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?"
what to point darlmcbride.com to next...?
answers on a postcard..
$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]?
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.
The reason you can't get through to the sales staff is because they're too busy operating their huge laser on the SCO death star.
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.
I think I'll wait until the next minor release of the license once it's more stable.
See the following new letter (dated Sept 9th!):
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm
I logged into my eTrade account this afternoon to have a look at the status of my stock options, and just for the hell of it punched in "SCOX" on the stock symbol search box. I got the expected info on the current stock price, market cap, etc., but was bewildered when I went to the "Company News" section. Believe it or not, fellow slashdot geeks, nothing I saw on eTrade linked to the Open Group, the FSF, or to Linus' "they're smoking crack" comment.
SCO's press releases are being reported as straight news. The business world isn't going to wake up and smack SCO because right now they have no clue about what SCO is really up to.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
SCO Director Blake Stowell said the company is willing to negotiate pricing
Here in America we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Someone you trust is one of us.
And by that I mean the coders (if they have any left)?
You've pretty much answered your question in the parenthesis. SCO has laid off most of its development staff, and there have been a few high-profile people quitting as well. What's left at SCO is mostly the legal team and a handful of salespeople.
If you visit SCO's website and look at the hiring page, you'll presently find no open positions. I think this means SCO are pretty much digging in and wagering the entire future of the company on this lawsuit.
We will give you a license to run this code we fail to identify. It's not a license to all unix code but only the code we claim is in linux kernels 2.4 and 2.5, and it's a binary only license but we don't actually compile it, someone else does. We won't actually tell you what you are paying for, and what you may not modify or contribute to. You are just going to have to trust us.
Well... I think it's only approperate to respond in binary... Enclosed is a hex represnation so in order to bypass the lameness filter
46 55 43 4B 20 5A 4F 55 21 21 21
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
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
In a new article, SCO's Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "As of Tuesday [Sept. 2], we actually began making the license available. Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've actually done as yet, but as of today we are able to do that".
l t.asp?detect=1&symbol=SCOX&close_date=8%2F11%2F03& x=48&y=18
o n=l&mid=&board=1600684464&sid=1600684464&tid=cald& start=26210
0 110254203000049/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
0 110254203000049/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml s tomer_1.html 1 817&e=2&u=/zd/20030905/tc_zd/59210&sid=9612075 1
Excuse me for being shocked, but didn't SCO announce on August 11th in a press release, that they'd sold the first license? And didn't SCO then go on to tell us that SCO had signed up at least one additional customer since it sold its first IP License for Linux on Aug. 11?
Wait there's more...
There is an interesting coincidence about the timing of 1st license announcement.
According to marketwatch.com on 11 August:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical/defau
Stock opened at $10.45
Heavy trading (965,500 shares)
Fell to a low of $8.27. From Yahoo message board (see below) this low appears to be part of a sharp decline around late lunch time.
Stock closed at $9.289
Go look around here for what was being said on the yahoo board around 1.30 to 2pm this time: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&acti
The press release when SCO announced their first license was at 2.03pm ET according to the time stamp on it:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html
No doubt the timing is all coincidence.
Another coincidence is that Michael Olson, had a 10b5-1 sell on that day:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
No doubt, another coincidence.
So here's the quick summary:
1. SCO issued a press release, August 11, saying they sold their first Linux IP license: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html
2. The press release, luckily for SCO, appeared immediately after the stock crashed to a low of $8.27
3. A SCO insider had a pre-arranged plan to sell stock (and did so) on that day , 11 August: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
4. In September, SCO later said they had sold at least one other Linux IP license: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/03/HNscocu
5. In September, SCO later said they hadn't sold any Linux IP licenses: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=
6. I am not sure of the order of articles 4 and 5 in date, but article 4 appears to have been published before 5.
goatse.cx ?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm
From the above link, this quote:
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This appears to be the ComputerWire article referred to
http://au.news.yahoo.com/030826/20/lfff.html
The paragraph in which the "error" quote reads:
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
I looked what Perens said in the original (referred to be ComputerWire)
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
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
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