them of the 7 Linux machines I have in my house....
If they win, they can come collect at my home. I'll pay them in lead. Hot, flying lead..
what idiots, I bet if they put a license on oxygen, people would pay it.. people are so stupid. linux is like air, it's freely available. this is just like people putting prices on water.. water is freely available everywhere.. but you still have to pay for it in some way or form. and technically, we need gnu/linux and opensource.. without these movements we'd still be stuck with technology from 10, 15 years ago.
I'd so want an anti-SCO shirt if they either had a big IBM labelled St. Bernard or a Penguin tipping over and peeing on the SCO Tree logo.
Lets gets some cool Shirts dammit.
that IBM, of all people, is accusing that "SCO undertook to create fear,
uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace..."
Gates just sold about 13 million shares since July 23, so he may have had some pocket change laying around to drop on Linux licenses. Better than leaving it in the ashtray of his car.
I wonder if he is donating to Arnold's campaign...
please some company except MS buy SCO!!!
Way down in IBM's official response, it dedicates a complete counter claim (#6) to "Breach of GNU General Public License"
76. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL 5), both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions.
78. SCO has breached the GPL by, among other things, (1) claiming ownership rights over Linux code, including IBM contributions; (2) seeking to collect and collecting license fees with respect to Linux code, including IBM contributions; (3) copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing Linux, including IBM contributions, on terms other than those set out in the GPL and after its rights under the GPL terminated; and (4) seeking to impose additional restrictions on the recipients of Linux code, including IBM contributions, distributed by SCO.
If this goes all the way through court, there is no way to avoid a judicial test of the GPL.
So many violations to catch SCO on... you'd think IBM read slashdot....
On one hand, MS wants this to continue damaging Linux as long as possible. On the other hand their lawyers are no dummies. I'm sure some IBM execs are still hacked off about OS/2 and would like some payback. IBM's countersuit is as devastating as it gets. I doubt MS want to be anywhere near SCO when their chickens come home to roost. This could be a way for MS to feed them more money under the table to keep the lawsuit/fud machine going. Basically, MS will keep feeding them money as long as McBride and Sontag can at least keep quiet about at least one thing.
All of this is doing wonders for SCO's stock price.
Quite unfortunate that my broker didn't have any shares available for me to short.
nt
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Here's the GPL part of IBM's counter-claim. I don't see any problem with this:
SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
Breach of the GNU General Public License
74. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 73,
with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.
75. IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL on
the condition that users and distributors of such code, including SCO,
abide by the terms of the GPL in modifying and distributing Linux products,
including, for example, the requirement that they distribute all versions
of GPL'd software (original or derivative) under the GPL and only the GPL
pursuant to 2(b) of the GPL.
76. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL,
included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant
portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the
terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL 5), both with respect to source code
made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux
distributions.
77. The GPL prohibits SCO from asserting certain proprietary rights
(such as the right to collect license fees) over, or attempting to
restrict further distribution of any source
---- page ----
code distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL. Based on the misconduct
described herein, SCO's rights to distribute the copyrighted works of
others included in Linux under the GPL have been terminated pursuant to
4 of the GPL.
78. SCO has breached the GPL by, among other things, (1) claiming
ownership rights over Linux code, including IBM contributions; (2) seeking
to collect and collecting license fees with respect to Linux code, including
IBM contributions; (3) copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing
Linux, including IBM contributions, on terms other than those set out in
the GPL and after its rights under the GPL terminated; and (4) seeking to
impose additional restrictions on the recipients of Linux code, including
IBM contributions, distributed by SCO.
79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the GPL, but as SCO has claimed to have successfully charged an unspecified user an unspecified amount of money for the use of Linux, and done so under terms which (if they used the license they were talking about) do not give the user access to the source code, just "run time binaries", can the kernel developers formally inform SCO that the "SCO license" does not include the use of any modules that those developers have copyrighted because SCO just violated the GPL in a big way?
I suppose you could subpoena SCO for the name of the company with the license so you can tell that company that they have to use SCO UNIX because SCO's has no legal right to license Linux.
I wonder if SCO realizes that Caldera released Unix versions 1-7 (incl 32V) under a BSD license back in '02. Doesn't that still apply or were they "unsure"? Is it the same version they are suing over?
the link: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
Couldn't been much over it, since it'd be boiling.
