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?"
Maybe you can't get a salesman on the phone becuase they didn't actually expect anyone to call and want to buy one?
Or it's just a cheap screening tactic to try and weed out the 2 real buyers from the 800 anti-SCO people who just want to argue with them?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
What if you called SCO and told them that you have X copies of linux (non SCO) and asked them to send you an invoice. If they then actually invoiced you for a product you never bought from them could you then charge them with fraud?
Is it legal for company A to send you an invoice for a product you got from company B?
War is necrophilia.
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries
:)
That means 2/3 of the callers told SCO to go fsck themselves.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Actually, the companies that matter are the small businesses. Who do you think the Fortune 500-size companies do business with?
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
You can be sure as hell that this is one thing that will not happen. IBM is well aware that if they capitulate on this one, there will be a dozen or more copycat suits of varying degrees of merit. It's better to obliterate a case like this and to make it an expensive mistake for SCO's investors than it is to negotiate.
All kidding aside, at this point the most favorable outcome for SCO (whether they know it yet or not) would be for IBM to dig deeply enough to scare SCO into dropping the case and retiring to a quiet corner to expire without any of the principals doing time for fraud.
But what do their employees think?
And by that I mean the coders (if they have any left)?
Sure, the sales people are just doing their job, but what about the coders at the company? Surely they can't believe the drivel thats coming from above?
Is there actually anyone left in that company that has more than 2 ethical brain cells?
Remember, this company was once Caldera, who produced a linux distro, so is there anyone left from those days?
I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
A while ago, someone noted that the estimated number of Linux users is roughly equivalent to the number of dollars SCO is presently holding.
If each Linux user could do something that would cost SCO $1, then unless they can find a large investor with a death wish, SCO would rapidly vanish.
Calling an 800 number would certainly be a start. This would, however, be hiiiiiighly immoral. Mmm hmm. Bad dog. *stroke pet pet*
They haven't tried to sue the BSD people yet? Too early yet I guess, look for more exciting legal news coming soon this week! :)
Intresting, I tried to call and could not get though. Wonder if it's going to be like this in court:
"Well, we offered licensing. Publicized that we offered it but no one took us up on the offer your honor. What more could we do?"
Then they go about laying out lawsuits like the RIAA. Kinda scary when you think about it that way.
well just for the hell of it I called SCO (Or S.C.O. according to their switchboard) do the usual, press here for product or purchasing info, press there for a representative....
Well when I got the guy, I basically inquired about the 'sco/linux' licenses that I keep hearing about on the news.
him: "What do you need to know?"
him: "Have you read the press release?"
him: "Have you seen the lawsuit information?"
Me: "I don't have internet access, I just wanted to know what I need to buy so I don't get in trouble. Can you please mail(snail) me the license agreement, some product information, and purchasing information so I can send you a cheque?"
Him: "...?"
EOF
He didn't know what to say. Apparently a sales rep will call me back, but all I want is something on paper that says what this license _is_.
How come if you called anyone else and said "I want to purchase a license for this software" They would jump on it and get your CC# when all SCO is doing is going on and on about lawsuits? This has to be a joke.
Ok. end rant.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Nov9 7/scopr.asp
REDMOND, Wash.-November 24, 1997 - Microsoft Corporation today applauded the decision of the European Commission to close the file and take no further action on a dispute between Microsoft and Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) involving a 1987 contract. The Commission's decision follows progress by Microsoft and SCO to resolve a number of commercial issues related to the contract, and upholds Microsoft's right to receive royalty payments from SCO if software code developed by Microsoft is used in SCO's UNIX products.
Wrote to SCO, and after a couple of weeks received an answer: If we run a 2.4 kernel on our server, we don't need licenses on 1000+ client machines running 2.2 kernels where said clients simply run their processes on the 2.4 kernel equipped server, and *display* them locally using the power of the X-windows system. Have it writing from them that in this scenario, only one (1) license would be required. This may help others, it may not, but it is an alternative our lawyers suggested.
