Slashdot Mirror
SCO Licenses Now Available
wes33 writes "Now available at the
SCO website, genuine
licenses permitting you to use SCO IP
that is 'necessary for you to run Linux'. And they take VISA.
Looks like they're saying that any code that is
similar to Unix code counts as their
Unix code!?
Actually, the agreement needs analysis.
It looks to me that you're paying for a pig
in a poke, but IANAL. Here's some of the meat:
'"UNIX-based Code'" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare. ...
Provided You pay the applicable license fee and complete the required registration of the COLA, SCO grants You the right to use all, or portions of, the SCO IP only as necessary to use the Operating System on each System for which the appropriate CPUs have been licensed from SCO.'" The linked page says this so-called license applies only to commercial use.
Do they take Monopoly money?
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
:-)
That'll happen. Sometime after the trial, where they prove they have anything worthy of licensing.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
Only commercial use?!?!?! now how can I use linux?
I was counting on being able to buy one of these bad boys as soon as possible </sarcasm>
The pricing is $199 for a desktop box, and between $620-$750 per CPU for servers, depending on how many you have. Also, the license says that this is for binaries only (not the source).
If it turns out that they lose the suit but get the license fees from everyone anyways, this could open them up to RICO Act suits (triple damages, court costs included).
At any rate, this will continue to be interesting to watch.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
The linked page says this so-called license applies only to commercial use.
I believe SCO said that they were only going to be chasing commercial users of Linux. Okay, they're still crazy, but at least it seems they have a vague sort of 'respect' for the hacking/academic community.. just not the businesses that use Linux.
That aside.. I can't wait for this all to be over, it's really putting the heebie-jeebies up some of my clients.
Web Hosting Reviews
Quick, grab a licence while you still can! They're selling like hotcakes.
Even microsoft users should be coughing up !!
I'll buy one, but I'm going to need to borrow their license to print money, first. Photoshop won't let me scan dollar bills anymore...
True story.
I guess if Darl has the same kind of car I have, I guess he wouldn't mind if I stole his car.
I want to know whether SCO will indemnify Linux-users against the possibility that, once the legal wrangling is done, we do not need to pay them license fees for Linux. Will they refund the money? It would be a good public-relations move for them to do this, even if it would amount to an empty promise: If no one needs to pay SCO for Linux, then SCO will be bankrupt PDQ and there won't be any money to refund.
"My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
What advantages does that bestow on me? Oh, I see, none.
Why am I better off than I would be without an SCO license? Hmm, that's not explained either.
So without it I'll be sued or something? Well, apparently not.
But SCO has legal backing in doing this at least, right? Actually no.
So...anyone want to take bets on how many people actually buy a license? Probably fewer than the number of people who have bought X-10 minicams from those popup windows.
Hmm... lets see. Only $149.00 for annual license for one CPU, eh? What a bargain! BTW, I sell annual leases to vacant lots on the moon, but due to court proceedings I can't show you proof that I actually own the moon at moment...
Imagine some other company thinks if they can brake GPL,
we sell our part of the Linux Kernel for because the kernel contains
that an evil OSS developer added to the linux source
I wonder why it takes so long to get SCO to learn that they are violating a licence, not their customers!
they dont even "own" unix anyhow..
Groklaw quote:
"This is one of the fundamentally misleading positions SCO has adopted. "UNIX" is not an operating system but rather a brand of operating systems. The brand, "UNIX" is the intellectual property of the Open Group who owns the relevant trademark and certifies systems as being compliant to its UNIX specifications. The Open Group is an international vendor and technology-neutral consortium. IBM is a sponsor of the Open Group while SCO is a member."
"an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"
SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user's predicament
in other words, "SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user predicament created by SCO".
I beat my dog every day but I really feel for the poor thing too. Right. Who are they kidding?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
on the website it says they're offering a license that cures the IP infringement in Linux. So can they be sued for misleading in a product once the infringement is proven imaginative? similar to the guy who sued spammer for false claim in penis enlargement pills.
however, i believe another interesting question is, if they are sued for misleading, how much can you still get out of SCO after it's being savaged by IBM....
