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.
P.T. Barnum called. He wants his cliche back.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
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/
We can't name the company because they don't exi-- er, because of legal reasons.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
I posted this link under Linux Gaining Ground in India but it is worth repeating.
Because Linus and all of the other people who contributed to Linux released their code under the GPL. This is one of the main arguments with SCO....whether or not they actually released the code under GPL, which (if they DID) would prevent them from claiming IP rights on it.
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
-
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.
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!
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
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.
It's SCO!
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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, 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....
Army of One!
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.
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
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...
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.
SCO announces a record profit for the year!
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.
... 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
Good point! Are any other of the pissant Canopy group companies in the Fortune 500? What better way to weasel out a press release than by having your sister company buy a worthless license from you.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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.
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 $50,000 on licenses and only for that division. Would this press release still be true... probably
SCOX was tanking hard today. Down over 24%. Then out of blue this PR was issued, and sco partially recovered to close down about 14%.
Still, miraculous timing.
Right. Check out the revenues for Omega Protein Corp. 25.1 Million probably isn't going to get them into the Fortune 500.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying.
Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't hold anyway in the case of non-distribution. Therefore, the purchasers of the license are not under any legal liability from the GPL. Sure it's an abrogation of the spirit of the GPL, but not the lettter.
Of course, why anyone would *pay* to limit their rights to use the software, I have no idea. I know there are people who pay to have things reamed up their asses once in a while, but they seem to enjoy it. But I don't see how a corporation could find this licensing extortion fun at all.
Oh well, maybe I'm just naive. I mean, you should have seen the expression on my face the first time I heard about a Prince Albert.
Here's a thought I've had. What if this whole thing was actually engineered by IBM? They get SCO to sue them (IBM), spreading all kinds of anti-Linux noise in the process. The benefit to the SCO people is all the money they've been making on their stock since the lawsuit was filed. Microsoft, taking any opportunity to discredit Linux it can jumps on board by purchasing "licenses" to SCO's UNIX property. IBM then countersues SCO, bitchslapping them with patent violations. Microsoft eventually is revealed as the only company stupid enough to buy SCO's license (announced today). IBM eventually wins its countersuit, legitimizing both Linux and the GPL. Microsoft's support of SCO makes them look foolish, causing them to lose credibility. Linux starts getting bigger and bigger marketshare, driving Microsoft out of business, and IBM gets vengeance on M$ 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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
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.
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.
CFO Robert K Bench sold 7000 shares this morning. Fortunately because of the big press release that SCO sold a license nobody noticed :)
No, it's not... the licence is "limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems"
It is the "UNIX System V" that is in question...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
They are concerned about our feelings. Here is a link to give them some feedback http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html
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
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
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.