Slashdot Mirror
SCO Gives Notice To 6,000 Unix Licensees
inode_buddha writes "This article describes SCO's recent letters to its UNIX licensees, asking them to certify that they '...are not using Unix code in Linux.' It also notes another set of letters '...outlining additional evidence of copyright infringement to a subset of 1,500 global Linux users that SCO first contacted in May about copyright infringement.' There's also a decent breakdown of the company's balance sheet and some quotes from company officials. I hope to see one of those 'other' letters; could anyone post it? SCO better have asbestos underwear." Ask and receive: idiotnot adds "Here's the article from the Sydney Morning Herald. Here is a PDF Copy of the letter." "Yours truly"?
.After almost 2 weeks of no SCO stories, I was begining to delevop a bit of a nervous tic!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
I'm still waiting to actually see the evidence that SCO claims is in the Linux source code. They showed us one example, and if I recall it was mostly comments!
By sending out these clearly fraudulent legal notices-- which at best claim copyright over something which is uncopyrightable, and at worst is an attempt by a third party to claim that it is illegal for people to use the materials owned by the BSD regents under the BSD license in the manner in which the BSD regents intended the BSD license to be used-- has SCO opened itself up to legal action?
SCO has in the past managed to sidestep most allegations of fraud by being horrendously vague. They said that they were owned money but never sent any invoices, sidestepping mail fraud. They tried to present things as if you needed an SCO license to use linux, but if you tried to talk to talk to them, they were actually selling UnixWare licenses and not in the process actually distributing linux to you, sidestepping GPL violations. However, this is entirely non-vague. It seems to me that SCO has stepped over some sort of line here and this is actionable.
I know that the law does not seem to have many consequences for people who send out bad takedown notices, but surely there must be something preventing company A from finding lists of competitor B's customers and sending them takedown notices for using some portion of competitor B's product that company A does not, in fact, own.
At the least, can this be added to the lanham act/ restraint of trade/ libel or whatever countersuits that Redhat and IBM have going? What are the options from here, and what will actually happen?
They should be taken seriously because of the damage they could inflict, but when are they going to stop whining and threatening and actually produce some substantial proof?
...and i've been putting unix code into linux. Do they expect people to admit it?
This SCO notification is brought to you by the letters 'U' and 'O' and the numbers '6' and '0'.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Just go and buy off SCO (Thats what SCO wants anyway) for us. Write it off as a tax write off as donation to a good cause.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This has to be some pathetic cry for help. Later, we'll look back and think "If we'd said something or done something, perhaps it didn't have to happen that way." Then we'll remember that it was Darl and SCO, and shrug.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
According to the BBB, this is what they have to say about SCO.
"Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau. Any complaints processed by the Bureau in its three-year reporting period have been resolved. The number and type of complaints are not unusual for a company in this industry. "
Something is not....right.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yes I skimmed the story, and I was pleasantly surprised to see an advert for IBMs linux solutions halfway down the main body of the text. That's intelligent ad placement at it's best :)
Very cool, the major ad on the page is an IBM Linux ad featuring the Linux kid from their commercial.
Do you have ESP?
SCO will next file bankrupcy brought on by excessive legal fees and the spiraling out of control cost of printing, and mailing "You better not be doing anything naughty" letters.
McBride heard to say, "All I wanted was a pen pal or two. Someone to buy me dinner once in a while, take me to a movie maybe."
. there used to be a sig here.....
Ironic that at least two Caldera employees have, with Caldera's blessing, contributed code to Linux. End of case, you can all go home now.
Perhaps Linus should send a similar letter to SCOX and the same addressees, requiring them to guarantee that none of their SCOX or derivative code includes any contributions from the Linux codebase?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO also announced its first full year of profitability today, reporting $5.3m in net income for its 2003 financial year
The company would have reported net income of $14.3m for the year had it not reported a charge of nearly $9m to pay law firms involved in the lawsuit and related efforts to "enforce its intellectual property rights", SCO officials said.
So, any bets on how long after all the SCO claims are thrown out as frivilous until the shareholders sue the officers for throwing money away on lawyers instead of paying dividends?
The officers are legally required to maximize shareholder value. Spewing frivilous lawsuits like a leaky hose doesn't qualify.
If SCO is purchased, Darl McBride, Chris Sontagg, David Boies and the other scheming liars that stand by SCO will walk away rich. I'd much rather endure this retardedness for awhile longer and see them rot in prison, embarassed. I hope they are found guilty and their families are grossly ashamed.
But I'm not bitter.
There's also a decent breakdown of the company's balance sheet and some quotes from company officials
Here it is, for your viewing enjoyment:
+56.00 1 x Uniware license w/ rebate
-700.00 1 x 1 hour, law firm
-1500.00 1 x law firm, misc.
-89100.65 10000 x threatening letter photocopies, envelopes and stamps
- 23000.00 1 x Blake stowel xmas bonus
- 100000.00 1 x Darl McBride xmas bonus
+699.00 1 x SCO license
-450.99 1 x christmas meal for law firm's Dachsund
- 5000.00 2 x conference call with law firm
- 1500000.00 4 x Payol^H^H^H^H^HReturn on investment for Canopy execs
+9.99 1 x mail-in rebate for postage scale
Company officials statement:
Are we the greatest company in the world or what?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
IBM purchasing SCO is a clear victory for SCO + SCO's lawyers, this is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Alex
If you are posting from a machine running linux, they will sue you.
I'm more cynical -- I think that the idea that SCO are just about making a load of money is just a cover for what they really are -- a front for M$ trying various legal tactics against Free software.
SCO is just fishing for people to get this licence. The more people they get, if any, the more support they have for their pathetic case.
SCOX has appendicitis?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is really getting loony--but I just realized that time is up. It's already been about a month since SCO was told to produce some REAL goods. It's obviously some sort of diversionary move, but a really crazy one. I'm straining my brain to understand it, but all I can think is that they want to claim this is how they are "protecting" their IP rather than performing normal due diligence. I bet the judge is not going to be amused. Can you say "contempt of court"?
Remember the NORMAL non-SCO behavior is to say what the disputed IP actually is--but in that case the problem--if there is any real problem--would have been fixed LONG ago. Want to take any bets if there's any code in the 2.6 Linux kernel that has ANY relation at all to anything from SCO?
In related news, SCO admits they paid $9 million to the lawyers last year--but also claims they managed to clear $5 million net. Which number do you trust more? I say the 5 is just more FUDging.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Running my own small business the question arises why I should certify anything to anyone who has no official business of requesting my certification?
Specifically when it comes to a company who makes the likes of Enron look like a convention of boy scouts?
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The company would have reported net income of $14.3m for the year had it not reported a charge of nearly $9m to pay law firms involved in the lawsuit and related efforts
I bet the shareholders love the fact that SCO could have almost doubled their profit for the year had they not had those pesky legal fees.
. there used to be a sig here.....
It turns out that a lot of otherwise well-written people do make that mistake. I was one of them until I took the time to look up the issue of pluralized acronyms without periods in an English language guide (I had always been rather uncertain on the issue). Apparently, it has turned into the same sort of issue as "virii", a lot of people use it which makes even more people assume that it is correct usage.
From the second article:
On December 9, a US federal judge in Salt Lake City, Utah, told SCO it should provide, within 30 days, proof of IP infringement.
I make 30 days up tomorrow...
It's enough to make me loose my mind!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
IBM?
Novell?
SGI?
Sun?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Err...that's what an existing legal agreement actually is - a formal communication of utilising x within the bounds of what was agreed. I believe -1 Redundant is called for?
Cheers,
Ian
Darl and SCO, just take your bat and ball and piss off home. We're all thoroughly sick of you!
Your imagination is not my problem. I no more need to certify to you that I am not using your intellectual property than that I am not using alien UFO technology in our corporate restrooms. A assertion must stand on its own merit, and any response to that assertion must necessarily be based upon that merit.
Having established that point, I think I have found a use for your assertions in our corporate restrooms.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
From the letter:
Neither you nor your contractors or employees with access to the Software Products have contributed any software code based on the Software Products for use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software product.
Perhaps The SCO Group's legal department would have put better use to their time producing evidence of the so-called contract infringement by Monday. Any recipient of the notice should at least wait until Monday to see whether the judge dismisses the case (translation out of legalspeak: Boies and Co get laughed out of court) due to lack of such evidence, which I've seen nothing to indicate they have.