I buy one, then sell it on eBay? Would my soul be cursed for all enternity?
It looks like they are trying to get Windows added to the list... POSIX compliance.
That will sure increase the war chest!
How many SCO executivess does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
...and 1 to fumble and drop it.</pathetic attempt at Funny rating>
Five
1 to claim ownship of the IP
1 to file suit against bulb manufacturers
1 to threaten bulb endusers
1 to send off asking how to use a bulb
I can't afford THAT you insensitive clods!
my finger just slipped 32 times on the refresh button... ;-)
Oh dear, I must go and get my licence immediately before any trial has been completed so I can be safe! I wonder would SCO extradite me?
You got the power-up and won the game!!
I note that in the limitation of liability, they disclaim 'misrepresentation'?
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Give'em enough rope and they'l hang themselves.
Get a Rope!
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
I mean, we wouldn't want to /. SCO, would we? ;-)
Until I can buy them at ThinkGeek I'm not gonna waste my money. :)
I think the original article may have been looking for http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicensen ew.html instead, which would be the $699 IP license.
In any event it looks like SCO is finally allowing people to buy the licenses from them. Now I suppose it gets serious.
Now how long until they start bitching and moaning about this slashdot posting being a DDoS?
But are they edible?
End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO IP in Linux in binary format only.
/dev/null as SCO's...
Oh okay then, that's fine, I use the stock Linux kernel as-is. I never need any SCO IP in binary format in it.
Unless you count the output of
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Has anyone thought of asking ken, dmr, and bwk what they think of this mess? I am sure they don't want to get involved, but this can't be in the spirit they built up the whole thing once upon a time?
Okay, what happened to the whole AT&T Memo which clarified that AT&T didn't own or have any claim to derivative works... I've not seen anything in the press about it blowing SCO's case out of the water since it was released on Groklaw...
Their claims are A. Unsubstantiated, and B. Even if they were substantiated they have no claim to the derivative works that IBM contributed.
The fact that they continue to pursue licensing where currently their legal standing has not been established is insane.
I hope IBM, and Redhat intend to countersue the executives and board of SCO, and the Canopy group for the FUD they have been spreading once this case is closed in favor of IBM.
... you buy the license, and then a court decides that SCO's license is not required for the operation of Linux, could you then sue SCO for fraud?
....how about I give you the finger, and you give me ... well, you don't give me anything, just go away.
If you pay me $99.99, I wont sue you for ingringing on any POSIX compliance product.
WooHoo, I'm going to be rich.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Getting slower.....slower......slower....stopping...
Hmmm, you know....this is one of those sites I just really don't mind slashdotting.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
I know a good bit of law, but this is out of my range. It does sound to me that there's a very high chance that (even if their claims are correct) they're accepting money to license something that isn't theirs to license, provided there's just one UNIX System V-like option out there that doesn't include any of their code. Is this not a criminal act, or at the very least an actionable one?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Even if we make the big assumption that SCO does own the rights to some of the code in Linux, there's still a lot of legit GPL code there. If you license their code you can no longer use that with the rest of Linux since you'd be linking code under a non-GPL compatible license with GPLed code. But then IANAL.
SCO must be charging the licenses too cheaply, as reflected by its stock price :)
Licensing linux code from SCO invalidates the GPL on the rest of the kernel code. The licenses are not compatible. You will never get hundreds of kernel developers to re-license the code for your use. If you really think you need to buy this, give up. Install FreeBSD.
You must be new here
(BAM! +5, Overused Joke)
True story.
Every country OTHER then the US has prevented SCO from persuing this trash licensing [theft]...
That says something about our government...
I still say Microsoft _MUST_ be leverging agencies to leave this alone and let it play out. There's no other way consumers would be left so unprotected against such a fraudulent licensing scheme.
We all know what "permanent and irrevocable" means to SCO ...
Lurking in the desert
I'm just wondering when it is going to happen.
I posted this earlier in another SCO thread, but I think it would be really spiffy to start a small "business" and buy up a few licenses. Just to see if would actually *get* one.
