SCO Derides GPL, Will Revoke SGI's UNIX License

ComaVN writes "Not a big surprise for those who have followed the recent SCO misery, but SCO is going after SGI. According to SGI, SCO intends to terminate their Unix System V license, much like they did with IBM earlier. I guess it's hard to stop once you've chosen a certain direction for your company." sheddd writes "Does this case have any merit? Joe Formage has written a good article on SCO's strange behavior." Read on below for SCO's odd tactic of attacking the GPL by belittling IBM's legal diligence in not avoiding GPL'd software, and word on why Linux users aren't being served SCO invoices.

larry2k writes "PR newswire has an open letter from SCO to IBM.

From the letter: 'SCO believes that the GPL -- created by the Free Software Foundation to supplant current U.S. copyright laws -- is a shaky foundation on which to build a legal case.'" The release is also carried by NewsForge. Among other things, SCO says "By so strongly defending the controversial GPL, IBM is also defending a questionable licensing scheme through which it can avoid providing software indemnification for its customers."

Doesn't supplant mean "replace"? That's not what the GPL does.

And if you're wondering why you have not received an invoice from SCO for any Linux-based OS you may be running, benploni writes "From Groklaw: In this Detroit News story Blake Stowell explains why no one has received an invoice: 'SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said.' [emphasis added]. We all knew there was no way they'd risk actually sending out invoices, and here's the proof."

Comments

Re:Is it only me

[Elwood P Dowd]

Block the Caldera topic.

Re:Stock?

[Shadwhawk]

Up over 10%.

Re:Indemnification DDOS

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I believe you're looking for this post on Groklaw.

I'm posting in a snip of my comment I posted in relation to said post linked above... hopefully my math is right :-)

In the best case, he won't be fully vested for approximately another 3 years! By then SCO will probably be in ruins and the stock worthless. Although he does have some stock options available to him, they are nowhere near the bulk of what he was awarded that hasn't vested yet.
Here's my math, assuming he was hired in June 2002 (as somebody posted above):

Total stock options: 600,000 It doesn't specify when he was awarded these 600,000 shares but let's assume it was Q4 2002 (salary for fiscal year 2003). Options vested Q4 2003: 100,000 The remaining 300,000 options of his 400,000 "performance" options will be vested 8333.33(repeating) per month for the next 3 years.

Now, let's assume that somehow they remain profitable until the end of the year, making it 4 quarters in a row. First profitable quarter: Q1 2003 Options vested Q1 2004: 50,000 Options vested Q4 2004: 150,000

So based on my lame math, in December of this year he'll have 100,000 shares vested, with another approximately 75,000 by end of Q1 2004. Do we really have to listen to his mouth spew crap for another 3 years (assuming best case scenario for their finances) until he can sell off all his stock? Or do we really think they can keep the FUD machine running for another year so he can get the rest of his stock options.

I highly doubt it. Once this goes to trial the stock will probably bomb as they are forced to reveal their evidence and IBM lays the smackdown.

Let's hope my math is right... :-)

And you may be right on this indemnification crap. IMNSHO it's a bunch of bull. Does it matter if you indemnify your customers? Protect them from SCO lawsuits that are illegal anyways? SCO doesn't even with its Linux license. I wish somebody in a high position would step up and tell them to cut the indemnification crap because they don't even offer it in their illegal (oops, did I say that out loud?) Linux license.

Re:Mor[m]ons are buying.

[LMariachi]

Here it is.

The state's best performing stock belongs to SCO Group Inc., the Lindon-based software developer locked in legal disputes with IBM Corp. and Red Hat Inc. over allegations that parts of the Linux operating system are identical to SCO Group's Unix program. SCO Group's shares are up 854 percent so far this year. "We have become much more aggressive this year in protecting our intellectual property," SCO Group spokesman Blake Stowell said. In addition, SCO Group reported its first-ever profits during the past two quarters and expects to report another profit next quarter. "We've also announced some big licensing deals," Stowell said.

There's also a dryer, less rah-rah note on the filing for extension here.

Why does SCO want IBM to provide indemnification?

[JonnyElvis42]

From the SCO Letter:
We [SCO] continue to urge IBM to provide legal indemnification for its Linux customers.

