Slashdot Mirror
SCO Approaches Google About Linux Licenses
MSBob writes "Seems that SCO is seriously hinting that their next victim is going to be Google. SCO said that they held what SCO described as "low level talks" with Google executives with regards to licensing SCO's alleged intellectual property within the Linux kernel. The full article is on Forbes.com." The Reuters story is on Yahoo!, too.
after google, the next major companies would be hosting companies, akamai, and some of the big film studios. when will SCO learn though? if they take google to court about this, and loose, like i hope they will, hopefully they will learn then. but who do you think will be next?
Lotas T Smartman www.lotas-smartman.net
But Blake, Linux isn't Unix, it's a Unix clone. Oh, and one more day to put up or shut up.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
...that rather than any legitimate claims, SCO keeps trying to press the issue with companies who may be able to purchase them outright?
I really do wish I could see some justice being done regarding these clowns though. Aside from the blatant pump and dump fiascos, another issue with approaching Google now is the threat of what this type of issue could do to their IPO. Seriously, someone needs to slap SCO down for good as this circus has gone way beyond tolerable limits.
To not consider SCO's offer until the case with IBM is over. After all, its best not to do business with someone who is facing nationally recognized litigation.
wrong.. SCO says 'hey google give us $1000 which is peanuts and sign this non-disclosure and we'll call it even' -- Google 'ok sounds good to me' -- SCO release many press releases saying Google the largest commercial linux user paid SCO licsensing fee. Soon the $699's start to trickle in from all over the Fortune 500
Seriously. Talk about rallying the troops of the other side. Go after Google? Every nerd's best friend?
Anyway, SCO's timing on this matter is very suspect, with its notice so close to a Google IPO. If SCO keeps making noise, I would expect a Google counter-suit claiming defamation, especially if the IPO doesn't go as well as planed.
What the hell are we missing here? SCO hired the "best" lawyers in the country. There has to be some sort of strategy behind all of this. Or meybe the just want us to think that; keep everybody guessing. All I know is I keep a daily eye on Groklaw
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
The problem with your plan is that there's still no incentive for people to part with their money. Those companies didn't get to be in the Fortune 500 by being stupid.
I think it's far more likely that if SCO asks people for money they'll decline, and if SCO demands money they'll be sued.
The likeliest scenario by far is that SCO is involved in a stock scam, requiring a constant stream of messages in the press. They needn't prevail in court nor need they actually receive any revenue.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I wonder about the timing of this, with big IPO talk surrounding Google. Scenario: SCO believes Google will settle on some sort of licensing to avoid a hassle before the upcoming IPO. If Google to sign a contract, SCO has a VERY BIG customer which they could point to in the court of public (or corporate) opinion. Lets face it, SCO really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. There strategy may very well be to scare companies into licensing (obvious). Upper level management is not very IT savvy. If Google signs a deal with SCO, you might see many more corporate sheep following Google's lead. I don't believe Google will do this. They know it is BS like the rest of us.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Fair enough.
As soon as share value drops SCO has not as much money for lawyers anymore.
Wrong, sorry. Their stock value doesn't influence their cash flow directly, nor the amount of cash in bank. There might be some indirect effects related to financing and stock options, but they're not running out of cash even if their stock goes back to penny status.
Of course investors fleeing will attract the interest of the press, in their vulture form :)
[Oops, posted prematurely before - feel free to mod that one down :]
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
... be concerned. Be very concerned.
I've heard a lot of mumbling about how SCO doesn't have any evidence that the code exists, blah blah blah. Just want to remind you all that the OSS Community would be VERY quick to remove it if it were found. That means if SCO wins, suddenly everybody will have an updated distro, they won't be able to go after anybody for money.
If they can convince Google that they are in danger, I'd be worried that SCO showed them something that Google would be under NDA to discuss.
All I'm urging is caution.
"Derp de derp."
SCO can wave their claims arround and splutter about vast damages but the fact is no judge is going to allow a penal award. Google have every reason to believe that they have the rights to the code they are using.
Google can probably even claim the cost off their insurance.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Oh, yeah? Then why does a google on "goatse" come classified under the "Society > Religion and Spirituality >
They also have about 1000 BSD servers.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Bunch of Assholes
Let's Bunch of Assholes
Try Bunch of Assholes
To Bunch of Assholes
Be Bunch of Assholes
Less Bunch of Assholes
Lame Bunch of Assholes
While Bunch of Assholes
Posting Bunch of Assholes
Easily Bunch of Assholes
Compressible Bunch of Assholes
Data
(ROFL, that worked! The lameness avoidance, that is. We'll have to wait and see if sending SCO to the top of the "Bunch of Assholes" search works... Right now they're not on the first page, either for no quotes or with quotes.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
In six months, scox hasn't sold any "linux licenses" and scox hasn't sued any linux end users, in spite of numerous threats to do so "soon." Scox will not sell you a linux license if you beg them, many people - including me - have already called scox to them know that we're using linux.
,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT." ither SCO lied to the public (saying they existed) or SCO lied to the court (saying they didn't exist).
Scox has told so many outright lies, it's hard to keep track. Here is a partial list:
1) Lie: SCO will revoke IBM's rights to sell, distribute, or use UNIX.
Truth: SCO does not have the authority to revoke IBM's UNIX rights.
2) Lie: SCO will audit AIX users.
Truth: SCO never did such an audit, and has no rights to do such an audit.
3) Lie: SCO owns C++.
Truth: SCO may own a very old obsolete version.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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
7) 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. The source code displayed at SCOForum might have been considered an honest mistake, if Sontag hadn't continued to dispute what was already irrefutably proven.
8) 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."
9) Lie: non-compete clause in the Novell agreement.
Truth: no such clause.
10) Lie: SCO claims that Linux header files are "infringing code."
Truth: The header files are provably original and are noncopyrightable in any event.
11) 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.
12) 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
15) 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.
16) Lie: Last August SCO claimed to have sold Linux licenses to a Fortune 500 company that was not MS or SUN.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
17) Lie: "several" other Linux license sales SCO has claimed to have made since the first.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
18) Lie: the introductory price for licenses that was to increase on Oct 15
Truth: Once again, SCO changed their minds.
19) Lie: SCO claimed it would file against RedHat for copyright infringment and conspiracy
Truth: No such charges were filed
20) Lie: SCO was going to appeal the fine imposed in Germany.
Truth: that never happend.
21) Lie: RedHat opposes software copyrights (Darl's open letter).
Truth: unlike SCO, RedHat respects copyrights.
22) Lie: entire sales force selling Linux "licenses."
Truth: no evidence of