I expect that the following announcement was heard in SCO offices: "Thank you for pressing the self-destruct button. The company will implode in 6 days."
I am officially gone from
I wish I got one. in fact, I'm advising every company who got one to stand up to their rights by reporting them to neccessary authorities, because they are threatening business by posting letters without proof, which I'm sure must be illegal under a few laws.. Any lawyers here got any advise to those businesses affected?
Actually, there is a justification for an apostrophe. Although it's falling out of fashion, an apostrophe to denote the plural of an acronym has been acceptable (even standard - witness the 1984 GPO style guide).
It's a common mistake (in my opinion) to rant and rave about how people who pluralise acronyms with an apostrophe are 'wrong' - it's still really a matter of personal preference and style.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
you know those guys that say.... hey this bull shit smells good... and you walk away... thinking.. no way that bull shit smells good.. but then you see the same guy telling you that same bull shit smells good.. over and over till he's or she is blue in the face... like they actually believe it... so one day you say... dood... this bull shit... it smells pretty good! ... hence i think SCO has a case of the bull shits..
"Cheese is good, Ham is better!"
How dose one loose their mind? Is it struggling to be free? If you loose it does it pop out of your ear screeming "I'm free! I'm free!"
Perhaps you meant lose?
It's something up with which I will not put!
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
Crush them. Sheesh, since when do you negotiate with terrorists?
(hidden deals with terrorists notwithstanding, see for instance the German Olympic Games incident)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The Better Business Bureau is a paper tiger - just because a company is listed as "satisfactory" with them does not mean the company is not a wretched hive of scum and villany.
The BBB used to be feared and respected - threatening a company with "I'll report you to the BBB" caused great gnashing of teeth and usually got things fixed quickly.
But little by little, companies realised that they could target the BBB with lawsuits for definition^Wdefamation of character. They realised that they could join the BBB, and thus slowly subvert its goals toward their own ends.
Little by little the BBB became flooded with reports, and little by little the BBB began to pursue only the most egregious examples of behavior - ignoring little things to concentrate on "what really matters".
Little by little, the response to "I'll report you to the BBB" became <voice name="butthead">" Yawn Yeah, whatever, go 'way, you suck"</voice>
True, if you find a company listed as "unsatisfactory" by the BBB you should run as though the very demons of hell pursued thee, but assuming that a clean bill of health from the BBB means that a company is clean is a very WRONG leap of faith.
(For fun, you can go through the above with the following replacements and it will be equally valid:
s/BBB/MAPS/g
or
s/businesses/posters/g && s/BBB/moderators/g
)
www.eFax.com are spammers
How exactly are the licensees supposed to certify that they're NOT using UNIX code in Linux, if SCO is unwilling to identify said code??? I mean, a kernel changes a lot depending upon what has been compiled in... how do I know if I'm using it or not?
Can somebody mod SCO -1 TROLL?
The PDF is unavailable now but I have a window open with the text. Which is posted below.
December 18, 2003
[Name]
[Address]
Re: AT&T / SCO License No. SOFT-____
Dear UNIX Licensee:
You are designated as Licensee under the above-referenced software licensing agreement
(the "Agreement"). The undersigned SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") is the successor licensor.
The Agreement is in full force and effect according to its terms.
License Grant to Use UNIX Technology
You were granted under Para. 2.01 of the Agreement:
[A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use
in the [Authorized Country] each Software Product
identified in one or more Supplements hereto, solely for
Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or
in conjunction with Designated CPU's for such Software
Product. Such right to use includes the right to modify
such Software Product and to prepare derivative works
based such Software Product, provided that the resulting
materials are treated hereunder as part of the original
Software Product.
The Software Product thus includes more than the base System V release licensed by
you. Software Products also includes: (a) the UNIX software release based on UNIX
System V prepared by your UNIX vendor and (b) modifications to, or derivative works
based on, any UNIX product made by you.
Limitations on Use of UNIX Technology
Your limitations on use and other obligations under the Agreement include the following:
Para. 2.05. No right is granted by this Agreement for the
use of Software Products directly for others, or for any use
of Software Products by others. [This is expanded under
2.06 under some contracts.]
Para. 4.01. Licensee agrees that it will not, without prior
written consent of [SCO], export, directly or indirectly,
Software Products covered by this Agreement to any
country outside the[Authorized Country].
Para. 7.06(a) [7.05(a). Licensee agrees that it shall hold all
parts of the Software Products subject to this Agreement in
confidence for [SCO]. Licensee further agrees that it shall
not make any disclosure of any or all of the Software
Products (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to
anyone, except to employees of Licensee to whom such
disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are
granted hereunder. Licensee shall appropriately notify each
employee to whom such disclosure is made that such
disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in
confidence by such employee.
Para. 7.09. Neither this Agreement nor any rights
hereunder, in whole or in part, shall be assignable or
otherwise transferable by Licensee and any purported
assignment or transfer shall be null and void.
Para. 7.10. [N]othing in this Agreement grants to Licensee
the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a
Software Product in whole or in part.
Required Certification Re: Use of UNIX
You are also obligated to certify proper use of the Software Products by you under the
Agreement, as required by the following Para. 2.04 2.05:
On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually,
Licensee shall furnish to SCO a statement, certified by an
authorized representative of Licensee, listing the location,
type and serial number of all Designated CPUs hereunder
and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products
subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each
such Software Product is being used solely on such
Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for
such Software Products in full compliance with the
provisions of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, SCO requires written certification by your authorized representative
under Para. 2.04 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Such written certification must
include statements that:
1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version of Linux
that contains our copyrighte
Pro-forma, yes. Not GAAP. Guess which system Enron used till the end?
It seems that the integrity of SCO's grammar(er for you people over the pond) is roughly on par with that of their claims. Note the following exctract from the PDF (Page 1, extract of the license rights):
"..and solely on or in conjunction with Designated CPU's..."
Treat apostraphes with respect. Pretend there is a world wide shortage!
What is SCO, why do they claim to own linux? I thot linux wasn't owned by anyone as such, each co owned their own version.
But MS and Sun bought licenses for sth??
Saw this on the Yahoo board:
"From The Wall Street Journal, 1/5/2004, page B1, by Lee Gomes:"
"As for Linux, when will the courts halt the lies of has-been software maker SCO (with $13 million in funding from Microsoft and Sun -- together at last!) as it tries to make the preposterous claim that it, and not the world, owns the free operating system?"
Not even the business press is taking them seriously any more.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I don't see no notification of copyrighted code?
Does anybody have a copy? (pun intended :-)
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
With all this childish attempts, I am *officially* convinced that SCO stands for School Children's Operation.
getSexySig();
Or else Micheal Jackson would probably send notice to thousands of songwriters, asking them to certify that their songs aren't rip-offs of something from "Thriller". It sure sounds ridiculous in that context!
stuff |
*puts on blindfold, takes gun and shoots...
I think they need to stop shooting randomly at stuff till they hopefully get it right and actually find this code they speak of that is in violation. Very funny though that when they do seem to find some code, Linus basically says, "Nope, you're wrong, and here's proof..."
"Hey guys, lets send out more notices, maybe we'll find this needle that we're looking for in the thousands of lines of code..."
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
I think SCO are asking for things their not entitled to uder their agreement with these people. I suggest they reply with the following: Dear SCO We confirm we are in full compliance with our contractual obligations to you as a UNIX licensor. Regards
Running my own small business the question arises why I should certify anything to anyone who has no official business of requesting my certification?
Since the existence of "Unix code in Linux" is at the heart of the litigation, and so is the extent of ownership by SCO of legacy Unix after the AT&T/BSD affair, the recipients of the SCO letter would seem to be within their rights to reply with deferral of any such certification until the ongoing legal process has been completed. (Unless of course SCO offered to pay for the work of certification out of their own funds.)
Given the number of letters sent out by SCO, it might be useful for a lawyer or paralegal to draft a response template along these lines as the basis for company replies.
Surely the burden of proof is on SCO to prove you are actually using their IP and not the reverse?
Simply amazing! SCO are sending out letters asking for their targets to prove a negative.
I remember when this SCO lark started and it had a few people worried, now its just a complete joke. I haven't seen a "What if SCO has a case" post on here for months..