Once we did, we could put scans of the documents on the web for others to see and read and discuss.
But, lets be honest, we're probably not going to get one.
We'd need like 500 people willing to donate a dollar or two, right?
Try to buy 1-CPU annual licenses. "Recalculate" lopps back to itself, no re-calculation takes place. "Finalize" hangs indefinitely. It could be because they're running their webshop on SCO OpenServer, but it could also be because they're running it on uncle Bill's .$ servers. It's like the difference between a Vi@gra spam and a v1agra spam.
ok mod me down for being redundent, but the opengroup really needs to standup and put a stop to SCO.
unix methods belong to them if anyone.
with those rates its cheaper to buy copy of windows
I really think this is a clever new business model. Charge people for using another company / group's product.
Hey Windows users, you owe me $99.95 a year for those "Icon" things I invented last year.
I was this CLOSE to putting that license on my credit card too! Oh well. I guess I'll just spend my excess incoming on those poor, poor political prisoners in Nigeria.
I hear they have nearly 30 million in cash that they are unable to convert...
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS lICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA").
Hello, I am the CEO of Coca-Cola, SCO please pay use $699 for use of the word "COLA", thank you.
An OxyMormon.
"SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux"
give me a break
Didn't SCO shift over to thescogroup.com domain after the last worm DoS? I'm pretty sure the page isn't unavailable because of the /. effect, but because of the wrong URL.
Looks like they don't want people purchasing licenses right now.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This reads like a run time license only. What about a developer license as required for anyone who works with the actual OS code that they are claiming rights over.
Note, no source code license is required as Caldera opened up old versions of the source under the GPL.
IANALD - I am not a linux developer
Dear SCO,
On Solaris systems I have coded a lot of network IO against system *.h files containing AT&T copyright notices. Some of these files include macros. Do I need an SCO source code or developer license to work with these files? Please clarify.
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux(R) operating system.
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO's standard commercial license.
"Software" shall mean the Operating System in Object Code format.
"Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and related system documentation, including all comments and any procedural language.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
"Update" shall mean the updates or revisions in Object Code format of the Software that You may receive. Update shall not include any alteration, modification or derivative work of the Operating System prepared by You.
GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or rights.
SCO grants You and You accept from SCO, the following limited, non-exclusive rights. This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any distribution of software from SCO or any other thir
If they are licensing "their" contribution to linux, aren't they bound by the GPL, because it is inextricably linked with GPL'ed code?
Of course, if they do have rights to some code in Linux, then they can forbid everyone to use it, but they can't license it without putting it under the GPL.
"Server Load Exceeded, Please try again later."
:( :P
help! I don't want to be sued!!! how can I buy linux license so sco will be happy? how to pay sco to buy linux?? what to do?? will beta test for free license!?!?! SCO has monopoly on linux and won't let me buy licenses.
my lame attempt at humour,
tisme
How are you gentlemen! All your code are belong to us!
Moderators: How the fuck is this Interesting? More like +5 Incoherent.
hahahahahahahahohohohohohohheheheheheoeooeehahahah ahahahah!!!
Thank you.
If I purchase the SCO IP license, I can only use their IP in binary format only?
But I can use GPL'ed IP that isn't theirs in source format?
Seems like in order to sell a license, they have to explicitly state - with specificity - what code it is that their license applies to. Isn't that how licensing works, that you have to state what exactly the customer paid for a license to?
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
The boldface shows one option that I picked from their menus:
Therefore, SCO is talking about "any code that in its functionality is similar to any Code contained in UNIX System V".
Is there any software in the world that doesn't have a major component fitting this description?
I'll send them a check, as soon as that monkey in my ass finishes signing it.
(Sorry, about the lame '90s humor, hee hee!)
Darl has but one innovation
Ill conceived litigation
It's a shame he can't find
Work made for his kind
But who'd pay him for masturbation?
Has anyone tried to buy one yet. Then file fraud and RICO charges against SCO (criminal not civil) and end this crap once and for all. With Darl and friends spending 5 to 10 as Bubba's girlfriends they won't be able to cause more trouble. A criminal conviction will also end SCO's suits against everyone else.
