Slashdot Mirror
SCO Selective About Linux Licensees
cdunworth writes "According to the IDG news wire, SCO is now telling the vast hoardes of willing new Linux licensees that, unless you are a Fortune 1000 company, you can't buy a Linux license. Not yet. Why the delay? In return for your $699 payment, they don't have to send you anything more than a piece of paper." At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet. It doesn't always pay to have deep pockets.
but.. but.. The SCO$699FeeTroll has been telling everyone to buy a license! What is a teabagger to do?
Trolling is a art,
So, they're selective about linux licenses, but they'll sue anyone. Yeah.
Does this mean I'll have to pay for a full price licences for my Tivo, Router and network enabled coffee maker instead? I'm worried this is the case because I'll be unable to purchase the licences before November the first like I was going to.
Whatever will I do?
In return for your $699 payment, they don't have to send you anything more than a piece of paper
Do SCO really think people will pay this? Or do they have a 'long term strategy plan'?
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
SO by the time I will be able to pay for a license the rate will go up...
Guess I should use windows... That way I'll just be using pirated software and not illegal software...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet.
Personally I'm taking solace in knowing that I don't have to pay up, ever.
Someone you trust is one of us.
SCO look at the stock prices and the pump and dump!
It's all a big constiporacie!
And linux is Free and I think that all businesses are going to use linux so microsoft is behind all of this!
IBM is going to destroy these stupid SCO guys!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is the delay is to add "legitimacy". When it goes to court, they cn present these Fortune 1000 companies that have been suckered in as proof that people feel they need a license for Linux.
from TFA:
"one SCO reseller said the decision to leave smaller businesses out of the licensing program will have little effect on his business. most small businesses running Linux wouldn't purchase SCO's license anyway, according to tony lawrence, owner of a.p. lawrence, a consulting firm based in sharon, massachusetts.
"i think the chances of collecting from small businesses are very small, because they have very little to lose," he said. "they don't necessarily know whether they have SCO or linux. the only time they care about their computer is when it crashes.""
does this sound right to anybody here? a small firm that runs linux is insufficiently l337 to take an interest in SCO's antics? wouldn't, in fact, the reverse be true: the local linux admin (and staff) should by slashdotters and hence be paying very close attention indeed.
unless the consultant is speaking of mom & pop shops (which isn't exactly the same thing as fortune 1000), i just can't see this.
ed
Don't forget to pay your $699 SCO licensing fee you co....er...I guess you can't, never mind. ;)
>In return for your $699 payment, they don't have to send you anything more than a piece of paper."
I predict that RMS/GNU/FSF will do this in a few years to 'ensure' that you qualify as not violating the GPL.
That's my credo at work.
Doesn't this just prove they are out for cash?
EDIT:
At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet^H^H^Hever.
bullshit bullshit bullshit.
this is not legal in any sense whatsoever. To the law - there is no difference between me "stealing" something and Enron stealing somthing or Microsoft stealing something.
its still stealing.
They can't have it both ways - they cant tell me "i'm cool" but then tell Boeing they are not cool. What if i become the next Boeing in the next year because i come up with the ultimate something or other? Is my copy of Linux a personal or Fortune 1000 "verison"?
bullshit bullshit bullshit
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
This is just further evidence that SCO's plan is one of legal extortion, instead of claiming the technology. What's interesting is that they're trying to scare these big-dollar companies who'd rather just toss over a few thousand dollars than to bother their legal department with it. Smaller companies, such as the one I work for, would have a hard time coming up with that capital, and may be better off challenging SCOs claims in court in order to save themselves from a major financial hit. ~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
acting like this $699 fee crap is serious? Nobody is going to pay SCO anything unless they beat IBM, which we all know isn't going to happen.
So how much is a SysV source code license for my home system?
Sounds to me like SCO has a really well thought out plan. Announce licenses. Announce invoices. Respond with confusion when people call to purchase said licenses. Announce price increase. Announce balk on invoices. Annouce price increase time extension. Announce only Fortune 1000 can participate.
Their plan is simply announcements to pump their stock, because otherwise they would have though through this license deal before hand, and shown us the code. But we knew that already.
This should convince anyone that had any doubts that SCO's case is a total bullsh*t. It seems that they want to milk fat cows first.
How special would I feel if I was a manager of a large company, and SCO tells me that despite that fact that the license process was still in formation, my company needs to choke up some money because we're rather large?
It sounds like SCO is having scalability trouble with more than their software.
Comment Disclaimer: Not that I think they should collect from anyone, by the way (-:
Linux is distributed under the GPL. The GPL does not permit redistribution if it requires a license (to discourage just the kind of sleazy behavior SCO is engaging in). So, if SCO's claim is valid, then there is no point in licensing Linux because they won't be able to get any updated versions anway, not from SCO, not from RedHat, not from anybody. And if SCO's claim is not valid, then there is no point in paying them any money. In short, you can't really buy a license for Linux: either it's free or you can't use it at all.
And the farce continues.
It looks like SCO is really trying to use FUD against the big guys. "If we scare them, they'll pay, right?". They know if they can get the big companies to pay, they've made their $. If they don't, then it's "big fish" to fry (read: sue). Suing users would be too much money for too little gain.
I really wonder who their PR department is. They keep saying one thing, then say the exact opposite. Their heads are so far up their asses, they cannot talk a consistent story. They should be fired.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
In other words, SCO is saying, "The only people we are going to try and charge for Linux right now are the people with enough money to sue us into oblivion."
I am OK with this.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
But not only is the SCO share price rising, but there are a lot of shares being traded too. The markets back SCO at the moment and not us.
See this.
The only good thing to say is that Red Hat's price has also been rising quite strongly (though not as strongly as SCO) so there are people out there betting the opposite way too.
At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet.
Phew, what a relief. That was really keeping me awake at night.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
I think the scam is that the smaller guys are willing to pay while the bigger guys are taking a wait and see approach. So at the end NOBODY is going to have a license, so when this whole pump-and-dump backfires on them, they won't be held responsible for the legal extortion they are doing.
They know that if they collect even one penny now, and they lose the suit, they will get their azz handed to them by the judge.. this is just a smoke and mirror show
-joe
Yes, according to Tony Lawrence, owner of A.P. Lawrence, a consulting firm that is probably ALSO a small or medium-sized business.