It's also interesting to note that such formations as "Banana's" and "Tomato's" were once considered correct usage - any plural of a non-English word (as these were considered many years ago) was typically written with an apostrophe. (This information is courtesy of Lynn Truss in her excellent little book about punctuation, titled "Eats, shoots and leaves".)
How can the recipient of the notice verify that they have not infringed copyright, when no one (but SCO) knows what the infringing code is??
SCO
If you: license our technology
Then: you are first in line when we roll out our sue-the-world plan.
Whack-A-Burger
If you: buy one of our burger value meals
Then: the fry cook gets one free whack at you with a 2-by-4 on your way out of the restaurant
Ben Dover Bowling Lanes
If you: rent one of our lanes for an hour
Then: the ex-convict who works behind the counter demonstrates who is your daddy when you bend over to pick up your bowling shoes
ok, well maybe it wasn't billions, but didn't SCOG say in their may/june PRs(stop laughing) that they had millions of users world wide. now they are down to 6000.
at this rate they will be in negative numbers by febuary.
And they had to fudge numbers to make it not as obvious as it should have been. See:
The fourth-quarter revenue included $14m from sales of Unix products and services, with an additional $10.3m from licensing agreements with Microsoft and Sun Microsystems signed earlier in the year.
The $9m charge for legal fees kept the company's fourth quarter in the red. The company reported a net loss of $1.6m but said it would have seen net income at $7.4m without the legal expenses.
The licensing agreements (which were one-time deals, I can assure you, and smell like protection money anyway) were signed before the last quarter. Which doesn't matter, anyway, but it makes the end of the year look especially bad. The fact that they are so brazen as to suggest that they would have been profitable without their legal schemery is fantastic - there's no chance Sun or MS would have been paying them off without the games they've been playing.
Read between the lines. They are barely in the black, and it won't last. In fact, it's over already.
December 18, 2003 [Name] [Address] Re: AT&T / SCO License No. SOFT-____ Dear UNIX Licensee: You are designated as Licensee under the above-referenced software licensing agreement (the "Agreement"). The undersigned SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") is the successor licensor. The Agreement is in full force and effect according to its terms. License Grant to Use UNIX Technology You were granted under Para. 2.01 of the Agreement: [A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the [Authorized Country] each Software Product identified in one or more Supplements hereto, solely for Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with Designated CPU's for such Software Product. Such right to use includes the right to modify such Software Product and to prepare derivative works based such Software Product, provided that the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original Software Product. The Software Product thus includes more than the base System V release licensed by you. Software Products also includes: (a) the UNIX software release based on UNIX System V prepared by your UNIX vendor and (b) modifications to, or derivative works based on, any UNIX product made by you. Limitations on Use of UNIX Technology Your limitations on use and other obligations under the Agreement include the following: Para. 2.05. No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of Software Products directly for others, or for any use of Software Products by others. [This is expanded under 2.06 under some contracts.] Para. 4.01. Licensee agrees that it will not, without prior written consent of [SCO], export, directly or indirectly, Software Products covered by this Agreement to any country outside the[Authorized Country]. Para. 7.06(a) [7.05(a). Licensee agrees that it shall hold all parts of the Software Products subject to this Agreement in confidence for [SCO]. Licensee further agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of any or all of the Software Products (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone, except to employees of Licensee to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder. Licensee shall appropriately notify each employee to whom such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence by such employee. Para. 7.09. Neither this Agreement nor any rights hereunder, in whole or in part, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable by Licensee and any purported assignment or transfer shall be null and void. Para. 7.10. [N]othing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in part. Required Certification Re: Use of UNIX You are also obligated to certify proper use of the Software Products by you under the Agreement, as required by the following Para. 2.04 2.05: On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually, Licensee shall furnish to SCO a statement, certified by an authorized representative of Licensee, listing the location, type and serial number of all Designated CPUs hereunder and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such Software Product is being used solely on such Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such Software Products in full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, SCO requires written certification by your authorized representative under Para. 2.04 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Such written certification must include statements that: 1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version of Linux that contains our copyrighted application binary interface code ("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached notification letter. 2. You, your contractors and your employees have, to your knowledge, held at all times all parts of the Software Products (including methods and concepts) in confidence for SCO. 3. You have approp
When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
Page two of this letter states "for use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software product.". Pretty much says it all.
;-)
Thou shalt drink beer or any other UNIX based brewerage without our prior consent!
my other sig is a 500 page novel
m$ > ibm
It seems these recent letters only affect SCO's current customers. Yet another reason to never license anything from SCO.
Now who the hell is ever going to buy anything from them?
To repeat myself, SCO will not get a single reply. These two letters are a fishing expedition to sucker future lawsuit victims into signing up. SCO will probably send a second round of letters to all non-respondants in a few weeks, promising dire, horrible consequences to those who refuse to roll over. Those letters will be ignored, too.
This is not my sandwich.
But now that the damage is done, why doesn't anyone hire one to come up with a decent response letter? IANAL, but I am sure they would be able to rephrase "fuck you too" in a decent, legally clean 10 page response letter, now wouldn't they?
The article's title reads: SCO sends notices to 6,000 Linux licensees. The rest of the article contains no such error. Now, that wouldn't be false but alarming on purpose, would it?
JeR
So a judge told SCO to come up with evidence within 30 days from December 5.
Would this evidence be the list of header files as printed in this letter, or has SCO chosen not to disclose anything further?
Is that 30 business days or 30 human days?
On how many of its 6,000 licensed customers are going to remain customers after this letter?
I'll set my marker for 1000
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
That's my prediction for 2004. MS buys SCO to "save" the rest of the industry from this scourge, rebrands SCO Linux as Microsoft Linux Professional and releases it with an MS Office bundle.
So we'll get MS Word for Linux, but under the worst possible circumstances. MS gets to expand into a new market segment and they will look good doing it, everyone (including Linus himself) will appreciate what Microsoft has done for us. Sadly, if this is what happens it seems likely it was planned this way from the start.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
"SCO may pursue all legal remeidies available to it including, but not limited to, license termination rights."
Here is the text of my certified response letter:
"Dear SCO, I hereby terminate my own Unixware license. The 3 machines we still had running Unixware have been pining for years to join their linux brethren or BSD friends. Today, they do so. Thanks for the gentle push!"
Here are excerpts from an interview with Darl from Dec 23, 2003 in Investor's Business Daily (investors.com). I selected the most interesting parts. My comments are in [ ]. He says some interesting things, that, in my opinion as an attorney, *will* come back to haunt him.
...
...
...
...
Article Title: "$3 Billion Damage Claim Justified, Says CEO"
Author: KEN SPENCER BROWN
Section: Internet & Technology
Date: 12/23/2003
IBD: But don't people have the right to give away their work through a GPL if they so choose?
McBride: Absolutely, we don't deny that right at all. Anybody that wants to develop their work and give it away, God bless them. [He accepts the validity of the GPL right here. SCO gave away software under the GPL, they can't take that back.]
What we have a major, violent reaction to is people giving away works we have control rights over. Obviously what (IBM) is trying to do here is to commoditize the operating system, i.e. the price should be zero. They think the margins should be in the hardware, middleware and services. Not coincidentally, that's where their strengths are.
[Yes, but you distributed software under the GPL, hence you no longer have "control rights" (assuming, arguendo, you did before).]
IBD: Why haven't you publicly revealed the lines of Unix code you say IBM copied into Linux?
McBride: What we have told people is: "Here are the files. Here are all the program names IBM has contributed into Linux. These were all developed under our Unix contract licenses." What we are doing now is breaking that down into a line-by-line format. So if someone doesn't want to take the time, we will absolutely be producing that with these next lawsuits.
[So, with the next lawsuits, he *claims* they'll show the code.]
IBD: Why are you pursuing action against Linux users and not Linux distributors, like Red Hat Inc.?
McBride: The Linux marketplace is very complex and convoluted. You have many players involved in this. The godfather of Linux is really IBM, and that's where we started our claims. They're really at the top of the heap here.
At the end of the line is the end user. And so that's where we go with our claims next. The Free Software Foundation says it's ludicrous for SCO to be going after an end user. They say it's like a reader going into Barnes & Noble reading a book and telling them they can't read those words or we're going to sue. But it's actually much different than that analogy.