Darl should be tied to a tree and fed EX-LAX for a week.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
shop.sco.com, the online "shop" where you can buy the "license" from, is of course dead as of 1am GMT. So, should I had actually want to give into SCO's extortion attempts, I couldn't anyway as their server is dead. I wonder if it's running UnixWare?
From the SCO website IP license FAQ:
Hasn't SCO already indicated that it's okay for its code to be distributed by distributing this code itself that is now in question? Haven't they essentially GPLed their code?
During the period that SCO distributed Linux (2001 to 2003), SCO was unaware of the copyright violations. Once it became aware of the alleged infringements, it ceased all distributions of Linux to new customers. Copyrights cannot be given up by unintentional or illegal inclusion in a GPL product. The owner of the copyrights must transfer the copyrights in writing or some other affirmation, which SCO has never done. U.S. Copyright law also protects copyright holders from illegitimate contribution by also requiring express permission, which again, SCO has never granted. U.S. Copyright law states: "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent." U.S.C. 204.
Further, Section 0. of the GPL states the following: "0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
SCO has obviously never placed a notice indicating that our UNIX source code or derivative works can be distributed under the terms of the GPL license. Distributing the code is very different from contributing the code. SCO has never accidentally or knowingly contributed the code.
And they still continue to distribute Linux after they discovered it infringing. I love all the contradictions.
Their online store doesn't seem to be working, too bad :)
John Susek
Anyone want to file a complaint with the Utah state attorney general or the FTC? Is this not an obvious case of fraud by claiming to own and license that which you are either clearly not the owner or ownership is currenty in dispute?
Insightful
/. post.
perhaps that's what makes it so interesting. it's incoherence invites you to build from it an quality
Another possibility is it was modded up through the power of suggestion. Note that the post has the word "Interesting" right at the top.. Perhaps the poster has determined a way to game the system. We shall soon see.
"On what grounds does SCO base this license on? They have proven nothing legally."
It is surely not a legal contract, so what are we buying from SCO? Nothin but thin (hot) air, and the US government is allowing this kind of business to take place. Even though the SCO lawyers are completely out of their minds, they are playing the US govt for fools and doing a damn good job of it. In the end, it is the governments fault for allowing this to continue unchecked. Microsoft is another great example of a government who is turning a blind eye to corporations of America walking all over the consumers. To eliminate lunacy such as this, our government NEEDS to intervene. Period. Where the hell is our tax money going anyway? Iraq? WTF
Linux with kernel panic...
MadPenguin.org
Looks like we took their shop website down.
That's their shop website.
Did you get that? Their shop website.
All those links are different btw. Really. Just like this shop website. They all need clicking on.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Then in order to find where history "waste" of originates them, in the sense that I can work through babelfish 9 billion times?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you asked ken, dmr, or bwk, the reply would be:
Darl, Are you on crack?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
The store seems a wee bit hesitant, but while waiting for it to try to load I stumbled across this lovely pdf, linked from their legal page. I'm sure I'm among the last to notice it, but really, why would anyone think that sco would have a Code of Conduct and Ethics, just like a real company?
Figuring which parts of it Darl and minions are in flagrant violation of is left as an exercise for the reader
Let's say IBM buys them out. IBM will then be forced to refund that license money, no? Doesn't this make IBM less likely to settle by buying SCO out, and more likely to fight it out in court?(Yeah, the license money is probably chump change for IBM, but it still makes SCO a less attractive buyout target ...)
If I see any more acronyms, my head is going to explode.
From the licence: "UNIX-based Code'" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare." IANAL, but as BSD is also "Unix-like", it would be reasonable for Apple to sue for trying to licence their IP.
-DB-
E-mail is like a prison: a prison with no walls... and no toilet. -Strong Bad
haha, I went to check out how to buy this license. After clicking the continue button, it tried to open shop.sco.com ... unsuccessfully I might add.
The zdnet doofus writes his "it might not all be as good as the linux advocates are making it" article (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/22/023217.shtml ), and then shortly after, the SCO licenses are suddenly available.
