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
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
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.
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.
I dont' know why SCO is bragging about violating the GPL license, they've just lost their license to redistribute Linux.