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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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