But besides that, I don't know about the rest of the American population, but coffee is supposed to be hot! Thank god the Starbucks cups remind me of this blatent fact.
A single sale to an undisclosed/able company regularly isn't anything to brag about. I guess if your selling lawsuits..
Quack, quack.
SCO SUCKS button. Show your support for the Linux community by dissin SCO
Soon we'll have McBride swearing there never were any kind of linux license(s) sold... That PR was just... an accident. Yes. Some secretary released it by mistake. Oh, yes.
Oh well, it's interesting to follow, I'll give you that. I've learned a lot about the stockmarket the last few days.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I dont' know why SCO is bragging about violating the GPL license, they've just lost their license to redistribute Linux.
Reminds me of when the Catholic church sold "indulgences" (I.E. get of hell free cards) and nobody told the Devil.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
SCO's Not Linux is SNL, which is also Saturday Night Live.
hmmmm.... there has to be a deeper meaning to this somehow
IBM bought couple of licenses ? Makes sense to me.
The deal is not with Microsoft Corp. or Sun Microsystems Inc., two prominent companies that have already signed other licensing agreements with SCO to cover their commercial products, Stowell said.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Is it not time for the government to step in and go after SCO for anti-trust and trying to monopolize the market... They did it with M$!
Water and coffee do not have the same boiling point, regardless of the fact that coffee is mostly water.
Coffee should not be anywhere near as hot as it was in that case - you could not drink it safely for a considerable amount of time after the purchase, and I do consider that to be a bit negligent.
When SCO tries to use these sales as evidence in their next round of lawsuits (should they stay in business that long, which is doubtful), it will presumably come out who bought those licenses. If it is Microsoft, not only is the credibility of SCO's figures immediately called into question (due to the likelihood it wasn't really an arm's-length transaction), but Microsoft's trustworthiness as a company which can be trusted with the largely voluntary sanctions they got from the anti-trust suit also comes into question. Instead, I'll lay odds it's either a big customer of Microsoft (which will get a break on a few hundred copies of Windows $LATEST if they spring for a half dozen SCO Linux licenses), or a big software developer which is dependant on Microsoft's largesse (who'll get one free MSDN subscription for each Linux license they buy, up to six -- any more and the rug gets yanked RIGHT out from under them...). Alternatively, it could be a company whose board of directors contains one of the SCO board, and they negotiated a sweetheart deal whereby company X would buy N SCO licenses in exchange for SCO buying Nx$699 worth of pens or something like that.
Well, they're sure to become one by 2010. Honest. So what's your problem? ;-)
Well, it may be a stupid question, but ... Isn't Microsoft a fortune 500 company? And wouldn't that also explain immediately why it is an undisclosed company that paid SCO?
Keep in mind also that, since SCO did not name the supposed Fortune 500 sucke^H^H^H^H^Hcompany, they could simply being lying out their ass, spreading even more FUD than they currently are. SCO has been so full of fecal matter thus far, I refuse to believe anything they have to say until such time as they present proof of their claims in the form of a release of infringing source code (and I mean enough to prove their point, not 80 fucking lines) with no NDA attached. I will now continue to ignore SCO, and continue running Linux any damned way I please. And if SCO doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I was probably Microsoft!!! They need to license all of their Linux servers!!! Linux is the only they can keep the "windos update" servers going.
.....?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
... who is skeptical about whether a Fortune 500 company _actually_ purchased a license?
It's common in the world of organized crime for someone small to take the fall, and such a sacrificial victim is protected while serving their term and is richly rewarded when they leave jail. Same thing will happen with Darl McBrat. Just you wait and see.
Only an idiot buys "blue sky". Something they can't see, feel or touch; is intangible, and very likely does not even exist, or at least has not been prooven to exist.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
1) It can be used to mean too many things: Patents, Trade Secrets, Copyrights, Trademarks, mp3s, the transmissions from planet grrr that make it through you tinfoil hat...all of gets classified as "Intellectual Property"
2) the acronym is already taken. IP means "Internet Protocol". Always has. Always will.
From here on out, I decree it to be open season on any pointy-haired, legalese-spouting phucknugget who says "IP" and means "Intellectual Property".
You have the Lord's official permission to beat the living snot out anyone who says "IP" and doesn't predece it with "TCP".
Okay, Okay...we admit it...it was a savings and loan company called First Intercontintental Elbonian (ticker symbol FIE!); And sure, they're not reeaaallly a Fortune 500 Company, but their CEO once served a cheese Danish to Lee Iacoca, and we think that should count for something.