Powered by FreeBSD! The Ultimate Windows XP Service Patch.
I doubt anyone would want to download that crappy, ancient POS OS. It would be better (and hurt SCO's bottom line more) to get your management to upgrade to a real OS. Then they'd be milking eight legacy customers instead of 9.
SCO claims anything that touches OS code they once sold licenses to is now owned by them; Microsoft claims that anything that touches OS code GPL licensed is now owned by the GPL. Note Microsoft's concocted nightmare of viral ownership is the same thing SCO's trying to pull off - not the GPL reality but Microsoft's cracked mirror of it.
The danger here is that SCO is not trying to make a claim contrary to the GPL model, but is trying to present a claim that is arguably isomorphic with part of the GPL's own claim, so that SCO either wins (not at all likely) or loses in a way that potentially weakens part of the GPL structure, providing that future courts look back on this case and see it as a precident against licensing giving an ownership right to derivative works.
Which would be exactly why Microsoft has put them up to this; and why it's far more than a pump-and-dump.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Last Trade: 16.379
Trade Time: 3:59PM ET
Change: Up 0.339 (2.11%)
Insider Tearsheet for the week ending September 06, 2003
Even the insiders don't have faith in this crap. They are selling, not buying.
Calling SCO and asking for a license is nothing more than calling SCO and saying "Hey SCO, I'm using Linux. Put me down on your list of known people using Linux, and while you are at it, add me to the list of people/companies you will audit to determine whether or not I'm being truthful about how many Linux licenses I need.".
If you don't fess up to SCO, its unlikely that SCO knows about your Linux machine(s), and likely that they will never know, unless someone says something. Don't let that someone be you!
I know of people who work for companies who have Linux machines on internal networks with no access to the outside world. In order for SCO to know they exist they would have to physically go to the companies in question and force someone to log into every machine, on console, to ensure that every machine has been checked. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Or maybe the disgruntled employee will spill the beans...
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries
I suppose 2/3 of them were pissed off slashdot trolls, and the other 1/3 of them were slashdotters trying to act serious about it, I talked to an operator a long time about it acting serious and asking exactly what I was buying, I hope alot of other slashdotters do too
Sig: I stole this sig.
I've worked with our (Celestica) corporate procurement folks on a number of software licenses and if our company is in any way representative, SCO will wish it just let this go business as usual and never thought they saw an opportunity to make some bucks from Linux users.
Before Celestica would agree that licenses are appropriate, SCO would have to prove that they own the right to give them out. This will be interesting and while it is going on, the question will be asked are there any distributions that do not have the offending code and, from Celestica's perspective, could we wait for a distribution that SCO has no possible claim of ownership on?
Next a costing agreement would have to reached in which Celestica, which builds systems is licensed for the systems used in house, built, tested but not shipped using Linux as well as built, tested and shipped with Linux installed would have to be presented with a bill that reflects the different uses within the corporation. As part of this, a monitoring agreement would have to be put into place. Oh, did I mention that we built systems in every continent except Africa and Antartica?
Before any cheques would be written, a service agreement would have to negotiated. This is great news for somebody like me - we will not buy software licenses without any terms of support that goes with it.
Finally, an MOU regarding confidentiality would have to be in place between Celestica and SCO so that before new and unannounced systems are introduced to our manufacturing lines there is a process to set up a three way CITR between SCO, Celestica and the OEM to allow development and installation of manufacturing software. As part of this MOU, all existing relationships between SCO and their customers would have to be disclosed along with details so that we can make this process as painless as possible.
Creating a software license of this scope will take us 9 months or more and will include a hefty legal bill for both parties. Our procurement people are pretty sharp and SCO will have a tough time negotiating a price that is more than a fraction of what the street price single processor Linux license will be despite the additional legal costs and support infrastructure investments that will have to be made as part of the agreement.
"I pity the fools!"
