Slashdot Mirror
SCO Run-Time Licenses: Get 'em While They're Hot!
ddtstudio writes "Well, if you've been holding off your payments to SCO for your Linux usage, eWeek reports that you need wait no longer. SCO has now made available for your IP pleasure their run-time licenses -- that is, if you can get one. Seems there are some problems getting even sales people at SCO to answer the phone. Is this any way to run a business?"
$699 for a single CPU license? Jeez... I bet (even if SCO had a valid case, and they won the lawsuit[s]), almost everyone would go to a non-System V OS rather than use UnixWare... What makes them think they can get that amount of money from anyone, even if they win the case[s]?
I find it quite disturbing that the EWeek article comes across as if linux does have SCO's IP in it, while this has still yet to be proved. It does state in the end of the article that the FSF and other org's say that nobody should buy a licence, but the impression of the article is just wrong. It is generally accepted that SCO's claims are nothing but fluff, and there is mounting evidence against their claims, but SCO seems to be hell bent on causing anarchy and getting brought out by IBM. But the slant of the article is sending the wrong sort of message.
So what you're saying is that you don't think McBride is an asshat?
And don't forget that SCO went from "contract dispute" to "Linux is our bitch" to "We own anything and everything even remotely related to Unix", and now seem to be switching between those arguments randomly. I don't know about you, but contradictory press releases and interviews do not a court case make.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
SCO has now made available for your IP pleasure their run-time licenses [...]
And you're a fool if you buy one.
SCO is not suing IBM for misappropriation of their IP. What SCO IS suing IBM for is VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THEIR LICENSE.
Right now you probably don't HAVE a SCO license - shrink-wrap style language and all. This makes you nearly immune to suits from SCO.
But if you buy a license - even one - you are not just out the money. You have also paid them by entering into a contract, with contractual obligations. And if you buy one NOW, after all the publicity over their claims to own UNIX and evertying related to it, you can't claim ignorance of their claims.
If you use linux on one machine, and you pay them a sale price of a couple hundred bux, what are you going to tell the judge when he asks you:
- Why aren't you paying them whatever their latest asking price is for another license for your next two hundred machines.
- Why did you distribute this open-source software that SCO says contains their IP, in violation of your contract with SCO.
After all, if you signed the contract and paid the money. Didn't you just admit that this IP was theirs?
IMHO, anyone who buys a SCO license has just signed away, forever, his right to work on open-source code. As an individual you can't EVER release your work. As a company you can't EVER release your employees' work. (And good luck hiring any new employees with open-source experience.)
No open-source drivers for your products. No folding your fixes back into the mainstream, so you don't have to make them again on every new release of whatever open-source tool you fixed or improved for your critical business process.
So if you're contemplating buying a SCO license, ask yourself: "Is that REALLY what I intended to to?"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just a few flaws:
1) Darl implies that because one person allegedly associated with the open source community has launched a DDoS attack against SCO and, again allegedly, ESR didn't turn this person in, the whole open source community is suspect. I don't think so.
2) Allegedly (again) some SCO proprietary code made its way through SGI into the Linux source tree with the SCO copyright notices removed at some point along the way. Darl claims that this means that all Linux code is therefore suspect. Again, I don't think so.
3) Continuing from 2, this conveniently ignores copyrighted BSD (Berkely Packet Filter) code that was presented as an example of Linux code that infringes on SCO copyrights. It seems that somehow the original BSD copyright notice got removed at some point and now SCO calls the code their own. For Darl, SCO employees removing someone else's copyright is not a problem.
4) Darl seems to be really concerned about warranties and indemnifications not provided by open source software and Linux but he must not have ever read a software EULA. They always claim to limit the liability of the licensor to the cost of the product. As an aside, this concept doesn't work with open source software since the customer has the source code and is freely permitted to change it as they see fit. No one can warrant a product when the end user can make changes, not that the warranties provided by closed source software vendors are anything to make you sleep well.
5) Darl (talking about profitable business models) apparently wants to return to the time when software companies thought they could make big bucks by selling software licenses. All it takes is a quick look at the TCO and ROI arguments for Windoze vs. Linux to see that these times are long gone and that isn't just because of pricing pressure from Linux. Software buyers are more concerned now about support, service, stability, maintainability, etc. The initial cost of the software license is a small component at what buyers look at when selecting an operating platform for a business. A litiguous vendor such as SCO is not someone I would consider even if there weren't technical arguments against choosing them. Also, I haven't exactly heard of SCO as being a paragon of customer support which is supposed to be the argument for selecting a closed source vendor.
Its time for dinner so I'll stop at this point.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben