Slashdot Mirror
SCO Will Pay You Not to Use Linux
Verteiron writes: "As if things weren't weird enough already, SCO is now planning to pay companies to migrate away from Linux.. even if it's not toward UNIX. According to the summary over at Groklaw, SCO will provide 'financial incentives and discounts' to users that switch to 'other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux.' This doubly amusing when considered together with the following statements straight from SCO's 8-K form filed with the SEC:
'...plans to expand SCO's intellectual property licensing program to allow for migration alternatives to end users... and continued efforts to protect SCO's UNIX intellectual property rights and SCO's belief that the private investment will enhance SCO's ability to pursue currently pending legal actions... SCO has a history of unprofitability and has only realized revenue from its SCOsource licensing initiative during the last two quarters...'"
Where do I sign up?
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
Holy mother of God, this story keeps getting better and better.
I have 5 FreeBSD boxes running.
Where do i sign up?
do() || do_not();
Ok, seriously, who thinks the underwear gnomes have a better bussiness plan?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I don't run Linux on my wristwatch. Where's my check?
Remind me again how much Microsoft "invested" in SCO?
Nice to see some confirmation finally that SCO is not in the business of selling software, and has only the destruction of Linux as its objective.
This should clear the air a bit and help wake up those poor souls who still think that the SCO Group is some sort of software company, and not a lawsuit factory with a worthless, deprecated UNIX implementation on hand that they're not even developing to any useful degree any more.
And on the speculative front, I'll refuse to be 100% sure that Microsoft and/or Sun are behind SCO's actions until I see some sort of paper trail, but this makes me sure enough.
VC weenie: What's your business plan?
Darl McB: Pay people to switch from an OS we don't own to others we don't own.
VC weenie: Here's 5 million dollars - can I be on your board?
XML causes global warming.
Use *anything* other than Linux. Note the biggest discount is Windows.
So, pay SCO only $299.00 for Linux.
But stop using Linux. Hmmm, so why the $299? Move on.
Start using Windows.
And this helps SCO how? You're not using their products. Oh, but you paid $299 for a product (Linux) they claim infringes on something of theirs, but then stop using the allegedly infringing product.
HELP!
Doing a Carrot instead of stick strategy will work a little better for SCO to accomplish their means. Granted lawyers = $500 - $2000/hr whereas user incentives = $500/user maximum (thinking Windows XP + MS office pro).
What kind of impact this will have on the Linux community that thinks they're a bunch of (every expletive you can imagine inserted here) I don't know. Anyone here in the Slashdot community who trusts SCO raise their hand.
Though all the same, some users who are looking to upgrade just might....naaah I shan't think such heretical thoughts....
...in bed
I wonder if they took into account the possibility of users switching away to another free *NIX.
Assuming they did, that makes it even more clear how much of their attack is focused on the GPL itself. BSD-licensed software may be free, but it can be added to any proprietary system with the sole provision that the copyrights are maintained and there is no warranty of fitness for any particular purpose. True "free software" is obviously what scares SCO and their puppet masters.
That's assuming they considered that possibility. Knowing how out-of-touch SCO's executives have proven themselves to be, there's a good chance they didn't.
RedHat's case rests on the allegation that SCO's actions are deliberately trying to damage RedHat's sales potential (as the #1 Linux distribution). This would seem to directly support that allegation.
The same could be said for IBM's counterclaim.
Here's an article from a UK source today, called Microsoft millions back SCO case. It also highlights Boies' et. al. backing of SCO. Just so there's no confusion about who it is that's scared of Linux.
...for everyone to believe that this was never about a pump-and-dump stock scheme, but rather a backroom deal by the enemies of the GPL to smear and FUD until CTOs run screaming at the sound of the words "open source".
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but...
What possible reason can SCO have for encouraging people to switch over to Windows (as the article indicates they might) unless they are in bed with Microsoft? Has SCO become a front for Microsoft in it's war against Linux? That is a scary prospect, because SCO doesn't care about it's reputation and so can do really nasty things that Microsoft would never get away with on it's own.