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
See, now this shows the difference between me and SCO. If I had been SCO, I would have sued your ass off for making a line by line copy of my own post. Since I am not SCO, I will do no such silly thing, other than to draw attention to your lack of courtesy in failing to attribute the post.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Something I came across that may be of interest in this discussion. I considered submitting a story on this, but rather than risk it getting rejected, I'll just mention it here.
ESR may have something up his sleeve. Check out this article on eWeek. ESR has apparantly come up with some program that can compare source trees at a phenominal rate. He's keeping mum on what he exactly intends to do with it, but he's wearing a mighty big grin.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Serious professionals don't pull punches with their opinions, and stand behind their statements.
Faced by a "case" that is comprised largely of barratry, fraudulent accusations, and public grandstanding such as SCO is delivering, I see no reason anyone should "watch what you say".
SCO is going to lose, of that I have no doubt. Darl is going to plead insanity because there is no other way he can hope to avoid jail time in such a massive case of fraud. Those stuck with the stock with cry that the government owes them payback for allowing the fraudulent case to continue, and if it's in the hands of investment corps, they'll turn around and recover their losses on the backs of the consumers.
This case serves one purpose and one purpose only -- to highlight the utter insanity of the current US legal system with respect to IP law and it's enforcement.
Or have you not noticed that IP law is the only case where one is guilty until proven innocent, with no way to recover the costs of defending against the barratry? The fact that SCO is being allowed to demand license fees and threaten charges against those who don't pay for their unproven claims is the worst abuse of US law I've seen to date.
Calling McBride and SCO "asshats" is being extremely polite in the face of their behavior.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. If I fail to purchase a SCO License will SCO sue me
Push the point until the sales rep says yes they will sue you if you don't buy a license. This is a threat
2. Ask them what code in Linux infringes their IP, and where you can find details so that you can remove it
Give them the chance to substanciate their claim of stolen code in Linux so that their threat to sue is not extortion. They will of course refuse
3. Ask them if the SCO IP License allows you to redistribute the Linux source code that contains their IP under GPL
They have made it quite clear in the press release that they will not.This contravenes the GPL license of Linux
4. Explain that their 'binary only license' is in direct contravention of GPL and ask them to indemnify you against being sued for non compliance with the source provision requirement of GPL
They obviously will not do this because their license mutually exclusive with the GPL.
I think it would be interesting to post replies to these questions, Perhaps I may even make an international phone call just to see what they have to say.
Answers to these questions may be useful in any future legal cases against SCO so if you can record the call and identify the rep you spoke to it will help the case against them for extortion, or perhaps not in the strange legal system of the USA
Hans Bayer: hansba@sco.com
I've written a lengthy letter that starts like this. E-mail me for full text:
Thank you for your reply. I shall fill in my details and will expect you to fill in yours.
My in-use Linux distributions are:
Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, running a straight file- and printserver. I was given the installation CD at a conference with no restrictions on use or requirements for license fees, and being published under the GNU GPL, I assume that no additional license fees apply. I am considering changing this, since you seem not to be upgrading this product further - which means that support for USB and other new technologies is spotty at best.
RedHat 8.0.94, running kernel 2.6-test4, AMD Athlon workstation. This is a public beta downloaded from the Internet, and updated with the latest kernel from www.kernel.org. It is a kernel build without SMP, thus RCU is not in use. NUMA does not apply to the i386 platform. It does use the Ext3 journaling file system, but since this has been developed as an extension of the legacy Ext2 FS, and independently of the JFS from IBM, there is presumably no SCO IP involved here. The heritage of IBM's JFS is being discussed on the Internet, no need to go into details here.
The first piece of code you presented at the recent SCO conference has been removed earlier by the Linux kernel programming team, as it was shown to be of too poor quality for a modern OS. The second piece was developed independently from published specs by a person never exposed to the Unix source code - it must be a mistake that your chose this, thus I'll give it no further consideration.
