Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Expands Licensing Money Chase Worldwide

Posted by timothy on from the no-see-we-sue-you-otherwise dept.

drizst 'n drat writes "Article posted recently on ZDNet that 'companies outside the United States that use Linux now face the threat of legal action from the SCO Group, following the announcement on Wednesday that SCO's licenses are available worldwide.'" And cbiltcliffe writes "Vnunet is reporting that SCO is now threatening legal action against UK businesses that run Linux. Yet again, they claim they're going to initiate legal action against Linux users 'within a couple of weeks.' (Funny...weren't they saying that back in September?) They also claim that Novell and HP indemnification schemes are essentially useless (similar to SCO's Linux licences). It definitely appears the media is getting somewhat wiser to the FUD, however, as the story reports 'The run-time licence only permits use of what SCO says is its IP,' rather than 'The licence permits use of SCO's IP' like we would have heard a couple of months ago."

2 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. Hey SCO! by FrostedWheat · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hey SCO, did you seen what we did with mad cows in the UK? Nuff said!

  2. They ARE NOT stupid scum... by navak · · Score: 0, Troll
    In case you've forgotten, here are some of the questions that SCO must answer before they get a shot at IBM

    But the answers are very simple:

    • Interrogatory 1: all code contributed by IBM employees in Linux.
    • Interrogatory 2: a) UNIX owner, b) rights as per SCO contract by IBM, c) none. "SCO is giving up the trade secret and patent claims, as it requires unreleased information from IBM".
    • Interrogatory 3: none. see interrogatory 2.

    SCO not only charges that SCO's IP got into Linux against their wishes, but that IBM did it. IBM wants to see SCO's evidence that is had to be IBM and couldn't be someone else.

    And? IBM actually contributed to Linux kernel, there is no question about this. SCO is claiming that code, at least some of it, according to the IBM contract, couldn't be put in Linux. They need details of IBM development process to prove it - even if it were actually true, they would need it.

    As far as what SCO wants this case to be about, SCO has contradicted itself on so many occasions that it's impossible to say with any certainty what SCO is suing over.

    If you ignore press releases, SCO position is consistent. The trial as always been about a breach of contract by IBM which is making IBM contributions to Linux illegal - although they tried to muddy the waters at last hearing, in order to force the judge to compel IBM to release evidence "we don't know what kind of IP violation it is yet, we must see a log of IBM actions first".

    So if you will excuse me, I will continue to believe that SCO are stupid scum, because they've not shown any evidence to the contrary.

    Not so much. If IBM had signed a non-compete clause with SCO for instance, IBM would lose this trial instantly, and Linux distribution would become problematic. The whole crux of this story is in the detail of IBM contract with SCO (and SCO with Novell), and nowhere else.

    Press releases from SCO have always been deceiving bullshit, as that's the case for many companies, although SCO has raised this to an unmatched level.