From the article, referring to small and medium-sized business owners:
"They don't necessarily know whether they have SCO or Linux. The only time they care about their computer is when it crashes."
Show of hands: who believes that CEOs of fortune 500 companies know the details of their hardware and software infrastructure better than small and medium-sized business owners?
Okay, Tony, put your hand down.
Show of hands: who believes that CEOs of fortune 500 companies only give a rat's ass when their computer crashes, that small business owners are highly aware of their hardware and software infrastructure because they have a smaller staff and a higher sensitivity to the cost and maintenance to such infrastructure, and that medium-sized business owners fall into both groups?
Okay, everyone else put your hands down. One more.
Show of hands: who believes that Tony's business probably runs on pirated Microsoft products?
Isn't it time to teach these knife-wielding, vodka-drinking "finnar" a lesson for attacking our idol? Ban their IP for a week!
is that you can contact them and reserve your piece of paper at the current price. Oh wait, that's right, I dont need a stinking piece of paper.
:)
BTW, the 699 every one is talking about is for servers. Its only like 200 (approx, I dont remember off the top of my head) for personal use.
I say we all pitch in and buy 1 licence, and then have all the Kernel developers sue the shit out of SCO. We can just add in our 699 to the costs to get our money back
(Im not trying to troll, But I think it looks that way, D'OH)
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Yeah, just like the honest and fair chance they gave IBM...
I would like to have it changed to an overhead image of the caldera logo spiraling mid-flush in a dirty toilet. Thats where they are headed
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
calling and asking to buy copies of license before i started my small business - to see what is involved with purchasing the license.
damn.. i got fscking voice mail.
I told him i wanted to get all the documentation and information on what I get for my purchases of the LInux license before I buy it - just so I know what it is I'm buying... and left him my phone number.
oh well - they can't say that I didn't try.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Cretin.
Microsoft has multiple tiers for their licensing plans. It's likely that SCO has yet to implement more efficient licensing plans for the community at large; I'd imagine that eventually they'll set up a form where one can pay for their service with a credit card online and get a unique customer number or something similar. But it shouldn't be a surprise that more attention is paid to businesses that are using more services and are therefore more lucrative to focus on.
Besides, do you really want them to start charging everybody right now? I'd welcome this reprieve.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
They've got plenty on their plate with Fortune 1000 companies. They don't need an additional ENORMOUS class action suit filed by the rest of the world.
ascii art
Nobody signed a contract here, so the only problem is copyright law, [...]
But if you buy a SCO license you're entering a contract with SCO. Note that they're not suing IBM for violating a copyright - but they ARE suing them for allegedly violating a contrct.
If you buy the license you are paying $699 to give SCO the right to sue you if you ever use Linux on more than one machine. NOT smart.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"We're not the RIAA! We don't want to take advantage of the little people, just the big fish, the ones with the money, yeah, that's the ticket!"
it seems to get deeper every week, i really hope Big Blue crushes the evil bastards.
Time to buy some IBM stock...
My big question is:
If (many will argue When would be the right term) they lose the lawsuits, and it is found that Linux contains no code that is part of their IP. Will they automatically grant complete refunds (none of this $99 processing fee cra) to those who purchased a pointless license from them.
If not, why?
paul reinheimer
If SC0 has a case ( i dont think they do) then they would want all parties, whether corps or home users to pay their fees. As things now stand SCO is essentially saying "only the big boys must pay". This is convoluted and flawed logic. Of course I would not expect much else from SCO these days. The real question is how does SCO expect to legitimize its claims by selective billing? If linux is tainted (which i doubt) then all users who knowlingly use it anyway are liable. This just goes to show that SCO knows they have no case. SGI has essentially said that they reveiwed all the code and compared it to sysV and we are clean. Really SCO should go after everyone if they think they have a chance in hell of winning. They dont and this tale keeps getting weirder and weirder. SCO is getting more desperate. The plot thickens....
It doesn't always pay to have deep pockets.
???? So it's better to have less money now, because you might have to give some of it up for whatever reason? Besides the fact that in this case, I'd LOVE for them to come after me for something like this if I did have the proverbially deep pockets, I'd get the opportunity to sue them for improper billing...
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
Makes sense to me. SCO is playing the lottery here, and hoping one of the tickets is a winner.
Why go after Joe Consumer? SCO knows their odds of even finding private citizens using Linux are next to zero. Private citizens hardly ever get busted using a pirated copy of Windows, and Redmond has cash to burn to go looking for them. And even if they were to nail a few guys, so what? They're looking for a big payoff here, not nickel-and-dime end users.
But Fortune 1000 companies, ah! Big bucks. They're hoping to intimidate some huge company with the threat of audits and huge legal expenses vs. the relatively low cost of a site license.
And they know they only have a limited time to try their horseshit before some judge somewhere finally makes them show the "you can't see it yet" infringing code, and that'll be game over when it happens. So they're in a hurry - no time for small potatoes.
So please, don't bother SCO unless you have obscene piles of cash lying around and a panicky board of directors!
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Pretty soon SCO will just start tossing out press releases with "LOOK AT ME" on them.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Threatening end-users was baseless allegations to drive up the price of your stock is also a Federal crime, but involves securities laws that are far more difficult to prove/prosecute and even when convicted, they usually only result in small fines.
Why don't you whiney little bitches just shut the hell up and fork over the $699? I'm sure you all are employed and can pay it. LOL
What kind of screwed-up Ouija board are they using to make decisions over there, anyway? I realize SCO hasn't made much sense for months and months now, but not taking money from the people dumb enough to give it to them? That's just bizarre....
Just wondered.
$699 for a license to use Linux, but I can get an SCO OpenServer 5 license for $149?
I'm confused.
I'm infringing on a license I'm not required to buy?
That's gonna' make a lot of sense in court.
So basically, "sit tight and don't worry your pretty little head about it, bitch. When we're ready to take your money, we'll let you know. Okay? Buh-bye."
Dicks. I wouldn't have paid for a license before, but hopefully this pisses off a bunch of the "smaller" companies that were going to purchase licenses enough that they won't now.
Anyone know WTF's up?
Don't pay these crooked SCO scumbags ANYTHING!
Make them sue you, countersue!
Every Linux enthusiast on the planet should show up on their corporate doorstep one morning and collectivly piss on them and their shitty licensing scheme!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
You shud go on cank yankers!