First, when a user gets Linux, they inherit a license agreement called the GPL (General Public License) that says you get this product free of charge, so if you have a problem with it, don't come back to us, you're on your own. The words in the GPL are "as is." It pushes all of the liability to the end user.
The second part where their example breaks down is the fact that the end users are part of the problem - they're making copies themselves. What you'll see SCO coming out with in the next few weeks are examples of copyrighted code of ours that have been put into Linux, and the copyrights have been stripped off.
If a reader goes home with a book, reads it, reproduces it and gives it to 500 friends, they are direct infringers. What we see happening here is nine out of 10 boxes of Linux out in the marketplace aren't paid for at all, even if they'd paid for a support contract. Once they get that Linux in their shop, they're free to reproduce it and send it around to their heart's content. They do, in fact, become copyright infringers. That's why we're going there.
[And lets see, SCO distributed software under a LICENSE that allows you to copy the software! So, who's fault if people have accepted that license?]
IBD: Some have accused SCO of using the lawsuit as a ploy to be acquired, something also hinted at by your agreements with your lawyers. Are you in talks with anyone?
McBride: I can say generically that there
Sco has something, the GNU crowd is making such a stink about it because it's true. In court we will see the true answer of who is right. I own SCO stock, and will keep it, cause soon I'll be owning redhat and lots of IBM $ also!
Mass suicide involved sedatives, vodka and careful planning
...The drugs were taken for a very specific purpose and that was to take their own lives," Lipscomb said.
CNN/Januray 6, 2003
Salt Lake City, Utah -- The 39 cult members found dead at a local software company apparently died in a carefully orchestrated suicide that involved sedatives, vodka and plastic bags possibly used to suffocate, officials said today.
The victims apparently believed they were going to be able to claim ownership of the Linux operating system.
Police said they had gathered little information so far on the background of the group or its leaders, only that they operated a computer Web service called "SCO."
The mass suicide likely took place over three days and involved three groups, proceeding in a calm, ritualistic fashion. Some members apparently assisted others and then cleaned up, then went on to take their own dose of the fatal mixture, mixed with apple sauce or pudding.
The last two victims to die were found with plastic bags over their heads.
Lying on cots or mattresses with their arms at their sides, the victims each carried identification.
"It seemed to be a group decision," said Dr. Brian Blackbourne, Salt Lake Medical Examiner, at a news conference today. "There were different stages, suggesting it was planned. They all had IDs. The house was immaculate."
Blackbourne said 21 of the victims were women and 18 were men.
Initially all the victims had been identified as men, since deputies found all of the victims dressed alike in black suits with close-cropped hair, making it difficult to determine their sex.
Officials are now trying to notify victims' families and have withheld names until that process is completed.
Authorities also showed video of the bloodless death scene at an afternoon news briefing. All the victims wore black pants and black Nike athletic shoes, their faces and chests covered with purple shrouds. Their bags had been packed neatly in the dormitory-type rooms. Those who wore glasses had them carefully placed at their side. In a pocket, most of the victims had a $5 bill and some quarters.
"They were at different stages of deterioration," Jerry Lipscomb of the Salt Lake Sheriff's Department told CNN. "That's the most pleasant way I can put that."
Lipscomb said officials were tipped off to the suicide after videotapes and a letter were sent to each of the company's software customers.
"What we're finding is that each and every one of the members of the organization, prior to their death, gave a brief statement... The essence of those statements were that they were going to a better place where there was no such evil as open source software," Lipscomb said.
Most of the victims were in their 40s, but their ages ranged from 26 to 72, said Cmdr. Alan Fulmer, chief investigator in the case.
Blackbourne said the victims mixed the sedative phenobarbital in apple sauce, washed it down with a drink of vodka and then were smothered with plastic bags over their heads. The plastic bags were found in trash can behind the house.
"We're not talking about a drug-crazed, party-time situation
"It's our opinion that it was their intent -- they planned to do this."
Of the letter written to an ex-member of the group, he said: "Although it is not a suicide note, per se, it does imply that it was their intent to take their own lives..."
The first deputies who entered the company to find the bodies Wednesday complained of a distinctive odor.
Some of the victims had been dead for more than 36 hours before they were found, Blackbourne said. All had been removed from the house and identified by mid-day Thursday.
The SCO web site does not espouse suicide as such but promotes a "willful termination of contract" as the road "entering the Heaven of IP security."
The Web site characterized SCO as a potential target for law enforcement, making referen
I fully agree. IBM needs to make an example out of SCO.
Funny you should mention the German Olympic Games incident. I saw a TV show that claimed the Mossad spent many years systematically hunting and killing the Olympic terrorists, one at a time. It seems there is only one guy left, and he probably has anxiety issues.
While I do not advocate physical violence against Darl and his buddies, they have earned a heap of bad karma. Let's hope they get the business world equivalent of Israeli-style retribution. An all-expenses-paid trip to Club Fed would be a good start.
Now each one of these 6,000 licencees can publish an open letter certifying that they aren't using any UNIX code in Linux because of the poor quality. Instead they have *REPLACED* the UNIX code with their own superior implementations and have only released that superior code as part of Linux. For instance compare SGI's XFS as compared to an obsolete UNIX file system like RFS.
This is the right time to hit back at SCO with a publicity coup. They've created the opening by attempting to sow FUD about Linux. Let's serve the FUD right back at SCO!
From my reading, SCO is telling their customers that they must swear allegience to Darl and be tied in to his fool's crusade or their licence gets revoked and they get sued. In effect, SCO users are being forced to decide immediately between Xenix or Linux.
If a company decides to swear fealty to SCO, they risk being left with an obsolete 1980's Unix that's as useful as a Trabant and vendor who has been counter sued to atoms by IBM. If they decide this ultimatum is a good reason to ditch Xenix for Linux, mad Pope Darl may excommunicate them, send the inquisition and loudly proclaim that Linux is indeed harming SCO.
I suppose the intent in forcing this hand might be to get PHBs to make quick, expedient decisions that minimise their exposure to immediate risk.
Now what I want to know what Sun's going to say regarding *their* letter from mad Pope Darl? Did they get one? How will Scott respond?
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Microsoft buying SCO would be a hideously bad choice for Microsoft. They would assume liability for the lawsuit, and IBM would stand a good chance of collecting damages plus costs from Microsoft (with its $30+ billion cash pile). I think Microsoft will prefer to pay "Unix licensing fees" with an unspoken agreement that the fees will underwrite more Linux bashing -- the trade libel that RedHat filed over.
Here is SCO's treatment of their customers. It is now painfully obvious that they do not have the interests of anyone in mind - they are being greedy and selfish. If for no other reason than that, they will ultimately fail. Once a person or entity gets the greed on, they become blind to reality and make some of the _dumbest decisions known to man_ (TM) Let anyone who thought about buying anything from SCO. You are licensing yourself for continual harrasment from SCO's gestapo. Caveat Emptor.
Rob Preston's column in _Network Computing_ (www.nwc.com) of 09-Dec-2003 seems to put this in perspective: "It seems a tad shallow to base two thirds of your company's growth strategy on suing customers and other vendors."
- How can they terminate my Linux license (GPL)?
- How about the Samba-Team releases the next version under a "GPL for all - but not SCO"-License?
Then there is no more windows compatible file server in UnixBeWare!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I read the PDF of the letter.
This letter assumes the guilt of all its licencees until proven otherwise. SCO is demanding corporate HR documents (non-disclosure) for each employee who might come in contact with their software stating that they will follow the licence and letter provisions to the T. The letter also seems to suggest that users of SCO software must swear under threat of legal action never to use Linux, and never to develop GPL software. Unbelievable.
If there was any doubt before, there is none now. This letter can't possibly be seen as anything but insulting, even by historically staunch SCO supporters. I've never seen such arrogance. I feel like I'm reading Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
DIE SCO. I can't wait to read that SCO has finally died, and that its officials and officers are being brought up on criminal charges. What a bunch of fucking crooks.
How much?
And don't say $699.
"ok, well maybe it wasn't billions, but didn't SCOG say in their may/june PRs(stop laughing) that they had millions of users world wide. now they are down to 6000."
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO UnixWare community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO UnixWare has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO UnixWare because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO UnixWare continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO has lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time UnixWare developers L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
All major surveys show that UnixWare has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
http://saveie6.com/
Would you like to borrow some money?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Does this help?
Dear Mr. So-and-So
In response to your request for certification that we have not contributed SCO IP into Linux our official response:
Bullshit.