Summing up, I assume that you have no code in this kernel, and thus that no licensing fees will apply. If you differ on this, please let me know the details (modules / file names) and I'll look into not compiling it in, or having it replaced by new code.
SuSE 7.0 Personal, boxed, running on a Pentium-based laptop. Since you have a joint project with SuSE to develop UnitedLinux, SuSE customers should (according to SuSE) be free from any additional licensing. This is currently running kernel 2.5.70, and I offer you to remove any SCO IP from the kernel. All I need to know is which elements of the kernel are in question.
Furthermore, I'm planning to set up a web/ftp server, based on Pentium (possibly dual CPU). At this time, I'm undetermined which Linux distribution/kernel version to use, and I am curious about which ones can be used without violating any IP problems. Therefore, I kindly ask your advice on the subject. Please be specific, however, any claims without sufficient details to investigate the matter will be disregarded. We intend to use only code that has been legally licensed and is free to use.
Since the pricing of your SCO IP Licenses is set quite high, I am mainly interested in removing any and all SCO IP from our computers, which should resolve the matter completely. Therefore, I ask you in good faith and well in advance of any court decision to provide me with details on how to do so. Please also note that all code in the Linux kernel has been licensed to me under the GNU GPL by the copyright holders. I consider my licenses to be complete and covering - if you have an IP issue, I think you should contact the individual copyright holders first, to clear out any problems. Since IBM has taken the SCO Group to court for breach of the GPL, any licensing issues will of course be pending the courts opinion on the matter.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
An Open Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community
(First Draft)
Dear Mr. McBride,
First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Gabriel. I have been working in the technical field for 15 years, as a Network Administrator, Applications Manager, Network Manager, Sr. Networking Engineer, and now, Freelance Consultant. And, yes, I'm an MCSE.
My first experiences with Unix occurred in the late 1970's, during school field trips to local colleges. I also did Unix technical support for students while taking a class in Pascal in the late 1980's. My first experience with Linux dates to 1994, when I downloaded whatever Linux kernel was available at that time.
While I did install it successfully, on a Compaq Deskpro 386/25, I quickly abandoned it as the system didn't have enough memory to support X Windows. Several years later, in 1998, I became a Caldera customer, with a purchase of Caldera OpenLinux Base ver. 1.22, with Linux kernel 2.0.33. I ran into similar problems again.
About a year ago, I became interested again Linux, and now run Linux on my home workstation in a dual-boot configuration with Windows XP.
About 4-5 months ago, I began following the SCO v. IBM story. I was at first inclined to be open-minded towards SCO's claims. It wouldn't be the first time a small company has had its copyrights violated by a larger vendor, though the violator is usually, in my experience, Microsoft, as exemplified by Caldera's history with DR-DOS.
However, the more I researched the story and SCO's claims, the more convinced I became that SCO's claims were, well, baseless. Being the type that usually likes to "root for the underdog", I was surprised by my conclusions.
Anyway, that's enough introduction. What follows is an Open Response to your Open Letter to the Open Source Community. I grant everyone, including you, permission to re-publish it, or quote from it, without restriction, except that my comments be properly attributed to myself. Consider it under a "BSD-style" license if you like.
1) The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
Mr. McBride,
Response to Paragraph 1 of your "Open Letter":
This is very difficult to respond to, because your analysis of the issues and of the reasons for the Open Source community's anger is, in the words of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "so bad it's not even wrong."
For instance, your own lawsuit against IBM does not allege that "SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux" -- it alleges that code *owned* by IBM but under contractual "control" rights to SCO has been copied into Linux. Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU?
Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?
The truth is there are many reasons the Open source community is angered with you and the actions of The SCO Group and The Canopy Group, none of which have too do with "intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model." We don't believe such problems exist. We do believe that The SCO Groups legal theories of what constitutes "derivative works" have no basis in copyright, patent, or tradem
OK so I read it all, although breakfast stood a good chance of making a second appearance I managed it.