Knock at the door.
SCO: We believe you may be running unlicensed linux machines for your business. We want our money!
ADMIN: But i am a home user, you only charge businesses! You should't be after me.
SCO: Yes but YOU DO run a business don't you and we have here that you are responsible for over 5000 machines. Like we said, we want our money.
ADMIN: But i access those machines from my house, at home!
SCO: But YOU remotely access them from here, don't split hairs! We want OUR money!
ADMIN: No no, you don't understand, i run all the machines here, at home!
SCO: *Scratches head*Jonathanjk.com
Uhhhh, you're mistaken perhaps????
$699 is probably less than you pay your legal department for an hour of sitting around on retainer. Thus, it starts making more sense to just pay SCO this one time to get them to shut up and go away.
The question: "Which is less: the number of processors in your enterprise, or the number of legal man-hours it'd take to fight of a SCO lawsuit?" becomes relevant.
Of course, once SCO starts getting companies to pay up, then it sets an established precedent which they can use to bully the small fry and extract the money from them.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Is SCO not setting themselves up for enforcement problems? If I'm fortune company #999 and am 'allowed' to participate, but fortune #1001 is not because they have a market cap $10 million lower, can I not use this as an argument that I shouldn't have to pay either? Seems like when the inevitable lawsuit occurs, SCO will have a hard time explaining their actions.
Last Thursday it revealed that it had delayed until Nov. 1 a plan to double the price of the license in order to give users more time to buy licenses at the lower rate.
How thoughtful of SCO. So we can pay $699 instead of $1398 for free software. And we have until Halloween?
"I think the chances of collecting from small businesses are very small, because they have very little to lose," he said. "They don't necessarily know whether they have SCO or Linux. The only time they care about their computer is when it crashes."
This guy subliminally replaced Windows with an imaginary SCO OS in his sentence. Is Microsoft so deep into this SCO scandal that SCO and Windows can be used interchangably in a sentence?
"the vast hoardes of willing new Linux licensees" who are these people?
oops. Forgot to click "Post Anonymous." Mod it up anyway, slashfags! Thanks!
Do you suppose they sent an invoice to IBM yet? They qualify as Fortune 1000, and have made a big "public" display of using Linux. This is the kind of company SCO said they are going to target. If they don't have the guts to send a bill to IBM, they really don't think they have a chance.
SCO is not targeting so-called 'consumers' because they would have a class action lawsuit on their hands so fast it would make their heads spin.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
it is not copyright problem, it is patent system problem. I think at least. Or Maybe I am the one who dont understand the WHOLE problem with this kind of crap that SCO FUD keep up with. Anyway, I will keep using linux without paying SCO and lincense crap.
SCO's decision to limit sales to Fortune 1000 companies is simply an effort to restrict their litigation exposure.
If they sell licenses to Linux zealots, they open themselves to civil (and possibly criminal) charges.
The worst of all cases would be a class action lawsuit from Linux zealots that would be very expensive to litigate and have major cost potential.
I'm just in awe of their ability to spin the facts for the PR world.
Go to district court house - get paper and fill it out including damages (lets set damages at the full price 1398 - or the maximum allowed in your juristiction) that were incurred and cost of delivering the summons.
Find the local lawyer for SCO in your juristiction (they have to have one - it is public record) and get the papers served
Wait and watch SCO go "Oh Shit"
(ps. We all $profit$)
What is nice about this is if enough geeks file papers in enough courts across the country SCO can't possibly defend themselves from the claims, and they will have to payup or shutup.
I propose a geek stampeed - The week of the 8th of December seems like a good time to file lawsuits
Please join in the protest by going to the district courthouse in your district and file a small claims lawsuit then
PS... Don't make it a class action either - that makes the legal costs for SCO go down - and none of us will see the money at that point. Small claims court - we just say SCO is saying we owe them 1.4K - we say they don't so we are suing to get the money from them.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Penguins aren't farm animals.
Give me 699..no wait... for free, whenever, wherever, I'll give you this: Oooo /
Right up your ass ( )
How;s that sound Darl? )
(_/
SCO still needs to protect its intellectual property. ..
Quack, quack.
The real damage of SCO's spurious, money-grubbing claims to Linux IP is this: it's going to destroy the Open Source movement in the eyes of the uninformed. They've come a long way in reducing GNU/Linux's stature as a positive community effort in the eyes of someone who doesn't know who to believe. Which is a lot of people.
And that makes me pretty sad.
Since are there "vast hoards" willing pay SCO for Linux? If there are that is certainly a contrast from just a few weeks ago.
If they went after the home/small business users, there's enough outrage that one or more state AGs would get a nice PR bonanza of their own dragging some Big Software Company (yah right) into court for trying to squeeze consumers out of their money...
I don't pay for software from companies who *do* own it, so this is a no brainer. But seriously, my question is this: How the heck does SCO expect to determine who is or is not using "linux" at home? Given that anybody can through together a distro and there are already loads of them, and that you can even install the kernel, etc yourself if you're really determined without using any distro... how could they ever possibly know short of a physical search of your house? Is SCO hoping that people will just mail them a check because "it's the right thing to do"?. these same people who don't bat an eye at "borrowing" that MS OFfice CD or burning copies of the latest game are actually going to pay SCO?
-Lod
But not only is the SCO share price rising, but there are a lot of shares being traded too. The markets back SCO at the moment and not us.
"The market" isn't a single entity, any more than slashdot is. What you are seeing is stock manipulation, plain and simple. At least, here's what I see:
- Someone buys up a large fraction of the float in SCO, until the price just starts to rise.
- SCO or a friend issues some sort of noise maker / press release
- The price shoots up
- Our anonomous friend sells into the rise until the price drops back down
- Profit!
"The market" isn't backing anyone here.What you are seeing is wolves taking money from sheep by not-too-subtle trickery.
-- MarkusQ
>At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet.
Oh thank god ! Now my only fear left is whether I would be eaten live by a shark tomorrow.
The shares went from $22 to todays $17.69 from the time they got the $50M death-spiral-money. How is this support?
You can't read too much into these large up'n'downs with this petty stock. It's "light as a feather"; Low volume and large movement on that. Once the panic sets in, this will tank in minutes.
Bonus article: The SCO Litigation: Maintaining Walls Around Trade Secrets or Attacking the Knowledge of Those Outside the Walls?.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I wonder if the girls feel the same way about sucking our cock and sweaty balls.
Bear with me a sec, and IADNAL
If we hypothesize that SCO can win the contract dispute with IBM, but is not able to succesfully challenge the GPL, wouldn't selling licenses to Linux obligate them to expose the code which they are licensing under the GPL?
In fact, might this not be the root of the hasty back-pedalling on their part over the whole licensing thing? Really until the dust settles from all the legal cases, at the end of today, and every day until that happens, the GPL is the binding license document for that code.
I'm interested to find out if anyone has actually purchased a license. And if the folks over at FSF know about it...
I doubt SCO really wants to fight the GPL in court. I don't see anyway for them to prevail, but again IADNAL. The act of issuing licenses would (it seems to me) force them to become embroiled in a case, launched by the guys in the white hats, which could ultimately give the GPL it's baptism of fire.
Just speculation, but if anyone is a lawyer, maybe they can comment on the possibility?
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Looks like they fixed the article already.
Hang on, I thought it was going to be a peice of cake?
He lied. Fancy that.
disney should sue sco because the old caldera logo looks like mickey mouse's head on a red globe.
maybe disney can license the image at $699 X every instance of the logo in use?
Does SCO plan to do software audits on these fortune 1000 companies? I didnt RTFA, but if they are ever planning to collect licence fees from anyone, they're going to have to spend the cash to do the audits. If they contacted me at my company, I'd just say 'Linux? Whats that? Have a nice day.' Click. I pity the fool that purchases a license from SCO.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Even the mafia gives more elegant shake-downs, and the corner scam-artist at least comes prepared.
Until Tuesday, SCO had not indicated that its Linux licensing plan is available only to the Fortune 1000, a term generally used to denote the world's 1,000 largest corporations. "We didn't articulate that at the time, and probably should have," Stowell said.
I've been wondering if Stowell is dishonest, or if he really believes the things SCO is saying. (I wonder the same thing about Darl McBride.)
This quote makes it obvious: he's dishonest. The plan was, all along, to only go after the Fortune 1000... but they promised to sue the world, and said that everyone needed to buy licenses, and when individuals called SCO they were not told about the Fortune 1000 thing?
And why did they feel the need to make this particular lie? Why can't they just say "We have now decided to let the little guy slide on the license for a while so we can focus on the big companies." Why try to pretend that was the plan all along?
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
From the atricle:
Stowell advised small and medium-sized businesses interested in the Linux license to wait for SCO to contact them. However, customers that contact SCO before the Nov. 1 deadline will be eligible for the $699 per processor rate even if they can't actually purchase the license by that date, he said.
If I make several assumptions (ok, Sammual L Jackson already pointed it out. That can make an ass out of you and umption) and SCO manages to will their cases, declare the GPL invalid, and manage to rule every program everywhere ever written a derivitive work of their source code, then why do they want me to wait to contact them? So they can charge double the ammount? Yeah, like anyone who thought they had a chance would wait at that rate.
I also need a little clarification of the word contact. What do you mean a DOS doesn't count as contact?!?!?!? (note for the humor impared: author of this comment does not advocate, and would never initiate, a DOS)
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
Yes, in the same way they backed Enron. Looking deeper, *45%* of SCO's stock is held by insiders. Only about 15% is held by institutions, the rest is basically your average day-trader. So in other words, the pros are treating SCO like plague. It's clearly overspeculation, and the numbers bear this out.
Now consider their short position. Assuming that institutions and insiders aren't the ones shorting, then that means that about *31%* of the stock held by other groups is being shorted. That's phenomenal. Similar stats for, say, P&G? about 50% institutional owned, and a few percent short. Also, SCO's short shares have nearly doubled in a month. P&G is up about 20%, as is most of the market, thanks to the recent runup. But that can't explain SCO.
I think you have a lot of people playing SCO like it was Monopoly money - but it ain't the pros. That's what I see from those numbers. People who know what the hell they're doing must be laughing at this.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
unless you are a Fortune 1000 company, you can't buy a Linux license.
;), and we'll help you eliminate Linux in... oh, say... everything else! Okay? Please, please, PLEASE, let's do that..."
It seems the gist of this is being largely misunderstood... First SCO says "all your code is ours... and you must have a license to use it." Now they're following that up with "only Fortune 1000 companies can buy a license." IOW, "personal users and small companies excluded - from being able to use (y)our code". What nerve! Sounds like more M$ bedsharing to me...
McBride: "Okay, Bill, look... everyone knows Windows sucks in large datacenter-like deployments... so, how about this: you let us have those (we'll just call them "Fortune 1000" installs
Gates: "Okay Daryl..." ((heh, heh, heh - but when Longhorn is ready... mwahahahaha!))
"LinuX - Dropping the c u r t a i n on Windoze." -- Vee Schade, vschade at mindless dot com
Hey troll! Have YOU fucked YOUR pig today?
Microsoft
SCO
RIAA
Can't go a day without the whining...
Seriously, let's create a corporation. I just looked up the fees to incorporate in Illinois, my home state, and it's less than $500, including some fancy fast shipping, hand deilvery, etc. We can sign up people to be unpaid employees or whatever,and we can market some web page design service. And we ONLY use Linux. How many employees/profit does a corporation need to qualify as fortune 1000? I'm willing to start up this corp. Anyone interested?
...for my post, asshat!
Dang. I was hoping to find that this SCO consultant was going to owe $699 himself, but netcraft sez he's running FreeBSD.
--
..these slashdot editors ever stop this "SCO Whoring" and continue to bring news that are NOT supposed to harm the reputation of Linux? I wonder ghow much damage goes to slashdot's credit for constantly spread the insults of these crackheads. sco.slashdot.org NOW!!! Why should anyone register here just to get this shit faster?
Eeven for a scam, this operation has been run so shoddily that it is hilarious!
....
SCO: You must pay us $700 by October or the price will double.
Linux User: OK, where do I send the money?
SCO: [silence]
Linux User: Just tell me where to send the check!
SCO: [silence]
Linux User: Look, damnit, just tell me how to pay you.
SCO: Well, you don't really have to pay and we've extended the deadline so you don't have to pay double and
What total bullshit!
hi,
Does anyone think SCO could have let the Unix SRS (if it exits) slip into Linux on purpose so they could then, at some point in the future, collect licencing fees on it?