Sincerely,
Mr. Shadow
Director Software Support
XYZ Corporation
Of course legal would nix it anyway. Might get fired for sending it without their chop, but what a way to go out, huh? Hehe.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Did they seriously end the letter in "Yours truly" fashion? Talk about double meaning...
Sounds like a dangerous approach to me, thanks to the "not limited to". You admit you are using other "UNIX-based" products, which is part of the whole fishing operation. Stick to the self-termination of the Unixware licenses. If you still have the CDs and shrinkwrap licenses, or the license numbers, send them back to them to emphasize the point. What system is used to replace their product is none of their business. For all they need know, it could be Windows :-)
In response to your letter request for me to verify that I am not using UNIX code in Linux, please send me ALL of the source code to UNIX so that I can verify that I am not using it in my version of Linux. Otherwise, how can I truthfully say whether or not I am using it?
PERHAPS THAT WAS THE FUCKING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New askslashdot feature:
Dear slashdot community. I have absolutely no way of sensing sarcastic, satirical, or tongue-in-cheek humor. Can you recommend an open-source alternative?
Nows your chance to drop SCO them , since they only
exist as a legal entity.
Going Linux makes more sense than licensing SCO anyway.
SCO has got to be insane.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
If SCO is correct, and Linux is infringing you can't run it anyway.
I wouldn't sign it anyway.
The licence agreement clearly states that you have to tell them where you are using the software covered under that agreement.
You are using Linux under a separate agreement.
The SCO Unix agreement doesn't state you must disclose usage of other products, and I would refuse to permit them to ammend it in such a way.
Repeat after me:
There snow bizniss like sco bizniss
There snow bizniss ice snow
It's ever so very cold outside,
Even then you're gonna get fried!
It's ever so very cold outside,
Happy new year Mr. McBride
Cheers,
X(acto) P(ennance)
You are forgetting the important point. Those comments came from a common source which was public -- a book on Unix. That is the copyright holder to the code:
a) was known
b) had published the information with intent that it might be used in other's code
c) and therefore did not consider this code a "trade secret"
What this means is that in SCO's example if they are claiming copyright violation then they've crossed over from a stupid civil suit to blatent criminal acts (i.e. its a felony to claim the copyright on something you do not have the rights to)
Dear SCO,
/me
please talk to my hardware/software vendor. We bought this fancy new server with the latest software included. This is called a bundle. They told me the software was free, so we paid $0.
BTW my vendor is IBM!
Best regards
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Future Articles should use the term SCOG,
:-)
not SCO.
SCOG sounds more like a new vulgar word...
and makes the stories sound funnier...
'Bobby, don't be such a SCOG ! '
'The dog just SCOGGED all over my new laptop!'
'Some SCOG just sent me a letter demanding money...'
I keep hearing about how evil and misleading Enron was, but I have a few questions.
Did they actually go harrass threaten and lie to take money from people?
Or did they just take advantage of people who didn't bother to read the financials?
Part of not reading was buying after realizing that the financial paperwork was such a convoluted mess that nobody could understand what is going on.
I know the whole SCO thing is such a troll, but I just despair of how such fuckwits can gain so much from such despicable acts. Thankfully they are all in the US which means that the RICO statute might be applied in the end http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/110mcrm.htm, specifically s9-110.310 which I reckon the bastards at SCO would qualify under about 5 of the 7 categories.
Go get 'em boys. (Actually I realise that this result is (a) unlikely and (b) probably only arguably applicable at best, but I really just needed to vent!)
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
IMHO, that letter creates a "case or controversy." Now it's time for everyone who received one of them to go to court and file for a declaratory judgment against SCO. This should be fun.
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
Until you can actually prove your bullshit claims in a court of law, I feel that my company has no choice but to tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A SANDPAPER-COATED DILDO!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So I've got one SCO Openserver box licensed with 2 CPUs. As well, I've got a couple RedHat machines. I'm certainly on some SCO customer list - I was required to register the CPU's. Let's say I get one of these letters, and I hand it over to our company lawyers. I don't believe the request has merit, but that is likely to matter little to anybody other than me in this non-tech company. Even if I say they don't have any right to sue us, that will mean little on the way to the courtroom - or even for management considering the risk. Unless I throw the letter away (tempting) I will likely be expected to respond as directed under the license.
legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
In response to your request for certification that we have not contributed, alledged and unidentified, SCO IP into Linux, our official response:
Nuts!
Yours truly,
Mr. Shadow Director Software Support XYZ Corporation
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Who wants to bet many future eula's will include a clause that requires you to certify your complience with the terms upon request...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Has it been actually verified that these letters were really sent? Since this scam began, scox has told numerous lies of this nature. Here are a few examples of scox's outright lies (from a yahoo poster):
,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT."
Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday
Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians".
Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech
Lie: SCO received the D&T Fast 500 recognition because of the strong UNIX market, IP enforcement and the Web services strategy
Truth: SCO made the list because of revenue growth due exclusively to the Tarantula acquisition.
Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency
Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
Lie: Boies was compensated $1.6M for a contingent event
Truth: The engagement agreement specifically excludes heritage UNIX OEM license deals; Boies is being compensated 20% of the $8MM Microsoft license deal, which is a follow-on extension of the first deal, a UNIX license deal not eligible as a contingent event.
Lie: Invoices will be mailed to Linux users by October 15, 2003
Truth: No invoices were ever mailed.
Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas
Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence
Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code.
Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code
Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there.
Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
Lie: We have done additional signups for Linux end-user licenses. We have a number of folks that are in the evaluation process, and we definitely have a lot of interest in what's going on there.
Truth: During the earnings conference, SCO admitted that not a single Linux end-user license has been sold. Follow-on guidance comments warn that no such sales are expected in Q1.
Lie: Our claims are not trivial.
Truth: Based on evidence provided to date, SCO's claims are extremely trivial, debunked in a matter of hours
Lie: claims that SCO has are both broad and deep.
Truth: SCO's has made a breach of contract claim and a copyright infringement claim; all evidence presented to date has shown each of these claims to be trivial and unfounded
Lie: These claims touch not, just not IBM, but other vendors as well.
Truth: Exhaustive code reviews by other SYSV licensees, including HP and SGI, have shown that the only Linux/SysV overlap concerns a small amount of public domain code.
Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week
Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
Lie: During the recent road tour, Blake Stowell indicated that core operations were profitable in Q3.
Truth: Core operations lost $3.8MM in Q3-03.
Lie: Sco will audit AIX users.
Truth: It never happend.
Lie: Sco will revoke IBM rights to use, support, or distribute AIX.
Truth: Those rights can not be revoked by scox.
"What the Heck is SCO Smoking when they write theses things?"
.. Either Put up or Shut up" Deadline pass yesterday ?
Also, Didn't the "SCO
You've also identified yourself as someone who can be bullied and someone who is not getting good legal advice, just the guy SCO is looking for. If SCO ever actually does sue an end user, they want someone who will pay the fee just to avoid the legal costs. That gives them the appearance of legitimacy and might lead to more people caving in. The last thing they want is for someone to fight back. A savvy lawyer will probably raise the issue of Novell's claims to the same copyright and say something like, "Gee. your honor, shouldn't we find out who really owns the code before we start paying for it?" Once that happens, the jig is up. Everyone else will make the same argument and SCO gets no money until the copyright case with Novell is settled, which could take years.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
In fact, comments are probably the most copyrightable thing about software. Becuase they are free form and do not have to conform to a syntax (other than the methods of initiating and ending a comment) and because they don't have a functional purpose, they are purely expressive. Copyright protects original works of expression.
Now the particular comments that SCO pointed out were the actual error messages printed out by the system in association with the various errors the system was prepared to report. Since the text of these messages is largely dictated by POSIX, it is no surprise that they often match SCO's even though the enumeration of them can and does vary on some architectures.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The judge in the USL case ruled that the Unix header files were uncopyrightable. There's already a ruling on the books which holds that SCO has no leg to stand on here.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The fact that they are so brazen as to suggest that they would have been profitable without their legal schemery is fantastic - there's no chance Sun or MS would have been paying them off without the games they've been playing.
