Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Selective About Linux Licensees

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the big-bills-only dept.

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.

7 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. My Guess by jtkooch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  2. wait a sec by ed.han · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  3. fair is fair by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....

  4. They'd be breaking Federal Law if they ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    actually sold any licenses. It's called mail fraud. And if they sold a few of them, it would also open them up to RICO prosecution because it would indicate a pattern of criminality that qualified as racketeering.

    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.

  5. Re:selective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is in fact going to hurt any chances of suing ppl in the future (liberal use of the word chance here). If SCO wont sell a license unless you are someone important, then again your usage cant be causing them any damages they care about. The fact they issued a price for individual licenses and wont sell any sounds like it would fall under some kind of false advertising scam.

  6. Look again by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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:

    1. Someone buys up a large fraction of the float in SCO, until the price just starts to rise.
    2. SCO or a friend issues some sort of noise maker / press release
    3. The price shoots up
    4. Our anonomous friend sells into the rise until the price drops back down
    5. Profit!
    "The market" isn't backing anyone here.

    What you are seeing is wolves taking money from sheep by not-too-subtle trickery.

    -- MarkusQ

  7. Re:This is getting ridiculous by dipipanone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that people ARE ponying up to buy shares (and float loans) at these ridiculous prices.

    People? Or investment firms? I suspect that most of the people who are buying SCO stock are doing so with other people's money.

    So you can kiss your pension goodbye for a start.