Perhaps somone could sue them for neglegence in failing to 1) protect the srs and causing all these problems or 2) not finding the problem sooner or 3) knowing about the problem but waiting until Linux had good market penetration to collect lots of money or 4) causing more harm by not allowing linux programmers to remove the ofending code; if that were to happen they would not make any money from this would they?
Show of hands: who believes that Tony's business probably runs on pirated Microsoft products?
From his web site we learn that he's a SCO reseller. This makes what he said one of the more interesting twists taken on the SCO-apologist soapbox, IMO.
If you want to debate the issue with the consultant, he's a frequent poster in the newsgroup comp.unix.sco.misc
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And finally someone will say: "But, they aren't clothed. AT ALL!"
I am the Barber of Seville.
The SCO vs. IBM is a contract dispute, not an IP dispute on the part of SCO. Anyone remember project Monterrey, SCO and IBM had a deal. That deal went south, and IBM may have used some of the IP generated in that deal in a Linux inclusion. If that IP is tracked back to SCO Unix V, look out! Any kind of victory will be a win for SCO, even a draw will be good for them, people will automatically make the assumption that SCO won an IP case or was exonerated, SCO can use that assumption to extract license fees, and plenty of schmucks might pay in the short term. In the long term 5-7 years down the road, that is the amount of time it would take for Linux users to assert their rights again in court, because things get so drawn out. That is more than enough time for SCO to ride this gravy train for everything it is worth. That could easily send SCO to $45. The FUD you all are eating up and spitting out will only make things worse if something goes wrong. Slashdot is doing more for SCO then they could have imagined by allowing their FUD to spread. Don't feed the troll. IBM will probably win, but if they don't we will need damage control, not a panic. We are creating an unstable environment where that could happen. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
...where I'm an asshat to all of my customers, my potential customers, my customers' families, their friends, neighbors, acquaintances, passers-by, total strangers walking by on the street, pets, and random lifeforms both catalogued and unknown to science.
Then I'm going to sue the hell out of SCO for infringement.
Kind of like the financial company ING? If Darl McBride were head of ING, he'd be suing half the world's English speakers every time they used a verb with his company's name at the end.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
I wish the world was perfect enough that this made sense to me. Unfortunately both of your points (while ideal) are wrong. People will pay for this (they already are!) and this is just another phase of their strategy plan they have been milking all year.
Last I heard, their court date was in 2005. The way I figure it, they have until then to pull this stuff left and right (as they have been). Whatever the company doesn't rake in through "license sales," the execs rake in through insider trading. It's a nasty game, but it's big business. And they are making this long-term, I don't figure it'll stop the day they go to court.
It's really just tragically ironic how SCO is acting out everything the OS ideals are against while claiming they are entitled to licenses on it.
The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
Isn't it about time that the Free Software Foundation started litigation against SCO?
SCO ist demanding that some users of a GPL'd work buy a SCO license for that work. This is in complete violation of the GPL and therefore invalidate's SCO's rights to even use that GPL'd work.
It is my understanding that the FSF has intellectual property claims over many parts of Linux.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you take SCO's view seriously, this is completely wrong. Home users may not use Linux at all because they can't get a valid license. Maybe I'm just too paranoid here, but when dubious organizations sue individuals for millions of dollars, you just can't be sure.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
If anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, SCO's claims were valid, you can stop that nonsense. SCO's refusal to take money proves beyond a doubt that they have no case.
If SCO's claim is valid, then it has every right to either stop the use of its IP or to obtain money from its use. But SCO is claiming that while it has the right to obtain such relief, it chooses not to take it.
Imagine this press release from Wal-Mart: "The Wal-Mart corporation has decided not prosecute or to impede shoplifters in its stores. Because we are satisfied with those few people who do pay, we see no need to make everyone pay."
That's EXACTLY what SCO is arguing. That because some people pay for using its IP, the vast majority of users can have a free ride. If SCO's IP claims are valid, than the basis for not taking money is ludicrous!
The real reason for the change is because SCO knows it has absolutely no proof to back up its claims against individual users. If SCO followed through with its threats, no one would pay, they'd be exposed as frauds, and they'd become the laughingstock of the tech world.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
$699 is just a "promotional discount" according to sco.com
It's a PR move:
1. No (or almost no) small business were going to buy a license anyway.
2. Some small businesses will think that they can hedge their bets by writing in. They don't commit themselves, they don't have to pay anything now, but they do "lock in" the lower rate if they ever have to buy. They may think of it as free insurance.
3. SCO will trumpet the large number of small businesses that have written in.
There must be many small businesses with both SCO and Linux installations, perhaps those SCO resellers will advise their clients to write in "just in case"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Wow, good "insight". Do you think copyrights themselves don't cause the employment of people?
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
After reading this latest round of SCO wierdness I'm beginning to worry if the disease that afflicts their minds is contagious. It sounds like a scary form of paranoid schizophrenia. Perhaps a good mental health professional could help.
"At least home users of Linux can take solace in knowing that they don't have to pay up yet."
Yet? This announcement from SCO Group is irrelevant to the question of whether *anyone* will have to "pay up", "yet" or otherwise.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Help fight continental drift.
That's it, I give up. I will be writing my own OS, Linosxwinbedosolarpuxcementxperient
I
It sure sounds logical.
If so then mod it up!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Why would SCO continue to distribute linux off of their FTP site? I know that we think that they're crazy and dumb, but you know someone over there gets paid to read Slashdot (or, if you think that's too arrogant of us, someone MUST have pointed it out elsewhere). It's been remarked often that they continue to distribute it. Why would they bother? Is there still some contractual obligation on their part to do it?
...is Linus going to start charging SCO $6,990 for each Linux license?
PGA
I suppose next I can plan to have SCO rifle through my wallet while deciding whether or not I am cool enough to get in the doors at Club 54?
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Not condoning SCO's activities but people buy pieces of paper in the form of stocks and bonds, or insurance, etc all the time.
It's what you get for that piece of paper that counts.
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
"It's only mail fraud if you bill someone for something that you're not allowed to bill them for/never sent."