Ummm, I'd say exactly the opposite! SUN and Microsoft happen to be two companies that benefit the most from SCO FUD (makers of the most predominant UNIX and "other" operating systems, respectively). They are cheering SCO on in their battle against Linux. Why would they submit "licencing" fees to SCO for UNIX when: (1)SUN owns a perpetual claim to Solaris UNIX (claims they are the only ones who do) and (2)Microsoft has no need for one!
I submit that neither SUN nor Microsoft are stupid. I also submit that neither is the rest of the world, all of whom have ignored SCO. Therefore, it is actually in SUN and MS's best interest to pay SCO for "licencing".
Don't be at all surprised if very shortly (presuming this mess is not stopped by the courts shortly), these two companies are again asked by SCO to "licence SCO's UNIX technology", and lo and behold another $15 million or so flows in to keep the lawyers busy!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
"All IP in Linux is licenced to us by their respective copyright owners, as indicated by the copyright notice included at the top of each source file. Should you believe any of these licences are incorrect or invalid, we ask that you seek a court verdict to that effect. Until such time that you can provide one, we consider all such IP to be legally licenced.
As required by the 2.04, we certify that following a review, we are in compliance with the terms of the agreement. The contract does not require us to go into further detail on this matter. Should you wish to pursue this matter further, we ask that you specifically list what provisions you claim have been broken, and any evidence to that effect.
Regards,
I.R. Lawyer
Legal department"
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
According to the terms of the SCO UnixWare license, SCO can ask companies to verify compliance with their licensing. It doesnt require a subpoena, as the UnixWare license holders have already agreed to it.
Is to terminate the SCO licence and install Linux/ BSD/ your favourite OS on the machines.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
to sco,
show me yours and i'll show you mine.
anonymous coward
I believe McDonald's is a large SCO customer. And iirc, SCO or others have a list of many other major SCO customers using their software.
What is the CIO's of each of these major corporations, many of which are public-traded companies, position over a technology supplier that threatens to immediately cancel the license of the operating system of their productions servers and desktops?
Are any of these companies sure they are not using Linux anywhere in their organization?
If not, what is their justification for sticking with a company that threatens their very existence by threatening to immediately pull the rights to use their servers and desktops throughout their company?
Are these CIOs, and CEOs providing answers to these questions to their shareholders and the SEC?
If not, why not?
Even if you can assume that SCO has released their source code to these companies so that they could audit it for duplication with Linux code, who is to determine that SCO hasn't copied Linux code for their binary-only OS in violation of the GPL?
IANAL - however, I'm pretty sure that in cases like this (license enforcement, trademark enforcement, ip enforcement, etc), it helps your case to show you are actively trying to enforce your rights (in the case of tradmark enforcement, it's a requirement)...this letter is probably a long list of things SCO's lawyers list as required for a successful case (and have suckered SCO into paying them to creat).
So perhaps SCO is fishing for suckers (takes one to know one), but likely, they're don't care and will send out lots of letters like this to show that they've made efforts and have been blantantly ignored. Of course, the only one's getting rich here will be SCO's lawyers.
Again, IANAL - but who cares if anyone responds...the key is SCO is going through the motions of being a proper litigant...
-5 Stupid Ass
I'm still trying to find out why none of these companies has filed an extortion suit against SCO.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Happy New Year to you too, Darl.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I think that this letter was sent to UNIX source licensees, not OpenServer/UnixWare customers.
This is aimed at SGI, perhaps Cray, HP, etc.
After months of reading about sco... I just think it is of corse a dieing company trying to get atention to stay afloat.
Linux is like a teepee. It has no windows, no gates, and there's an Apache inside.
Where all those letters they send out are listed as assets instead of expenses. :o)
Out of curiosity, how many companies does this really affect? The copyright infringement on code used in the Linux kernel can only be source code, as the copyrighted code could not possibly used in binary form for inclusion in the Linux kernel. So, how many companies have source licenses? IBM, HP, Sun, Motorola, and the US government? Who else? This sems to be directed at a very small number of companies, not 6000.
I guess what I'm really driving at is that this is an obvious FUD attempt. I'm sure the vast majority of licensees are binary licensees. Also, they specifically mention the ABI, which was a specification published by AT&T, in publicly available books sold by Prentice-Hall, prior to SCO owning the copyright. If I write code to meet this published ABI specification, there will be similarities just because there is only a finite number of ways to implement it for any given platform. The SCO claim is so weak as to almost be non existent.
As I've said many times before, I would not rush to sign any agreements, especially this one. There are certain statements that would severely limit your rights.
One final note. How about an interesting mind game. If I manufacture hardware, and distribute SysV and/or Linux with it, and SCO yanks my distribution license, doesn't it hurt SCO? After all, I can still sell Linux boxes, stop paying SCO royalties, sue SCO for pro rated refund of license fees already paid, and switch my SysV code to something else such as OSF/1 or *BSD. With the exception of the pain of the last step, i.e., inability to ship to unix customers for many, many months, I don't suffer a great deal. Isn't SCO shooting themselves in the foot?
I am not a lawyer, and this is only my opinion. Please seek legal counsel prior to making any decisions related to this topic.
... of the license agreement, saying:
Accordingly, SCO requires written certification by your authorized representative under Para. 2.04 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Such written certification must inlucde statements that:
[paraphrased:] Blah blah don't use linux blah blah.
<sarcasm>Strangely enough, paragraph 2.04 doesn't actually mention anything about requiring you to certify that you're not using Linux.</sarcasm>
It only requires that you certify that you're complying with the license. Then the go on to enumerate added requirements of the certification, which clearly were not part of the original license agreement.
As such, this request, which is (in theory) fully allowed by the license, is clearly stepping over the bounds defined by that license.
This is what can happen when you get mixed up with closed source. Even when the "vendor" seems reputable - whomever that "vendor" happens to be ... today.
You lose all control over your own destiny and it can come back to kill you (not just haunt), even if the idea seemed all so flawless and strategic at the time.
They say Microsoft is the funding behind this SCO thing, one way or another. So one side effect of this case should surely be to turn the cards around wherever possible. Speak out, far and wide, what this SCO thing really demonstrates. A working demonstration, paried with repetition, is a powerful way for getting a message to stick.
In that vein... Think much wonder and joy you're looking forward to with Microsoft's "Shared Source" program. "To look upon the forbidden tree of software is to die."
Bottom line, ALL of the big closed software vendors are remarkably legalistic. SCO, Oracle, Microsoft, the list is endless. None, other than old Borland, have ever stuck with the simple allowances of Copyright - "treat this software like a book".
So, next time your softare comsumption urges turn to how all so cleverly "strategic" you're being, remember, the ONLY "strategy" in propriatary software is that of the VENDOR(s).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox
This is the sort of thing they're REALLY going for. M$ just helped them do it for their own reasons.
I'm telling you - this is all about the scumbag lawyers and execs getting their bling. You watch.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
The software Antichrist from Redmond will just pump more money into SCO via another license ruse as long as SCO's legal comedy routine has a potential effect on corporate america's confidence in Linux.
You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
SCO is ignorant,they can't even interpret their own code.Now they are trying to get 6000+ other sets of eyes to try and find some offending code.
Can't believe that's gonna happen!
"Ironic that at least two Caldera employees have, with Caldera's blessing, contributed code to Linux. End of case, you can all go home now."
It would have had Caldera's blessing only if the contribution had been approved by an officer of the corporation, or by someone officially designated by the corporation to approve such contributions.
As I understand the situation, it was only the immediate manager of the two employees who gave the go-ahead, and without corporate approval that's the equivalent of _me_ saying it was OK.
I hereby certify we are running no unlicenced code that has been proven to be the copy of SCO/Caldera.
Kisses,
the CIO
P.S. We won't be buying any more, add us to your do not solicit lists.
"Hey, we can't prove there's illicit code in Linux, so we've changed the game: now you have to prove there isn't! Hee hee! -- Erm, what's that? 'Why?', you ask? Coz we say so, that's why! Now pay Melchie his 85..."
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Your opinion is wrong.
they dual boot, and Linux does have infringing code, but their not using their Unix liscence at the time, couldn't they apply that liscence to Linux while the Unix software is not being used?
Sincerely,
John Q. Linux
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
sco/novell Unix contract excluded assets, Schedule 1.1(b) Excluded Assets (Page 2 of 2)
a couple of assets which SCO does not own:
A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the [...] copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks.