Or am I just being overly suspicious?
I mean, it's got subdirectories (ok, ok, so they got the delimliter backasswards :-) ) and the ``CD'' command is obviously lifted right out of UNIX. Is Microsoft going to provide indemnity? I still have MS-DOS on several system to run hardware/firmware diagnostics and I'm worried that the SCO will be kicking down the door at any minute. (Darnit! And I just tossed out my old DR-DOS floppies a few months back.)
Idea for an experiment: Put Darl McBride in some old clothes and stick him on any street corner in a large city and see if anybody notices him while he's ranting. I'm betting he'd be ignored. Pretty much the same way the UNIX/Linux community is ignoring him now. Of course, a follow-up study would have to be done to determine why the UNIX/Linux community is being told by the press on an almost daily basis that they're wrong while the same press would merely note that the people who were ignoring ``Darl the street-corner loonie'' were just getting on with their lives.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Absolutely, totally and completely mad.
I am so glad the US allows this to happen, it lightens my day.
with $699 in pennies and demand a licence.
similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V Sounds like a description of vxWorks or any of the other embedded OSes that pride themselves on being "just like Unix". As I read this, you now need an SCO license to run vxWorks... I wonder how Wind River feels about this? And isn't BSD pretty "simular to...UNIX System V" too? How Fortunate for Microsoft that they already bought their license to use BSD code...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Seems pretty clear that they are talking about UNIX System V codebase, and not the UNIX(tm) trademark to anyone with basic reading skills and minimal understanding of the IT market. I guess that's not you though.
Of course, SCO might not own System V either, but that's another question.
Essentially (judging by the above summery of the article) everybody that is running any actual UNIX derivative (AIX, solaris, etc...) needs to pony up for one of these licenses. Looks like its time to move to Linux (which as of yet is innocent until proven guilty). I am starting to like this SCO group already...
I suspect they hope to use the results (assuming they get some licensees) as a sort of plebiscite that they might offer up in court as a popular vote in their favor. Clearly, this is a company in dire straits, and they are flailing away, trying every notion that strikes them, for the generation of what the IRS terms (in application to individuals) passive income. IOW, money for nothing.
--- Bill
Must be running Linux.
We would not want to spread software piracy via official NASA government vehicles. Perhaps they should immediately subpeona and inspect all code used on all space vehicles. NASA may have to launch a mission to Voyager to patch the system. We would not want alien civilizations to get the wrong impression of us.
When I was young, I had to rub sticks together to compute.
I'd be happy to sell anybody, for a reasonable fee, a license to use any and all words that begin with Q... That is, I promise not to sue you if you have bought the license. Not to say that I would sue you or have any chance of winning if you didn't ... But why take the chance?
Hey, I think there is a term for this... Let me think... Oh yeah, "extortion"...
IANAL but the whole thing seems pretty vague, especially the use of 'developed in' and references to derivative works.
After all, you could argue that CP/M, DOS et cetera are derivative works of UNIX.
If I understand the GPL correctly, SCO *can* additionally license out code to which they hold copyright, under any license they choose, or they can sell the copyright. This would be some small fraction of the Linux kernel and other stuff, I think.
However, (BIG however!) such licensing is IN ADDITION to their prior grant of license to that same code of theirs under the GPL, made when they released the code as part of Caldera OpenLinux et al, or when they contributed code to the kernel (under the GPL in either case). They CANNOT revoke the GPL license grant, so the net effect is meaningless to the world at large and Linux users in particular. We already have rights to use, modify, and distribute it all; the additional "license" from SCO is meaningless.
Offhand, I don't think this offer of code licenses is itself a GPL violation UNLESS they are trying to license copies of code they already distributed as part of a GPL'ed work (OpenLinux et al). If they distribute ONLY their own copyrighted code with these new licenses (copies with every license, sans GPL notices), maybe they are compliant with the GPL; in any other case, I suspect they're staking themselves to an anthill (again...).
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
"wes33 writes "Now available at the SCO website, genuine licenses permitting you to use SCO IP that is 'necessary for you to run Linux'. And they take VISA."