Maybe not. According to the US Postal Inspection Service:
"Postal Inspectors investigate any crime in which the U.S. Mail is used to further a scheme, whether it originated in the mail, by telephone or on the Internet. The use of the U.S. Mail is what makes it a mail fraud issue. "
Of course, this is not a quote or an interpretation of federal law, but to me it looks like the SCO scheme would fit the USPS description of fraud. No matter what communications method they used (internet, phone, mail), there is some corresponding fraud issue for them to worry about. I seriously doubt that anything short of criminal prosecution would convince SCO to hold back on the invoices.
As others have suggested, the "license" would have to be worded more like insurance, so as to dance around the GPL copyright infringement issue. The invoices could be interpreted as a "protection" scam, especially if SCO loses (meaning they had nothing to sell all along).
That's right all you diry smelly linux hippies.
Sigh. I somehow keep putting in comments regarding how hard it is to negotiate a license. I guess I've been really scarred lately doing contracts.
In any case, when I first read this, I thought that the reason why the Fortune 1k (top 1024) companies licenses would be negotiated first is because they will be the most difficult and any changes that are required to the basic license will be made here before it is passed down the food chain.
What's going to be really interesting is to see how they prove that their code is theirs (since they haven't done this publicly yet, to the best of my knowledge) and how they are going to word their support of *ix. They're probably asking megabucks for licenses and no buyer in a top 1k company is going to pay for a license without guarantees backed up by support (regardless of what the propeller heads say).
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I bought some stocks from them at 8 and sold at 15. took the profits and bought a new IBM PC
in their usual psycho, extortion way. If they really sold licenses to the individual activists who want to buy one license as evidence to sue them for fraud, they would have a legal battle on their hands with only $699 to show for it. (Actually there would probably be a hundred or so people who would do this, all wanting to be the one to file the first suit.) If they only open it up to big, rich companies, there are enough computers to be licensed that SCO will bring in tons of money in exchange for giving out the fraud evidence and make it worth their while. That is not to mention a few other companies who probably will just pay it to make the problem go away, thereby stuffing SCO's pockets even more.
From a legitimate business perspective, it would be OK for any company in this situation to PURSUE big companies first to purchase a license, because that just makes sense from a revenue/effort ratio--it costs them to pursue people. But to only ALLOW big companies to purchase and to PREVENT individuals from purchasing, something is wrong. When people are holding out money for them to take, and they are refusing, it's obviously shady.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Why not? Because Red Hat stands a very good chance of raining on this whole parade. Red Hat claims the "actual contraversy" is SCO's public statements, SCO's 1500 threatening letters, and this licensing program. The license is pretty damning for SCO, since they're supposedly selling the rights to use SCO's (unspecified) IP and not be sued.
SCO can't afford to sell ANY licenses, because of the Red Hat suit. But they can't publically admit they won't sell licenses, because everyone who's big their valuation up believe they may have a shot at someday taxing all Linux installations. Reversing course would likely be seen as an admission they may not ever get licensing. So instead, they claim they're only going after the big fish... and of course they won't actually do it, just blow a lot of hot air (what they've been doing all along).
To the many individual who've called their bluff and attempted to buy licenses, bravo. SCO's options are shrinking ever smaller.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Are you saying the meat for my penguinburger was hunted down and slaughterd?!? Poor poor penguins wrought from their families in Antarctica to make my belly full. Oh tasty penguin, can you ever forgive me?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I think that applies *anytime* someone is calling your pockets "deep".
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
nice to see that the media still assembles quotes the way i remember being taught...
seriously, though:
while i don't doubt that's true of your clients (since, you know, you're the guy who would know), my question is of what percentage of such businesses are your clients representative? i wouldn't think it was a majority, but i approach this from a position of ignorance.
ed
Several insiders have been selling their shares for months. Their only purchases have been through exercising options at well below the current price. In most cases, the shares purchased with those options have been immediately sold. I don't get the impression that they have any confidence in SCO's longterm prospects.
Jeez! Get smart, people!
What I think is that by going after large companies,
they can file lawsuits in Utah against these companies
and get their extortion money from these companies.
A large company would be better off paying the $699 instead
of flying a legal team to Utah to handle a suit.
However, if they go after individuals, they would either
have to go after people/companies that have some business
presence in Utah or file in that person's home state.
Filing a lawsuit against a little company in Utah wouldn't look
good in the newspapers and it costs too much to fly
a legal team any distance just to collect the $699.
Very simply, it wouldn't be cost effective to go after
anybody who has no presence in Utah but very easy to force
others to cower if they do have a business presence
in Utah (as almost all the big companies do).
Since I didn't log in, I'm sure nobody will read this though
and be deleted before it gets archived.
What most people seem to miss is sco's ultimate goals and the strategy to achieve them. The easiest goal to achieve is to delay the spread of linux. A goal that is central to m$ strategy for maintaining its desktop monopoly. So they have common purpose. Note m$ purchase of a sco license as a excuse to fund the litigation. Note sco's purchase recently of m$ technology. Sco will need to file financial information by the end of the year. So they work out a "deal" with a front company for $50 million to make the books look good. Otherwise the the stock price would dive. Anyone else see the spector of the enron gambit occuring? The next goal is to avoid going to court at all cost. While they can delay they won't be able to prevent a civil court case from redhat from occuring. Read PJ's analysis of sco's attempt to delay on groklaw to understand how todays intention to go after fortune 1000 companies seals that fate. Redhat no doubt will alert its fortune 1000 customers.
What is also interesting is that after "discussions" with sgi last week, sco decided not to revoke sgi's unix license in exchange for sgi not bringing a suit. This is my best guess as to what happened. Sgi is a company that intends to stay in business while sco does not. During sgi's audit of both unix and linux kernel code, sgi showed that sco had a very weak case and that to pursue a weak case over 200 lines of code would not help them in there ibm or redhat law suite. It just wasn't worth it for sco to push the issue.
I'm happy sco will be attempting to charge big companies for a license from sco on copyrighted property that sco refuses to prove it owns. It opens up so many more avenues for counter suites, fraud charges and SEC inquires. This is a great time to be alive!
Did I miss something? ..Did SCO win the rights to start charging for something they don't own? Fucking theives.
Home users don't have to pay up yet? That's not what my license says. Nobody has to pay up. SCO is smoking crack.
Help us build a better map!
If they think that I am going to EVER buy a licence for Linux from them, then they have to be nothing less than CRAZY! Why is SCO still alive? Must be something very wrong with the legal system to let this sort of thing go on this long.