Development would cease while al the Linux developers chatted on Slashdot about the impending anti-trust cases against Microsoft launched across the globe.
Seriously, there isn't the remotest possibility that Microsoft could buy SCO if it would actually have a measurable effect. Of course, that is all predicated on the notion that SCO and its "IP" does actually count for something. Personally, I don't think it would make the slightest difference. IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Sure, I'll be happy to switch N virtual machines over to a binary-only SCOware or Microsoft instead of Linux, if they'll pay me enough per virtual machine. .
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No, really. I love Linux, and my company uses it on many desktops (about 40%) as well as our main file server, mail server, and ftp server, and I'll unplug each and every one on Friday, November 14th if they'll pay me.
Of course, the sad fine print is that my company is closing on Friday, November 14th, but I'll do it, by gum. Just show me the money!
--
If I had any money in SCO, I would want to take it out now, or be on the phone to my lawyer, looking into some sort of minority-shareholder lawsuit against the company for wasting shareholders' money by paying them to switch to a competitor's product. There is simply no financial benefit for SCO in having users switch from Linux to Windows, Solaris, or anything but a SCO product. Unless SCO has some sort of plan to move into the Windows services market (that they've kept under wraps all this time), they shouldn't be paying for people to move to Windows. It's almost enough to make me believe the SCO-Microsoft conspiracy theories.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
to use AIX? That is not Linux.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Potential Investor: What's your business plan?
Guy with goatee: We'll be selling e-products over the e-web. Our e-services will include e-billing, e-shipping, and e-tracking. This will actually reduce our infrastructure and overhead costs to negative numbers, so we won't even need to actually sell anything.
PI: Here's all my money, and my 18 year old duaghter.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Excuse me... but wouldn't offering financial incentives to not use a competetive product be illegal in some way?
I mean, it's legal to give incentives to use my product... but to drive a competitors business away...?
Make em bleed! Buy an XBox. That way you can still run Linux and switch to a platform with more IP (whatever they mean by that, since Linux is copyrighted anyways!) That way you can screw SCO and Microsoft altogether. Maybe this is all about getting rid of Sony, or am I taking this too far? ;-)
How is this for an idea:
If you are a company which supports Linux, develops software for use on Linux, or uses Linux in some way, simply offer a discount of - say 25% - for all services related to migrating SCO users from SCO products to Linux.
Next thing to do is write press releases to the local papers telling them about it. You should point out that SCO customers face an uncertain future, since SCO will proably loose its fight with IBM, and will then be taken to court for its actions. You can also describe how SCO's new path is not developing new and better software for you, but simply based on taking advantage of its "IP".
Obviously there are many potential Linux converts out there, and it would be a good idea for Linux companies to compete for those users by offering them discounts to move away from SCO first.
I also believe that companies should cease supporting SCO versions of software - but at the same time offer existing clients a migration path to a more solid platform - such as Linux.
I know the SCO's lack of revenue is hardly a worry to them now, however it will make great news, and possibly make their stock price reflect reality.
The article says:
Attention SCO: Your plan has worked!
I'm migrating from MS to Linux right now in preparation for the incentives to migrate away later.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
More like that one Daffy Duck short where he's on stage, struggling mightily to get ANY kind of audience reaction.
He sings, he dances, and the audience just yawns. Finally he uses his one remaining sure-fire act to get a reaction. He swills down a bottle of nitroglycerin and makes himself explode.
And the crowd goes wild, but meanwhile, nothing but of Daffy remains except for a black stain. That's what this whole thing is:
Daffy, until it explodes and there's nothing left.
Help fight continental drift.
SCO is offering _discounts_ on licenses.
Meaning if you switch over to another OS now you don't end up oweing SCO the full license for linux ($699 or something) that they're claiming you now owe. You'll probably just end up oweing a mere $500 (or whatever - even I couldn't stomach reading the details on that in the article).
I have a second sig, I call it sig#2.
ok. let's just say sco does have ip in linux. and let's say they can bypass the gpl and charge for it. neither are likely true, but just humour me here. now let's say that they expect scosource to be their future revenue stream.
just pretend all of that is true, factual and on the level. say it's possible and what sco is honestly planning on.
how in the fuck does this latest move make any sense even in that nightmare fairie tale?
