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.
sigh...
Newsfollow.com
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
I wonder if they really are suckers.
No... they are Microsoft.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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?
If it were Microsoft, I would think that Redmond would have played this up in the press for all it is worth. Despite the fact that many geeks hate Microsoft, many people in the business world are influenced by MS. If Gates and Co. were to come out and say that they bought a license from SCO so they wouldn't be using some pirate Linux, I'm sure many a PHB would read that and be afraid of using Linux.
Just a little food for thought.
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool?
... or how many licenses they bought ... or how much they paid for them.
No, because they're anonymous.
Oddly enough, this story hit at exactly three minutes past two, just as SCO stock was tanking heavily. No mention of the company's name
Microsoft made plenty of noise about opening a Linux test laboratory. Obviously they need to acquire whatever licenses may be required to make those Linux installations legal. We're supposed to make the connection. It just gives them "plausible deniability" when the SCO ship finally goes down. Because when it does, MS won't want to be the last rat off, looking, as you say, like a complete fool. All those sneery articles in the trade press - no thanks.
Come on. It's a scam and we all know it. And so does this enigmatic "Fortune 500" company. Think that they employ idiots?
I must switch to a thicker grade of tinfoil.
While that does make sense, remember that the company itself (Microsoft or not) likely requested that SCO not publicise who they are. They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so :)
Finkployd
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.
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.
I have read the GPL. Many times. I'm not saying I understand it all, especially in the context of the US legal system, but ealbers' question is perfectly legitimate:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Seems clear enough to me. Exactly why do SCO feel they are allowed to distribute a GPL-d work with these onerous licensing conditions, that do not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program, slapped on top? They should be refraining entirely.
It's interesting that the announcement came right after (like 3 minutes) a very steep decline in the stock price which had been gradually declining all day.
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.
Yes, many people have commented on the timing of SCO's press releases, and how they always seem to happen at just the right moments to send the stock ticking back upward. It's pretty clear this is a pump-and-dump operation.
So, the question is, how many more stock-boosting announcements does SCO have lined up? And how many more do they need to give the rest of their management team time to unload their otherwise-worthless stock?
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
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....
I dont' know why SCO is bragging about violating the GPL license, they've just lost their license to redistribute Linux.
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.
Well, maybe they're waiting for the courts to find that SCO damn well knew they were talking out of their asses. Then, said Fortune 500 company sues the CRAP out of them for lying about ownership, extortion, blah blah blah.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.