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.
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?
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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!
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
What the Hell is that?
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....
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.
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.
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.
$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!
The rationale is quite simple. If large corporations, which have the resources, expertise and time to fight in court againt SCO were defeated, the small ones will look like sitting ducks. No owner of a small business will risk a war that companies much times bigger couldn't win.
On the other hand, SCO knows that they have power now to intimidate and force the little guys to pay licenses, but if these licenses are bought and later on it turns out that SCO did not have the right to charge them, they are going to be sued for so many firms and so many reasons that they can even imagine right now.
Their strategy makes perfect sense to me.
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.
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
If I have to pay $700 for something from FSF does that mean they will have to change their name to just SF ?
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
Nope.
A copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyright. Imagine you write a hit song, and hold the copyright to it. Elton John wants to perform it at the grammies - you decide to charge him a half million dollars to do so..
You find out that some kids garage band played it at their high school talent show - you can look the other way, grant them a 0 cost license.. Whatever you want.
You're thinking of trademarks. You can't trademark a word unless you plan on defending it (or else some jackass would trademark every word in the english language by now)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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\ /
RTFM. What you're saying is more true for trademarks than copyrights-- although I'm sure, given the (ahem) flexible nature of our legal system, there are exceptions to be found in both arenas.
I do not have a signature
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.
Selective like a hoe. Only come after you if they think you've got the money.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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
Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me.
'Vegetarian' is an old indian word meaning "bad hunter"!
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.