B. All Patents
SCO doesn't own Unix or anything at all found in Netware. Novell never gave up any patents. Novell owns all copyrights which SCO doesn't need to run its business. Boies should have read this earlier.
If some "licensee" really feels that they ought to respond to the letter, but doesn't want to do a cpu-by-cpu certification, there are standard stalling tactics that they can use to keep SCO from calling them non-compliant until IBM kills SCO.
For example, the day before the deadline, send a letter explaining there are exigent circumstances, and asking for a 90-day extension of the deadline.
Repeat until SCO says no, then send a "please accept under separate cover" letter, referring to a document that seems to have gotten lost in the mail. Buy more time by "searcing" for the lost document.
When SCO demands a new copy of the document be prepared and sent, send an open envelope, and marvel at the bad luck that the contents of the envelope have been lost.
So on and so forth.
All you have to do is stall until SCO is killed by the big guys.
All your code base are belong to US. - SCO
Interesting.
I can understand why SCO has no problem pissing off the Linux community, since Linux users are quite unlikely to switch to proprietary UNIX anyway.
But now SCO is pissing off UNIX users too, who are the actual source of SCO's current revenue stream.
SCO has now crossed an important line: For the first time, SCO is now engaged in truly open hostility against their own customers.
We can now finally make a fully accurate comparison between SCO and RIAA -- both have crossed the important line from belligerent behavior to behavior that is PROVABLY self-destructive.
6,000 of them?
... they may not last until Sunday midnight.
If SCO had the gall to send the letter to THOSE companies
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hold on! Darl needs the stories to come out simply to keep the interest up, and to keep his ideas alive. If we seem to need these stories, next he will claim he is doing a public service by providing them.
Although, I thought a public service litigator was usually called a district attourney.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
This means that anyone who bought a UNIX license under the belief that doing so would give them the license to use SCO's "property" in linux is now being threatened if they do not stop using SCO's property in linux!
:D
So they're being legally threatened for the exact thing they thought they were paying money to avoid being legally threatened for. Whereas the rest of us are still being ignored. If anyone actually fell for this the first time, I'll be they're feeling pretty ripped off.
When the "deal" was first announced on slashdot, I heard two comments a lot: "If you accept, you're probably just going to use it as a pretense to extort more money from you later, since by buying the license you're admitting they're right." and: "Only a fool would buy a license from SCO thinking it provides indemnification; SCO has already revoked "irrevokable" licenses multiple times during this lawsuit fiasco."
Now SCO is demanding the people who bought the license either (1) take drastic steps to stop using SCO's competitors or (2) legally implicate themselves further by making a silly "certification" that could be easily accidentally violated, thus offering up a means for SCO to sue them that they didn't have before (because now they can sue you for violating the certification). And if you don't comply with SCO's demands, they'll revoke your license that you thought was irrevokable.
(BTW, I don't at all *mind*, but I think that maybe, if you liked the grandparent comment, you might be like to know where they copied it from. It made a bit more sense in that story's context, though it of course applies here as well.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
In compliance with license agreement SOFT-___ ("the Agreement") please find attached the information that you are entitled to:
location type serial number
Earth___ ***X 123-456-789
The use by Licensee of Software Products subject to the Agreement has been reviewed. Each such Software Product is being used solely on such Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such Software Products in full compliance with the provisions of the Agreement.
We inform you that any other information or statement requested in your letter dated December 18 2003 is beyond the scope of the Agreement. Please provide us with some factual evidence that we are in breach of your rights if you have a legitimate complaint.
Yours Truly,
Current_SCO_customer_but_probably_not_much_longe r
If I were to receive one of these letters, the first thing I would be asking myself is, "how can certify that I am "not using Unix code in Linux" if I don't know what that code may be. I think they would have to provide me with examples from the latest kernel. Only then could I be sure.
I've said this before and I'll say it again.
If and only if the company officers believe in good faith that their IP is being infringed, because of their duty to maximise shareholder value, they are oblidged to sue.
Personally, I couldn't believe that, so I would feel under no obligation to sue anybody.
But, one can make a good case that if Boies (one of the most famous lawyers in the country - look at who he has represented) told me that my IP was being infringed and that I could recover lost revenue, with the amount at stake, I would have to think very hard about where my responsibility lay.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
Paragraph 7.10 says "Nothing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in part".
The Law of the Land, however, does grant you the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of your own property -- and, in countries where democracy is taken seriously, makes it a criminal offence for anyone to pretend that you do not have such a right.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I wonder when McBride's going to make a public statement that anyone who isn't with them is with the terrorists.
This could easily backfire, and drive away some of what's left of their customer base. Oh, yeah....I forgot. "Customers" and "product" don't seem to figure in their business plan any more.
So SCO is demanding certification under a provision of existing agreements stating the Unix licensee must answer compliance queries, at most anually. If I got one of these letters, I would answer... only that I was in compliance with the original Unix agreement (assuming I was).
As far as all the extra crap about not using Linux and not exporting to Cuba, I would ignore. How can you be bound to answer on subjects that you have no contractual or legal obligation?
SCO might as well be asking to certify that the room in which all Unix machines run is not painted green. Why would anyone answer that (true or not)? It's just not SCO's business.
Anybody want a peanut?
Dear Mister Hussein,
Please provide evidence that you are in compliance with UN Resolution 3177, and that you have no active programs to develop WMI, and that you are not in posession of any WMI or WMI delivery systems.
Failure to provide evidence will result in a massive invasion of your country by US Laywer forces, shock and awe, resulting in the eventual extraction of your carcass from a spider-hole.
Sincerely,
Darl McBush
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Then sue him! Case dismissed!"
Karma: Non-Heinous
That's all well and good; admirable, even. But, SCO doesn't care if they lose Unixware licensees. They aren't making money off Unixware anyway, and it costs money and effort to upkeep, and they have to deal with pesky user problems.
They just want you to send them money. It's the perfect business: no product, no staff, just a lot of money rolling in due to the past efforts of other, complete strangers (both on the Unix side and the Linux side), and the gullibility of people who believe every official-looking letter they receive.
SCO is comprised of every kind of sheister who ever followed a get-rich-quick pyramid scheme, put sawdust in the tranny, or used inferior concrete and rebar when building a dam a mile up the river from a town. They don't care about anyone else, nor the consequences of their actions, nor whether they actually deserve the money.
It's the money that matters, not the users. And if they can get rid of the actual users in the process, all the better.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Microsoft may have helped this train wreck along, but I seriously doubt that they intend to be in the train when it reaches its mangled end.
Which should be this quarter. Maybe even this month if we're lucky.
Would Wilma let Fred pursue this get rich quick scheme?
My other machine is a lever.
Not to mention, they'd be able to collect license fees from current licensees such as IBM, HP, and Sun -- nothing like a little extra pocket money.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It prolly stands for that now since they've taken it out of Santa Cruz.
IMHO, SCO is definitely the "short bus" of the *nix world. $deity, how fscking long did it take them to figure out that having 'ifconfig' display the MAC address on a network interface might be a good idea instead of having to dig around 'dmesg'?
Ugh. I'd rather admin Novell than a SCO box.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
As Brigadier General Mcauliffe replied to the Nazi's demands for surrender at Bastogne, during the battle of the bulge... "Aw, Nuts!"
IBM and RedHat will be providing air cover this week.
Wow, It this letter is what it appears to be then SCO are going after their own customer base who were unfortunate enough to license software from them in the past. If ever there was a case for staying the heck away from SCO's and their agreements this is it.
Here's the actual, slightly offtopic war declaration
I believe this may constitute tortuitous interference - they are imposing retroactive licencing terms on their customers that were not in place when they signed the original SW purchase or lease agreement, and are likely to cause harm to the customer's business, if they are forced to suddenly replace their SCO or Linux SW on short notice because SCO is imposing new conditions that were not in the original contract.
The potential damages are likely to be much worse if and when SCO's claims are trounced out of court.
My rights don't need management.
I hope they have asbestos underwear, then darl is less likely to reproduce (asbestos really screws you up)
OK, Lets say we can live with that request. But how does SCO translate this into the Points 1 to 8 (The not using Linux, making sure all contractors are aware...)? IANAL -- surley just a statement to say 'YES -- I am using it within the rights you conferred on me' should satisfy that part of the agreement.
requiring them to certify that they are in full compliance with their Unix source code agreements and are not using Unix code in Linux.