So, licences is necessary? I guess one license "are" necessary, then.
Do I get a refund if they are shown to not own the IP that they claim?
Will their be a non-IP ownership indemnity agreement?
Somehow I doubt it.
"I prefer the term extortion because the X makes it sound cool!" - Bender on SCO IP fundraising
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Take a look at this
... can I get a sticker that says, "SCO Inside" ?
or maybe a paper certificate that says, "I paid to license SCO's UNIX IP and all I got was this lousy certificate"
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
It sort of comes under caveat emptor. If you're stupid enough to buy this thing, you deserve it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
... only outlaws will have compilers.
``... Law enforcement officials refused to say anything other than that the suspect's home computers were seized and later found to contain illegal copies of several versions of gcc. The Chief of Police had no comment on the widespread rumors that printouts of errno.h were found in the suspects home while police executed the search warrent. The President, commenting on the arrest following today's Rose Garden ceremony in which he signed into law a bill extending copyright protection to `forever and a day', said: `America is a safer place today as a result of the actions of these brave police officers. We should be proud.'''
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
IBM could have just demanded that everybody running Windows 3.0 obtain a license from IBM, because it is obviously a derivative of OS/2!!! It was that easy, and those morons at IBM didn't even think of it! What the hell were they thinking, they gave up the OS/2 market to Microsoft, and all they had to do was just sue Microsoft and every one of it's customers!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The "similar to" clause. Independently-developed code "similar to" SysV code isn't necessarily their IP to begin with, so they can't grant anyone squat with respect to it.
Also, if they are trying to (re)license copies of code they released under the GPL but do not include copies of it with THIS licensing transaction (and especially if they include NO source with this "license grant"), they're in direct, explicit GPL violation. Really nice one...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Is that they want money from every commercial user of EVERY UNIX LIKE OPERATING SYSTEM.
...This reminds me of this letter that I just got from the State of Michigan, that goes a little something like:
Hmm. SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, Tru64, UnixWare, OS/390, NCR UNIX, UX/4800... that's all the true UNIXes according to Opengroup.
Of course, Linux still has to be proven free of Unix.. And Linux isn't really a UNIX, as it hasn't been certified as a true UNIX.
Due to a new law passed in October of 2003, you are now required to pay an additional $150 fine for a ticket that was issued to you in November of 2002.
Retroactively changing the agreement! W00t!
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Ironically, their licensing page fails to load in Konqueror.
... when I say, "The fine people at SCO can line up to take turns kissing my ass."
Anyone noticed that when you run SCO and IP together, you get "scoip", which sounds like a nice one-word description of what their case is? ("Heard about what SCO is doing now? Total scoip, I say.")
What the powers that be want is that nothing be for free. How could that possiblly fit in their scheme?
Can we throw them in jail yet?
Microsoft already paid their 'protection' to SCO, as well as Sun. They both bought their licensing. So neither of their OSes are affected.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
MOD +5 INFORMATIVE.
Next up, RMS in custody; charged with battery after finding the SCO marketroid who was spouting GPL blasphemies. SCO martketroid expected to survive after 6 hours of surgery to remove a stamped steel printout of the GPL from the rectum. May have issues sitting down later in life.
Hate me!
Open a company that will indemnify customers vs SCO for half a price of their license.
Darl's Puzzle
1. How to get Canopy through theri child companie susing Linux to buy lcenses and show shocker...Profit!
2. How to get any Canpoy Linux company to buy said license with a straight face..
3. How to get us to even believe he want sSCO group to survive the IBM death sentence
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Let's Charge for Linux
And Lower the National
Average IQ
We could all switch to SCO OpenServer. They recently released service pack 2, a "a key milestone in the OpenServer development roadmap" which allows you to "easily connect to many USB-compatible devices."
Breathtaking stuff.
I wonder if their "pattern matching experts" will start finding OpenServer code in Linux usb.h now?