And sure, they didn't know what they were signing when we handed them the license. I suspect they think we're going to deliver 6,990 forged passports or somesuch...I don't recall.
But there is a funny side. Y'see, they're an MS shop. Running DOS 3.0, I think. But hey, their money is still green, and we happily accept it.
Signed, Love and Kisses
(To everybody but those smelly Linux Hippies)
Darl McBride, CEO SCO YHBT HAND
The fortune 500 company could be Dell. Why not help M$ and SCO spread the FUD. They don't want to see IBM eat into their server market anymore.
"They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby
I believe that M$ would qualify as a fortune 500 company.. They already licensed SCO Linux.. Why not buy SCO Linux licenses for the Linux Lab that they are setting up.. Makes sense to me....
its microsoft. they dont want to say its microsoft for obvious reasons.
Yes, (well according to Bruce Perens) if you buy a license from SCO, you are in breach of the GPL.
Here is an except from his Open Source "State of the Union Address (from newsforge)
SCO has recently announced a so-called "license" for Linux. The absurdity of this should be obvious, but let's touch upon a legal aspect. Every party who enters into this license will be in violation of the GPL, and in infringement of the collective copyrights of the Linux and GNU system authors. As a customer, if you purchase the SCO license, you can be sued by every copyright holder who has contributed to the Linux kernel and other components of the system. You can be sued by IBM, by Red Hat, by me, by tens of thousands of people and companies. Of course, nobody's going to buy an license for software that SCO doesn't own anyway, so it's just hollow posturing.
to watch Omega's stock price now. If it starts taking a dive, too, we'll know the stink from SCO rubs off. Digging up these other company associations could make an interesting hobby since all these assholes serve on each other's boards!
Personally, I see this as a strategic legal move as part of betting the company.
In court this one company (regardless of how much they paid and who it is) will be touted as a company that agreed with SCO and acknowledged their right to ownership.
If SCO wins, then the buying company probably got a deal on the license while the rest of the world gets screwed.
If SCO looses, then there isn't going to be anything left as assets except for a couple of chairs and a desk. Any creditors or successful plaintiffs will all be fighting over pennies on the dollar.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Post that bad boy as often as it takes. What SCO is doing almost certainly breaks several securities laws and the officers deserve the full weight of criminal punishment coming their way. IMO, keep it up and thanks. --M
I bet all fortune 500 companies have at least ONE linux box somewhere, by someone. Only 1 of them has actualyl decided to pay for it.
Look at how those numbers speak.
Anyone notice that Ximian and SCO share the same PR Company? I know it would probably make me feel dirty.
http://schwartz-pr.com/company/clients.htm
-- "Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit." -Henry B. Adams
IBM could do us all a favor and name that company.
We will blockade their products like Unixware till they understand the damage from their side for buying SCO's thing.
The simpsons will feature that company with ALL the kids riding bikes around going 'ha-ha'.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Who wants to bet there will be a bunch more of those SCO Exec "Automatic Sale" or "Planned Sale" listed in the insider trading spots.
...When I posted this around 1800-1900 EDT:
w aretopics/os/lin ux/story/0,10801,83906,00.html
Company buys SCO's license for Linux IP
According to Computerworld:
http://www.computerworld.com/soft
SCO has found the first company to buy a Linux IP license. The company
was not named but is a "Fortune 500". According to the article, SCO
says that around 300 companies have contacted them.
CFO Robert K Bench sold 7000 shares this morning. Fortunately because of the big press release that SCO sold a license nobody noticed :)
Right up the ass!
I too doubt the existance of such a customer. BUT if they really do exist would you blame them for not wanting their name divulged? Can you hear the meetings and parties between execs of some of the fortune 500 companies.... "Hey, I got a bridge I'll seel you a license to!" If they do exist, I sure would like to know who they are, I need to stay away from their stock!
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
SCO is going to be in a world of hurt if this thing goes to a jury. SCO acts like the loud mouth kid who steals your hot wheels then runs around claiming you have his track, while IBM is, well, all business. As a result, who would you believe? The obnoxious thief, or the guy who calmly points out that the obnoxious thief... is a thief.
They sway back and forth with Linux. They would love for the world to back away from Linux. They have been locking up good contracts and are the silent player to watch. It wouldn't surprise me to hear Sun announce you should purchase an SCO license or Solaris.
Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
Hmm. Perhaps some fortune 500 lawyer reasoned as follows:
1) IF SCO is right then said companies risks are covered and an infrastructure change is not needed. The Cost is probably a "Cost of Doing Business" as far as accounting and tax goes.
2) If SCO is proven wrong, then said company could sue SCO for it's money (and interest back) for selling the company false goods (or words to the effect).
My US$0.02 (FWIW and IIRM)
499 undisclosed Fortune 500 companies paid a /. user by the alias "+Pro_Fucker+" 10 billion dollars to use his patented alias.
Microsoft would buy a license very quickly to help SCO justify their claim against Linux. SCO would clearly not want to make public that their first license was sold to Microsoft.
Well I have this girlfriend in Niagra Falls...
It will still go through court because I can't see IBM settling with SCO, something it wouldn't even do for the government. If SCO somehow manages to pull one over on IBM, the infringing code will be replaced by the kernel community quickly. Then those worried executives can just upgrade to the next kernel, or patch the old one, to get back to GNU code. If IBM wins, these people will get their money back, at the very least. Then SCO can get smacked in civil court by at least one class action. Either way, they are going to be out of a source of income until they can raise some more accusations.
Is is just me or does this look like the umpteenth re-run of Groundhog Day
Will SCO ever break out of the loop? Will the SCO jokes never stop?
Caldera/SCO's plans from year 2000 were described in an October 2000 article at LinuxToday:
Drew Spencer, Caldera's chief technology officer, and the supplier's legal department were now looking at the ramifications of licensing the Unix kernel and UnixWare personality under a GNU General Public Licence - one of several ways to license open source software.
This means that the source code would be made available to the open source community for free to allow them to tinker with it, but that any changes would have to be handed back so that others can benefit from them.
As a result, the aim is to encourage kernel and application developers to work on the code and to "give them added insight into the way the OS works".
Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard, would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own commercial iterations of Unix."
Make sure you see the accompanying newsgroup talkbacks at comp.unix.unixware.misc via this juicy link.
Exciting reading as it vividly predicts what is actually happening today. Some remarks seem unexpected in hindsight and indicated that "only one of the kernels would remain within the next 18 months.":
"It will not be a two kernel situation into the future. As the Linux kernel develops and the Unix kernel is open sourced, the solution will be whichever works the best. It will be the survival of the fittest. People are not doing a lot of development on the Unix kernel these days because people see Linux as exciting and the future."
Edgie Donakey, Caldera's vice president and chief of staff
I do not wonder how IBM could take such public claims as a go-ahead from Caldera/SCO; these remarks seem very clear to me, as they come from the vice president.
Hi, I was reading the counterclaim of IBM and I just laughed at every section. SCO is so royalling f**ked. If SCO is profiting by distributing and selling licences that include code from GPL code which is the work of other contributors, then I smell a class-action lawsuit against SCO from the millions of linux developers under the GPL. SCO should be sued for punitive damages, charged with stock fraud, and for every cent they received from their 'Fortune 1500' customer list. If SCO tells me to pay for a linux licence, I will immediately call my lawyer to get the courts to charge SCO with fraud. Linux code, AIX code, etc, etc is not SCO's code. Simply packaging your code with GPL code does not make you have the rights to the code you did not develop. What SCO is doing is like telling Microsoft that you own their source code and demand licencing fees. SCO - another WorldCom, Enron, Martha, etc, etc. Best quote, "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." If it's less costly for IBM to buy-out SCO instead of incurring legal fees, then I think IBM should swallow up SCO. Case over.
Was it perhaps microsoft that brought this worthless licence?
I'll bet they have a few thousand linux machines. They most likely licenced 20 or 30 thousand just in case they get a few more.
The Fortune 500 company isssssssss
Microsoft
Oh YEA
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
You could always try the directions listed here.
I guess that the company name begins with "M" and ends with "icrosoft"?
They don't want to admit openly that they use Linux so they stay "undisclosed".
However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.
BSD is a perfectly adequate kernel. If it supports your hardware, then it should be quite simple to just switch over.
They are concerned about our feelings. Here is a link to give them some feedback http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html
SCO is so fucked.
In particular, with regards to IBM's claims of patent infringement - IBM suggests that so long as SCO continues to sell any of their products, they're now knowingly infringing on IBM's patents (which I believe entitles them to punitive damages).
