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: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.