SCO does not have to GPL their code. They only need to identify and prove what portion of Linux is their copyrighted code, that was either mistakenly or fraudently inserted into Linux, and it will be removed.
SCO has NO intention of "fighting the GPL in court". The GPL is the only reason they have any rights to redistribute or work on Linux in the first place. Nobody in the world wants to "defeat" the GPL because that either means they have less rights to the code, or conversely that copyrighting anything is illegal.
Hang on a second.
SCO has a self-confessed monopoly on the ability to sell fake Linux licenses.
As such, surely it is bound by the various anti-trust laws that prevent it from doing exactly this. ('Oh no you can't buy one, only our Fortune 1000 buddies can')
If it is going to sell it's product, it has to make it available to everyone under the same terms (volume discounts might apply to Fortune 1000 companies, but thats about it).
Someone better call the US DOJ and get them to crack down on these abusers of monopoly power.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Number of people who own the shares is limited, the more publicity SCO gets, the more people know about it. Likely the percentage of the people which are inclined to buy such shares is not getting down fast enough to keep the absolute number of such people from raising. That means, the demand is raising and so does the share price.
It goes so untill there comes new information that affect the named percentage drastically.
So in a short term (in regard to information inflow), publicity pushes the price high.
Now would that be technological or economical description of the situation?
There are many people who work in investment banks and have natural sciences background. Only there are others as well, and that could be very educated to take their reaction in account.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
SCO is offering introductory, promotion pricing until October 1, 2003. Customers who are interested in purchasing the SCO IP license for Linux should contact their SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800 726-8649 for further information.
The introductory, promotional pricing available until October 1, 2003 is as follows:
A client license for a single user desktop system is $199.
A single CPU, embedded device is $32.
Server Licenses
RTU SCO IP in a Linux Distribution
Promotional License Fee
With 1 CPU
$699
With 2 CPUs
$1,149
With 4 CPUs
$2,499
With 8 CPUs
$4,999
Each Additional CPU
$749
I got that from here
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Individuals & companies should blanket mail something along the lines of this. Note the inclusion of Red Hat (just to record that a RH user feels effected).
Send it certified reciept, and if SCO should actually sue you, hand a copy to the judge as proof of your prior good faith attempts. If SCO sues me, in a case that small this should carry significant weight.
Someone can certainly improve on my letter.
If everyone formally requests to purchase a SCO license (which they obviously don't ACTUALLY want to sell) they will either have to shut up or offer. If they offer, I think they know they are digging their holes deeper.
October 22nd, 2003
Your Name -or- Company
Your Address
Your City, Your State, Your Zip
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
The SCO Group,
I am an individual who currently uses Red Hat Linux on three single processor machines in my home. According to many public statements made by The SCO Group, Linux contains SCO intellectual property and I'm required to purchase three licenses from The SCO Group at an introductory price of $699.00 or face possible future litigation.
I have learned of statements made by Blake Stowell of The SCO Group that SCO is only accepting purchases from "Fortune 1000" companies. I am not a "Fortune 1000" company and my payments will not be accepted by The SCO Group.
Therefore I assume my three Linux installations do not require a SCO Group license, and by refusing my payments The SCO Group is granting me rights to execute it's alleged proprietary code on my computers free of charge.
If my assumptions are incorrect, and I require SCO Group licenses please mail me an order form and a copy of your Linux License user agreement post haste for my review.
This is my attempt to act in good faith with The SCO Group regarding SCO Linux Licensing. In the absence of a reply I will continue to consider the issue resolved.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Certified Mail #: xxxxxxxxxxxx
I presume you mean hordes, as in enormous numbers (e.g. the Mongol Horde), not hoards, as in enormous caches of something stashed away (e.g. hoarding canned goods after the nuclear apocalypse). Hoardes just isn't a word. Is spellchecking the story description _really_ that hard?
to do absolutely nothing?
., at the cost of having only that ONE freaking part taken out by the hackers).
The companies that are REALLY clueless don't even know what SCO is or if they are running Linux. They are completely reactionary and will simply wait until they are sued to worry about SCO.
The companies that are smart will know that SCO is going up again the likes of IBM with completely baseless claims (why do they not show at least ONE infringing part of the code!? That would CERTAINLY help their case and help convince people they are not completely full of . .
I don't think SCO has much of a niche market, since I pretty much covered everyone (except MS and SUN, which are just mean and whacked, respectively).
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I'd like to see them try to collect from the individual users. Apart from the fact that most of us don't have enough money, any effort to pry it away from us could have disastrous consequences.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
SCO doesn't really want people to pay the license fee.
The licensing fee is just a propaganda trick to drive up stock prices and to strengthen their monetary claim against IBM. SCO can't seriously believe anyone is stupid enough to actually pay. However there are a lot of stupid people out there. So, when calls started coming in asking about this licensing fee, SCO realized that they weren't equipped to deal with accepting fees. So the new policy is to say that they're only accepting money from corporations large enough to make it worth their time.
That's my guess.
This is what someone needs to do. Say, IBM needs to accuse Microsoft of putting it's code into Windows...then refuse to show it. That way, everyone will know it's totally bogus, and some real resolution will come out and IBM will have to poney up, but not that much. And a precedent will be set on how to deal with SCO. Just need some kind of catalyst.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
No one should pay SCO a cent if they want Linux to succeed. If they do have money to burn, they should burn it somewhere else instead of giving to
SCO's litigation pyramid scheme. It's as simple as that.
SCO will be lucky if that $50 mil. PIPE infusion from Bay Star lasts them long enough to go to trial with IBM. They can try to FUD some companies into buying a license for "SCO IP in Linux" or whatever they're calling it now, but I assume most companies - yes, even the Fortune 1K - will ignore them.
Whether or not SCO needs to show these companies the allegedly infringing code to close a sale is a moot point. Most of these companies will laugh at SCO for threatening them with legal action. SCO has about $50 million in cash, and is already involved in legal suits with IBM and Red Hat. Would you take them seriously?
I mean, SCO's like a 5' tall, skinny retard with anger management problems who, already having picked a fight with the two 7' tall, 300 lb. mercenaries in the bar, starts jumping up and down between fisticuffs, points at you, and shouts "You're next, dude! I'm coming after you next!"
Riiight. Whatever, dude.