All I can say is the more that I read from Mr McBride the harder I think it must be for his staff to hear him with his head rammed that far up his arse. For instance:
But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago.
You pal, should count yourself lucky that your site has been available at all from the time you started making your claims.
Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us."
Note the term "he's ONE of us." That's right, Darl McBride has succeeded in pissing MILLIONS of people off and ONE has launched a DDoS attack on his firms website. Far from "adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community" I'd say that this is a shining demonstration of the restraint and professionalism of the Open Source Community and reflects better on us than SCO's action relect on them.
Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes
OK so the US has a population of roughly 250 million people. Check the crime stats and see what percentage of the US population has a criminal conviction including lesser things like speeding etc. Now work out what percentage of the Open Source community that 1 person represents. Hell boy, I guess the Open Source community is doing a better job of policing itself than the society you live in. Also, since when has Microsoft made it hard for people with a VB developer package to write viruses.
We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community.
Nor can we tolerate a situation where proprietry software companies will demand money from Open source users and businesses based on as yet unfounded IP claims. To do so is at best a sign of greed and at worst a sign of FRAUD.
Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.
Is that not what's happening to SCO due to your unreasonable and ill founded behaviour.
This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process.
Then take it up with SGI. The code was stated by Perens to be a - incapable of compilation and b - removed anyway so problem sorted, shut up and move on.
To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.
Then show us the code. It'll be removed and the problem will be gone. This in fact is part of the very law that you are using against Linux. By not divulging the dipsuted code you are weakening your own position by removing the defendants ability to remedy the situation prior to court action being taken.
I believe that the Open Source software model is at a critical stage of development.
Which I guess is the guess time for a propriety company to try to kill it and hijack its assetts.
If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies,
What, like Apache, Samba etc..
the community itself must follow the rules and procedures that govern mainstream society.
As should SCO who are committing an act of extortion be demanding money for IP that they have yet
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
"Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void."
Gentlemen.. I have before me a document provided by SCO/Caldera called "COPYING". It was found in their Kernel source code and is STILL AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEB SITE TODAY! This document spells out that we have full rights to use/modify as we see fit the code.
In essence, doesn't this constitute a transfer of ownership?
I've read the full document and basically it speaks for itself. This guy has been adopted into the human race. Sad.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
What I find to be even more telling is Mr. McBride's repeated insistence that the OSS model is flawed, and that the resulting business model is flawed. Well, leaving aside the truth or fallacy of these claims, who put the idea in Mr. McBride's head that he is the one with the answers? Looking at SCO, I would suggest Mr. McBride is the last person who should be making these suggestions. If the same statement were to be made by, say, an influential individual at Red Hat, or even IBM, I would be more inclined to give this position it's due. But, SCO couldn't make money as a Linux vendor, sells one of the most expensive, but least capable genetic Unixes, and were it not for the current media circus, would probably be filling for Chap 11 protection right about... ...now.
So, Mr. McBride, there is the old adage about glass houses and the throwing of Stones by those who dwell within. Perhaps if SCO demonstrated their ability to _CREATE_ and _INNOVATE_ instead of count coup on the _CREATIONS_ and _INNOVATIONS_ of others, SCO would be a healthy example of Closed Development. But as long as SCO is the champion of IP, Closed Development, and in general focusing not on the _CREATING_ but the _SUING_, and failing miserably at both, I see no reason for anyone to take your position as anything more than sour grapes.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
The problem is that the same "problem" of accepting code exists in proprietary code too, so Darl's argument that this is somehow a flaw only present in the Open Source world is false. Developers who work for company XYZ will use code obtained from company ABC (either because he/she worked at ABC in the past or "borrowed" it from a friend at ABC). They probably know this is wrong, but who would ever know? The key difference is that since the code is proprietary, no one ever knows. Since open source is open for the world to see, you get vultures like McBride swooping in. Hell, there's probably a lot more GNU code improperly placed into proprietary code than the other way around!