Unless I am mistaken, this is a backstep from the original letter. Certifying you have no UNIX code is far different from the whole derivative ideas crap they were claiming last time. A large company's lawyer will reply with:
Please notify us of which UNIX source codes you are referring to, as this company has no legal requirement to SCO to certify anything until you receive a favorable legal judgement. We will be happy to comply beforehand, but there is no burden on us and we require your help. If you can inform us of the violations, we will be happy to work with the programming community to eliminate any current violations once you have made us aware of them.
A letter like this will show a willingness to eliminate any copyright violation, while still putting the burden on SCO to provide actual instances of infringment. The fact that SCO is asking for the good-faith effort in the first place definitely seems a lot weaker than their previous letter.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
We just decommissioned our last two UnixWare servers as of Jan 2 2004.
Right now the only job these servers have is holding up other servers inside the rack.
So I guess technically, our whole operation (well, half of it) rests on these two servers.
But not in any way that will help SCO.
Hey SCO: Neener, Neener, Neener!
Chris
It's amazing isn't it, but I think actually there are quite a lot of minor licensees. People who, at some point, for some reason, needed access to UNIX source.
This license was probably used for everyone from IBM and SGI down to some two man company in Springfield that wanted to adapt a specific model of printer to work with a specific utility included in some version of Genuine UNIX.
Remember GNU has a really vast number of licensees because its software grants a license to everyone who distributes that software according to the simple rules. Most of those people don't think of themselves as licensees, or of having any legal relationship to the GNU project or the FSF.
Similarly I bet a lot of these SCO letters get returned undelivered (those guys changed name, moved to another state, got bought by a dotcom and went bust, three years ago) or will be a complete mystery to the recipient, the UNIX activities of their company being long forgotten.
Novell Statement on UNIX Copyright Registrations PROVO, Utah -- Dec. 22, 2003 -- Novell believes it owns the copyrights in UNIX, and has applied for and received copyright registrations pertaining to UNIX consistent with that position. Novell detailed the basis for its ownership position in correspondence with SCO. Copies of our correspondence, and SCO's reply, are available here. Contrary to SCO's public statements, as demonstrated by this correspondence, SCO has been well aware that Novell continues to assert ownership of the UNIX copyrights. Press Contact: Bruce Lowry Phone: 415-591-6523 E-mail: blowry@novell.com
It has probably been said, and probably against the intent of the various open source licences but I would really like to see the various projects (samba, apache) make some changes to revoke the licences of the products that SCO have included (or intend to include) in their products.
Apparently, it has turned into the same sort of issue as "virii", a lot of people use it which makes even more people assume that it is correct usage.
The funny thing about english or any other dynamic language, if enough people use it for a number of years... it becomes correct. The fact that we are moving tward a google driven world serves to accelerate this process, as in you must learn popular spellings / mispellings in order to get the right information. Over time, the incorrect will become accepted and the correct will become archaic.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Oh please, someone tell me that they own the copyright to VMS and that they are going to
go after Redmond!
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
Hmmmm, what's this? *Grph*choke*Agle*
Is Mr. Stallman accepting disciples?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Did you read the poster you replied to? He said that if SCO had not engaged in any of this Linux slander there is No Way Sun or Microsoft would have paid SCO any money. Exactly what you reiterated.
He said SCO said they would be profitable without having to pay the laywers. But because they had the lawsuit going, SUN + MS paid them the money they paid the lawyers. Had they no lawsuit, SUN + MS would have given no money, and thus they would still have had no profits.
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
The parent poster has been making a habit of rephrasing other people's posts. The parent post is originally from here. Another example is in the Yahoo/Google story, see the original and the repost.
They (claim to) have 6000 source licensees, companies that have paid to use their source code, mostly companies like IBM and Sun that make their own flavors of UNIX(tm)[1]. They have many more (possibly the millions you remember) users of Unixware and their other systems who don't have (and certainly don't want at this point) any source license. So there is no contradiction (although that doesn't necessarily mean that they're telling the truth about anything).
[1] UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group, not of SCO/Caldera/Novell or anyone else. Despite SCOldera's claims to "own UNIX."
Actually, for some reason I was thinking of Pope Boniface.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I have a postoffice block on junk mail.
I have a do not call block on the phone.
Mozilla autodeletes my SPAM
Other than having a process server deliver it to me in person how would this NIGERIAN MORMON CRIMINAL GANG ever inform me of their illegal lien?
> The letter to licensees warns that if they do not provide "a full and
> complete certification" in 30 days, SCO may examine legal remedies,
> including termination of the license.
30 days to complete a vendor-specified certification, or your license from
them is terminated? Is it just me, or is this rougly translated, SCO told
every single on of its customers, "We don't want your business any more,
unless you're willing to jump through hoops, starting right now"?
I guess they only want really *loyal* customers.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
$966.74
Thanks to the latest in SCO Entertainment, I was thinking of that very phrase -- "Have you quit beating your wife?"
A: "Which one??"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
try g/SCO/s/SCO/RIAA/g
Just throw the fucking thing in the garbage... No make that the shredder...
"I never received it..."
If they sent them Certified Mail, then you received an empty certified ENVELOPE... There was nothing inside...
Until you actually have a licensed Process Server hand the thing to you, and testify in court that the piece of paper being held by Attorney X is what he gave you, they can put their fingers in their ears and hum realllly loud, but you still didn't get whatever it is they claim to have sent...
Also the contract states that the company must provide to SCO at most once a year a statement:
That's a lot different from what they are asking for. If you look at the paragraph numbers, the one requiring the annual statement is immediately after the ones saying that the Software Product can only be used internally on the designated CPUs and that it cannot be used by others. They go on later to show paragraphs about export, not disclosing the Software Product to others, etc. What they are asking for is:
There's a clause in the contract that specifically allows SCO to send letters like this, but it specifically states what must be furnished to SCO. SCO is asking for quite a bit more, but there is nothing in the contract to support their requests. If I was one of these companies, I would supply them with exactly what is required by the contract and ignore the other requests, like this:
Dear UNIX Licensor:
As an authorized representative of [Company xyz], I declare that we are running the Software Product on the following CPUs, all in our home office at 123 Main Street, Milwaukee, WI:
- 4 PPC 4000 processors, serial number 10003940, 10003941, 10003942, and 10307783
- 2 PPC 8000 processors, serial numbers 40000120, 40000121
We have done a review and these are the only CPUs currently running the Software Product we have licensed from you.Yours truly,
[Company xyz]
If they send a letter back asking about the unanswered requirements in the letter, just say "We have fully complied with Para. 2.04 2.05 of our licensing agreement by issuing our previous letter. Have a nice day."
SCO can ask for all the information they want, including the social security numbers and current phone numbers and addresses of every employee, that doesn't mean you have to give it to them. Stick to how the contract is worded...
If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such time.
If this clause is really in most agreements and just ommitted by SCO in the letter, it looks to me like if some code was put into Linux by someone other than the company the letter was sent to that the licensee has no further obligations under that section towards that code. Let's say that code was put into Linux by IBM. Wouldn't that actually indemnify all other licensees against redistributing that code since a third party made it available to the public?
Are there any lawyers out there who can tell me why this isn't the ideal opportunity to shut SCO up for a while?
Theory as follows:
Sco have avoided directly threatening anyone to presumably avoid losing control of the case (what little control they had anyway). So long as they were issuing court cases and orders against others they had this control but that went tits up when IBM countersued and Redhat waded in. The killer event was the judge ordering their disclosure of their evidence to IBM.
Now that they're under orders to disclose evidence, the pressure will up if their case is anything other than watertight and this alone would justify throwing caution to the wind and threatening everyone in sight with the hope that some may sign up.
Now the hingepin of my theory revolves around the fact that SCO have still not proven anything and won't have the chance until 2005. Until then, the code is a kind of Schrodinger's Cat, i.e. until the box is opened in 2005, no-one know's its true state which leaves SCO making claims based on belief rather than fact.
With this in mind, is it not possible for one of the invoiced companies to haul SCO into court and gain an injunction against them issuing invoices without proof? From here it should be a short step to gain another injunction preventing them from repeating claims of ownership to the world in general until after the case is completed.
I know many Slashdotters would suffer abysmally from withdrawl systems if they could no longer call Darl McBride a twat, shithead, fuckwit, retard or whatever but I think it may just be a price worth us all paying.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.