My grandad was in Lindon ages ago. He wandered into SCO HQ - he didn't have an appointment there, he was just looking for a toilet. Thankfully, the receptionist let him use one.
But on the way out, grandad forgot to take his attache with him. He realised his mistake about half an hour later, and went back to get it, but it was gone.
Grandad had been working on his own version of Unix. It was all in his attache on printouts. He has more copies, but that's not the point:
Grandad KNOWS someone from SCO took that attache and used its contents. He KNOWS SCO Unix is a rip-off of his own code.
On behalf of my grandad, I would therefore like to offer the following:
As grandad owns the SCO Unix code, and SCO own the Linux code, any home user out there running any distro of Linux today can obtain a lifetime license from grandad by sending him a bottle of Wild Turkey to the address below.
Thank you.
If Coca Cola takes an open source program, modifies it to suit the Coca Cola enviroment and then gives it to Coca Cola's consultants or outsource partners (to use), does it means that Coca Cola have to "release" the modifications into the open source community?
If Coca Cola's consultant or Outsource partners takes an open source program, modifies it to suit the Coca Cola enviroment and then gives it to Coca Cola (to use), does it means that Coca Cola's consultant or Outsource partners have to "release" the modifications into the open source community?
The problem is the world is moving to a new state where what is internal to a company and what is external to a company is getting harder to define. Taken to the logical extreme, consider a company which has outsourced everything except the board of directors, now how does GPL fits in here. Well considering the board of directors dont write a single line of code.
when they pry it from my cold dead hands!
those who took out short positions at $5 or $10 got screwed
Or at least they didn't do the math. SCO was a marginally good short at $10, but the ROI wasn't that great (after all, it ties up captial to hold a short position, and that money could be doing something else). At $15 it looks much more tempting, and at $20 it's a sweet deal to short if you can find the shares.
The problem isn't so much taking advice from slashdot per se (which in this case will likely turn out to have been good), but in taking advice from anyone without running the numbers yourself.
because those positions don't last forever
I think you may have shorts confused with puts. Shorts last until you cover them (which, admitedly, you may be forced to do by market conditions if you aren't careful; hence the point about doing the math).
On the other hand, if you had gone against Slashdot and put your life savings into SCO back in May when the story broke, you would be laughing now.
If they sold at $20+, sure. But if they're holding, and plan to keep holding? I'd say they should get ready to cry in their beer about life-savings-lost. SCO can't keep this up indefinetly. I say again, do the math.
-- MarkusQ
Research:
Rob Enderle
renderle@enderlegroup.com
389 Photinia Lane
San Jose, CA 95127
(408) 272 8560 Office
(408) 832 6326 Cell
(408) 904 5274 Fax
We've got to remember that it doesn't have to make sense. The bad side of management has devolved to such a point where the latest managerial fad is to have a "power animal" and think of yourself as a "shaman". It's long been a field ruled more by emotions than facts or planning, or freindships more than ability.
Actually I prefer this icon, or this one.
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
Finally, a coherent plan for dealing with Darl. All we need to do is tip Darl off to the tremendous potential of ING, and he'll buy it to pursue litigation, thus losing lose interest in SCO and Linux. What a marvelous decoy!
If SCO demands money from all and sundry then all the small linux users could sue them - might not all win, but the lawsuits would drain a pile of SCO's money quickly.
By saying that the small fish can not pay, even must not pay, they're denying them all the ability to take them to court - they won't have standing to sue as they have no interest.
Big companies are likely to say "corporate license for $1,000,000? Hmm, it would cost at least that in lawyers fees to fight it (at multi-hundreds of bucks per billable hour that kind of fee doesn't take long) - lets pay up." And thus not sue. So SCO makes money with little legal exposure or risk. (Plus half the people in the big companies they're trying to get money from are probably friends, lovers, fellow-travellers, fellow-conspirators, fellow-[fill-in-the-blankety-blanks] and the like and are all too willing to spend stockholders dollars on their friends in the full expectation that their friends will spend their stockholders dollers on them in return.)
As usual IAAL,TWAGOSOT (I Aint A Lawyer, Take With A Grain Of Salt Or Three).
Why the feck isn't this run with more obvious derision? The subtlety is lost on the idiots who are going to treat SCO's b.s. as legit and considering ponying up for a "license."
Why not abolish these fecking SCO stories until something authentic happens in the courts or otherwise? Quit serving the SCO p.r. machine you mutha fecking bitches.
Sory but evin if SCO expected licance fees from home users i beleve the only thing i would mail them is a big fat Juicy Turd
As I understand the GPL, the code is in the open for everone to view, modify and use in any form that they want. SCO is therefore as part of the GPL allowed to modify the linux kernel source so that it doesn't contain "suposed" System V code. On the other hand I'd love 2 see all those companies/indicuduals that produce products like apache, mozilla, sendmail, Xfree86, KDE, GNOME, openoffice, webmin and other free products that SCO may have in the Unix distribution and sue SCO for loss of income because they didn't recieve a valid licence for using the code or breaching the terms of the licence. I would love to be part of any class-action against SCO.
It's a classic game. Introduce something. (Linux licenses.) Then, tell people that they're not "good enough" for their product. Suddenly, everyone and their uncle is *dying* to get one of those "restricted" products. :-P
:)
Anyone know where I can get one?
Everyone has come with some great schemes, but it could it be as simple as thier next quartly report having the phrase "Increased sales to Fortune 1000 companies by XX%"
Just a thought
SCO may be as crazy as a coot with this whole campaign of theirs, but they will never sell a single license for Linux.
;-)
The reason is simple - no matter what they may win or lose in this campaign to drive up their share prices (which is really all that their campaign is about), they cannot risk selling even one license until they are ABSOLUTELY sure that that they will never be sued (and lose) for selling a license for someone else's work.
A single license sold will *instantly* open them up to a class action case - the number of legitimate copyright-holding authors involved would make any class action lawyer drool helplessly.
Which is probably why most of the open source authors (who have rightful copyright claims on the stuff SCO is threatening to license) are sitting quiet, waiting for the first verifiable license to be issued.
That probably includes Linus and more importantly Alan Cox (which explains his persuit of an MBA)
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
Were Madeline kahn is the queen and needs to pick here escorts. "No, No, No, Yes, No, No, yes....YEEEEESSSSS!" (Not exact. No think of SCO doing that to applications of people trying to give them money.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.