So, if the legal wrangling doesn't fuck them, the lack of any products to sell will.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I had no idea so many /.ers would be bothered to phone that free number and leave details... ;-)
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
So, err, 83 then ;-)
Morons on the board, morons writing the copy.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I fear this is a double trick, to create a win-win situation for SCO:
A company set up by Darl McBride's pals pays a large sum for SCO licences, a sum that SCO feeds back to them through some other business route. When/If SCO looses the case, this "licencee" sues SCO, gets preferred creditor status, and runs away with whatever is left of SCO's money. Thus saving them for Darl and his pals. (BTW, can I patent this new legal trick ?)
Il Capo will soon thank the licencees for their voluntary contribution to SCO stockholders and skidaddle over to Microsoft in some new weird position after Microsoft buys the right to run the lawsuits.
Or at least that's my guess. five of the six executives went to school at Brigham Young or Utah State University. Plus I found various references on the web linking SCO to weird Mormon groups like "Angel Investors". And Darl McBride (the president and CEO) has connections to Stephen Covey (another freaky Mormon).
"SCO : Insiders sell shares since suit against IBM"
/ 65 13776.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business
Their office was open when you called ? Isn't it like.. 5 - 6 am there at the moment ?
Can anyone else confirm this...?
Looks like this parent pade it to the Inquirer as well...
So IBM want to sue SCO for compress. Of course SCO have a license from Unisys. Of course the patent should never have been issued to Unisys, 'cos IBM patented the same thing first.
This case is opening up some of the real horrors of the whole "IP" mess.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Your managers are reactionary idiots.
THERE IS NO PROOF.
Meanwhile, my manager has given the go ahead to roll out Linux enterprise wide, replacing a whole truckload of Windows machine (all our servers run Linux 2.2 already. Going to upgrade to 2.4 soon, though.)
Yeah, SCO can just come and TRY to make us pay.
We're ready to take them to court.
Bring it on, SCO.
Software Patents are wrong in any case. Please see my sig. I am also of the belief that copyright has been bent to the will of corporate interests.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
until he's the enemy again
If this company was Boeing or General Motors, don't you think SCO would be quite eager to tell ? And why would such a company wish not to go public about this ? I wouldn't be the least surprised if this company was Microsoft - think of it, they probably have a few Linux boxen (if they didn't have any before, they could easily deploy a couple of installations just for this trick), and they wouldn't mind at all paying a few bucks to try to give SCO's claims more credibility. Going public about it would of course nullify this.
"And you are dying so slowly, you believe to be living" - Bertrand Besigye
Isn't Microsoft a Fortune 500 company?
...but Microsoft would have NOTHING to do with this right?
;-)
Get paid to code OSS
What Fortune 500 company would spend the bucks now while the legal picture so ambivious?
... seriously ... any company this quick to jump is to me technically clueless and is bound to take a dive.
I want to know who so I can sell short their stocks
--- have you healed your church website?
For sale at the low, low price of $50.00 you can now own a share of the company that starred in the greatest economic debacle since the Enron scandal -- SCO. I have one (1) share that I acquired simply to give me a legal base if I wanted to sue.
All owners of SCO (I know the stock is 'SCOX') need to gather and sue because of corporate mismanagement due to illegal manipulation of stock price. Or something. IANAL.
Seriously, if someone would like to buy one share of this stock as a reminder before it is delisted, I am open to sale.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
But if you want some speculation, it would have made sense for a company in a situation such as Worldcom (MCI) to pay for a license. They're in bankruptcy. They're cleaning house. They don't use Linux, although there may be a few instances here and there where it snuck in. So in their pre-bankruptcy emergence, as part of their internal housekeeping, they buy 100 licenses at a small discount to cover their ass from future potential liability.
Don't you mean, "When the meteor comes home to roost?"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I just tried calling and was told that the licensing program is still ongoing. Then they asked my company name. I told them I was an end-user. They just asked for my name and phone at that point and said a sales rep. would get back to me.
I feel kind of used and soiled. I just know they are going to come out with a statistic now about how over 500 end-users have called "expressing interest" in the licensing agreement, and my call will be part of that statistic.
I think I'll go shower.
For what it's worth, I have just called the US and European sales offices. They deny any knowledge of the licencing program being halted, and a report on itweek says Chris Sontag also denies this report is true.
UDP/IP! MWAHAHAHAH!
Posted anonymously like the coward I am!