"here, you folks have violated our ip, we plan on continuing to charge you and, oh, by the way, here's some money to buy our competitors products so you won't have to pay us anymore."
is it any wonder that sco never took the unix world by storm in over a decade?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
However, IBM helped Novell buy SuSE, AG. And since Novell is the REAL owner of the UNIX IP, I am waiting on pins and needles for them to lay the smack down on the Smoking Crack Organization. Which is going to happen. Soon. That's the first thing I thought when the SuSE/Novell deal went down.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
How in God's name can so few smoke so much in so little time??
Damn, and I thought the people on the west side were bad!
How does this make sense from a business perspective?
Simple - they're using MPAA/RIAA math!
See, for every person who uses your IP for free, you lose money - so you figure out how much you're losing per unit, and offer people less money than that to not use your IP..
For example, if SCO determines that they're losing $100 per Linux server, and there are currently 100,000 people running Linux that would take them up on their offer, then all they have to do is offer people $50 to not run Linux.. then Viola! They've now made a positive difference of $50,000,000 to their bottom line!
Disclaimer: although I'm currently drunk, this makes perfect sense to me. I may or may not feel the same way once I've sobered up.
The Masters Of The Universe do not want you to be free. Period.
Ergo, Open Source, non-corporate software MUST be destroyed. By whatever means. SCO, whether they realize it or not, (and I suspect they do), exists for the sole purpose of disabling this aspect of humanity.
Waaay back when the first industrial grain grinding mills were being built by the land owners, the town sherif, (i.e., the hired representative of the gentry), would go around and see that all the hand mills in all the peasant households were dragged out and smashed. It was now illegal for people to mill their own corn. What was once free, was now something they HAD to pay for. --All in the best interest of social advancement, of course. The gentry always had a rational-sounding argument, which in the end, just reduced the power of the populace. The the same reasoning is used today in order to shift publically owned utilities over to private and corporate ownership. And many people, (you can witness many examples right here on Slashdot) still believe they are not being lied to. --The argument for competition, being that it creates real incentive to make the best products sounds great except this line of argument ALWAYS leaves out the undeniable reality that when a handful of corporations own everything, it is virtually guranteed that artificial price-fixing WILL take place, and that products will start to decline in quality and effectiveness in such a way that people will need to buy twice as much as before in order to get the same job done. It's all about the elite trying to squeeze an under-educated public into supporting them.
In regard to SCO, nothing has changed since the days of the illegal hand mills, except in the level of sneakiness through which the ends are achieved. SCO's primary purpose, while it is profit motivated, it is not all in the way most people believe it to be. It's much, much bigger, and it's part of a war which has been going on for centuries.
-FL
Lessee, just in the last week:
1. Bill Gates publicly admitted in an interview that Windows will never be secure without a firewall to protect it from the Internet.
2. Details about and early betas of Longhorn, Microsoft's next big Windows rewrite are the big buzz around the 'net.
3. SCO promises to pay people to switch to anything else but Linux. Here's a company that was selling an OS but bleeding money at a furious rate until they got a generous transfusion of M$ cash.
4. Red Hat, a company who worked very hard to fuse two incompatible desktop GUIs for Linux into one seemless whole, drops all support for desktop Linux and concentrates on "Enterprise" customers.
5. Someone hacked the CVS site for the Linux kernel attempting to install a vulnerability.
Hmmmm, does any of this connect for anyone else? Or just me? Where did I put that tinfoil hat?
[donning tinfoil hat]
Suppose Microsoft, having tried for years to plug the innumerable holes in their OS and failing miserably, decided to de-emphasize server support and concentrate on the desktop where their strength has always been. Red Hat decides to play nice with Microsoft by dropping all efforts at the desktop in return for which they get better cooperation (short term, naturally) from Microsoft and provide servers to Enterprises that have mainly Windows desktops right now. SCO discourages people from trying Linux the only way that hasn't been tried yet (since nothing else worked!) by actually paying people to use anything else! At the same time, tiring of predicting the infusion of Linux viruses that never occurred, some desperate Windows user actually tries to create a hole for one by sneaking source into the kernel; it doesn't work this time, hope those guys are even more vigilant now! Meanwhile, Microsoft has delayed its release of the much-hyped Longhorn for another year. Why?