Now why, oh why, does SCO want that? Well, one reason that occurs to me is this: IBM has been fairly unaffected by SCO's suite against them. They're not cowering in fear or hiding under rocks or anything. SCO would like IBM to look worried because, well heck, if I'm going to make flagrantly ridiculous accusations against somebody who could squish me like a bug, and nobody believes me, nobody's going to put up much argument when it's squish-time. So here's what SCO has to gain:

1. If IBM (or Redhat) were to indemnify Linux users, that's as good as saying they're not so sure of their case. HP can get away with it because they haven't been targeted and probably won't be before the thing is over. Besides, for them, it looks good. So one thing SCO wants is for IBM to show a tiny bit of uncertainty in public instead of all this "SCO's claims are without merit." and "The Earth is not flat." stuff that they keep throwing around.
2. The second reason is a little more complicated: Right now, SCO has a huge legal staff devoted to protecting a large corporation. Right now, if SCO were to choose a bunch of Joe-Linux-user types (not companies using Linux, but individuals), it would look really bad, and they'd have to fork over their evidence soon, since for $699, that's small claims court, and it's not that easy to delay a small claims trial for the next two years or so. So, with no indemnification from IBM, it's not at all practical to sue the little guys. If IBM is indemnifying them though, it works well for SCO to attack all of the smallest users they can find. IBM is able to defend itself perfectly well, but if SCO were to go RIAA-style and start with a few hundred or even a few thousand Linux users, and IBM had to defend them or pay up, IBM is not so well equipped. They'd have to hire a bunch of lawyers on the side to take care of it which would cost money and create a huge sideshow to mask whatever SCO's goal is.

So there you go. Unless SCO is actually concerned about Linux users. Ha! Can you see it?

SCO: Hey IBM, we're really concerned about your users. We're worried that we might accidentally catch them up in our extortion scheme. How bout you pay us off and nothing bad happens?
IBM: *stomp*
SCO: *squish*

Open letter from SGI

[Booker]

http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt

Re:Mor[m]ons are buying.

[JordoCrouse]

Here is a very slanted view of the Canopy Gropu published this past Sunday:

Littl Tech Titan

I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

Re:Stock?

[Abcd1234]

A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts.

SCO succeeding or failing has absolute nothing, zero, nada to do with the legal validity of the GPL. That's really just a red herring. In fact, an invalid GPL would make SCOs distribution of the Linux kernel illegal (as it would fall back to regular Berne convention rules) and open them up to a class-action copyright infringement suit by the various kernel developers.

No, real the first question is, was SCOs copyrighted material placed in the kernel illegally? By all indications, probably not (since they've been hiding their evidence all along, which buys them nothing in the long run). The second question is, does SCOs Unix license also apply to IBMs work (JFS, various SMP-related technologies, etc). This is somewhat less cut-and-dried, although I'm leaning in IBMs favour for this one, simply because I can't imagine IBMs legal team signing a deal as onerous as that.

Now, me, I consider the chances of SCO actually succeeding in litigation to be slim at best. They're up against a goliath with claims which, IMHO, are pretty weak. So shorting the stock could very well make sense... it really depends on what you consider SCOs chances of winning are.

magnitude

[rodentia]

That said, a lawsuit of this magnitudeis for sure something to bank on. If it pans out, SCO is almost guaranteed to throw good dividends. A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts. I'd say the odds are about even on that one.

And you'd be a fool. The last suit of this magnitude that SCO/Caldera played they settled for a tenth of their demand. And only after MS decided to get out before their last AT trial. That was the Dr. DOS settlement, hmmm?

Blue has no reason to back down or settle up. When this thing pans out sometime in 2008, SCO, if not bankrupted already, will be by the judgement.

SCO is swimming in their own piss.

Lauro DiDio

[ccwaterz]

Hmm... Laura DiDio, the "analyst" that signed the NDA and commented on the similarities of the disputed code is quoted in here.

What's the connection?

Lauro DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, said it is obvious that in Yarro, the torch has been successfully passed from the mentoring hand of Noorda.
"In his day, Ray Noorda was very forward-thinking, able to focus in on the trees and yet still see the forest and beyond," she says. "He had a public persona as a sort of svelt Santa Claus, but behind closed doors, Ray really knew now to wheel and deal. He could be ruthless when he had to be."