I predict that all of this is just a holding action against Linux. The SCO suit is slated for a court date sometime in 2005, providing there re no more delays. Wanna bet there are? Just enough to drag it out to 2006, the release date for Longhorn. In the meantime, Red Hat will hold the line against many competing Linuxes. Concentrating the market for Enterprise servers in one company makes an easy target for Microsoft. In the meantime, Microsft has bought enough time to write many, many incompatibilities into Longhorn. When Longhorn is released, I'll bet it totally doesn't work with anything except Microsoft server software. Red Hat will be crushed, SCO will disapear and Linux will find itself trying to conform to a thousand incompatibilities in Longhorn.
[doffing tinfoil hat]
As for me, the choice of OS is easy now. After seeing Microsoft throw in the towel and seeing that virus writers are so desperate to get any virus into Linux that they actually tried to sneak bad code into the kernel to do it, Linux is the OS for me. Who knows what will happen in 3 years? Maybe there will be enough apps that I damned well don't care what windows is by then. I almost don't now.
Sign right below the line that says, "Contract with SCO, a newly-acquired beeyatch of Microsoft, Inc."
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Paul Murphy at E Commerce Times
m l
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31932.ht
has an absolutely insane article about this whole mess. Mind you, 98% of the article is completely nuts as it basically blames IBM, or anyone else, for not paying off SCO already. He does not understand that paying off the mob is bad social policy and that Linux is about social policy, but I digress.
Here is one interesting part:
- - -
# SCO is attacking the entire Linux community.
It is not. Responses from SuSE Latest News about SuSE and Red Hat to the contrary, the SCO demand for license fees from Linux users was classic legal fiction. Both key SCO executives -- Darl McBride and Chris Sontag -- have said repeatedly that they are trying to work through issues to achieve justice without putting "a hole in the head of the penguin."
Most people find these license claims outrageous, but think about the drivers behind the demand and you might yet see SCO as a victim of its own lawyers and the way the courts operate.
Fundamentally, the court eventually will require SCO to show a quantitative, market-based derivation for the value of damages claimed. Demanding license fees is one way of establishing that basis -- and one likely to appeal to lawyers acting on contingency because a few successful sales would suffice to establish an enormous fair-market value.
- - -
Terrifyingly, this almost makes sense. If SCO can set a "high" license value on their property, they can then multiply this by the number of Linux systems to get their damages. It only takes a couple of bozos (or co-conspirators) to create "license sales" that can then be multiplied out. This is not too disimilar from the RIAA / WebCasting royalty calculations. Take what Yahoo will pay during the bubble, and then try to get everyone else to empty their pockets. It is very likely that they are not trying to actually get licenses, but that they are trying to establish a "market value" that is to their favor.
If this is actually their plan, then it is not only SCO that needs taken down, but their lawyers as well.
I think the most common comment I've seen on slashdot apart from anti SCO sentiments is "I'd switch to a mac tomorrow if I could afford it..."
:)
Combine the two!
Switch to a mac tomorrow, and use SCO to subsidise the switch. Hell, switch ALL your linux boxes to macs and get a really big subsidy. Put SCO's money where your mouth is
Wasn't sure how to post the message as a link...
"A somewhat more realistic interpretation of "Migration path with
discounts" would go more like this:
1) You already owe SCO money for their IP that you are using in Linux, 2) SCO
knows this was unintentional and says "Hey, we know you didn't mean to
infringe our IP, but you did. Since it was accidental, we'll charge you LESS
if you stop infringing our IP quickly by converting to something that does not
infringe our IP"
Basically extend the licensing that they were already doing:
$699 - Binary license
$599 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to xBSD within 6 months.
$499 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to HP-UX within 6 months
$299 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to Windows 200x within 6 months
The discount is to what you pay THEM, and does not affect what the other vendor
charges you for their OS."