:wq
The SCO Group (NASDAQ: SCOX) today announced the second major denial of service attack against the SCO corporate webservers in February. "And this time, we have PROOF those pesky Linux users were behind this. The attack originated from some site called Slashdot, a web site well known for their rabid support for using SCO's Unlicensed IP," said McBride. "They just keep clicking on their links with wild abandon," added Sontag. "As though ANY SCO operating system could stand up to this kind of brazen attack."
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
sell something under legal dispute or based upon that (that is after the dispute has already started)?
Up until now I assumed that this was the reason why they didn't have any "small" licences for purchase.
Since they're fishing a lot anyway lately, perhaps this is the fishing-for-suckers expedition. I'm afraid it quite a few will bite.
Sidenote: I have Caldera 1.4 and 2.2 CDs; will they get me a free SCO license?
DEAR SIR/MADAM:
I AM MR. DARL MCBRIDE CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCO GROUP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, IN LINDON, UTAH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I KNOW THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOUR BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS OR BUSINESS DEALINGS BEFORE NOW.
MY ASSOCIATES HAVE RECENTLY MADE CLAIM TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES WORTH AN ESTIMATED $1 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. I AM WRITING TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS.
IN THE EARLY 1970S THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION DEVELOPED AT GREAT EXPENSE THE COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE KNOWN AS UNIX. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWS OF MY COUNTRY PROHIBITED THEM FROM SELLING THESE SOFTWARES AND SO THEIR VALUABLE SOURCE CODES REMAINED PRIVATELY HELD. UNDER A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT SOME PROGRAMMERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY DID ADD MORE CODES TO THIS OPERATING SYSTEM, INCREASING ITS VALUE, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY TO DILUTE OR DISPARAGE OUR FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THESE CODES, DESPITE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH AND THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY, WHICH AGREEMENT WE DENY AND DISAVOW.
IN THE YEAR 1984 A CHANGE OF REGIME IN MY COUNTRY ALLOWED THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION TO MAKE PROFITS FROM THESE SOFTWARES. IN THE YEAR 1990 OWNERSHIP OF THESE SOFTWARES WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. IN THE YEAR 1993 THIS CORPORATION WAS SOLD TO THE CORPORATION NOVELL. IN THE YEAR 1994 SOME EMPLOYEES OF NOVELL FORMED THE CORPORATION CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, WHICH BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE AN UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM KNOWN AS LINUX. IN THE YEAR 1995 NOVELL SOLD THE UNIX SOFTWARE CODES TO SCO. IN THE YEAR 2001 OCCURRED A SEPARATION OF SCO, AND THE SCO BRAND NAME AND UNIX CODES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL WAS RENAMED SCO GROUP, OF WHICH I CURRENTLY SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
MY ASSOCIATES AND I OF THE SCO GROUP ARE THEREFORE THE FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARES KNOWN AS UNIX. OUR ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT NO FEWER THAN SEVENTY (70) LINES OF OUR VALUABLE AND PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODES HAVE APPEARED IN THE UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM LINUX. AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE, THIS GIVES US A CLAIM ON THE MILLIONS OF LINES OF VALUABLE SOFTWARE CODES WHICH COMPRISE THIS LINUX AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT GREAT PROFIT TO VERY MANY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. OUR LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED US THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE CODES IS WORTH AN ESTIMATED ONE (1) BILLION U.S. DOLLARS.
UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY EXTRACTING OUR FUNDS FROM THESE COMPUTER SOFTWARES. TO THIS EFFECT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MANDATE BY MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTACT YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE PREPARED TO SELL YOU A SHARE IN THIS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WILL SOON BE VERY PROFITABLE, THAT WILL GRANT YOU THE RIGHTS TO USE THESE VALUABLE SOFTWARES IN YOUR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT ABLE AT THIS TIME TO SET A PRICE ON THESE RIGHTS. THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPECTFUL SUGGESTION, THAT YOU MAY BE IMMEDIATELY A PARTY TO THIS ENTERPRISE, BEFORE OTHERS ACCEPT THESE LUCRATIVE TERMS, THAT YOU SEND US THE NUMBER OF A BANKING ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS OF A SUITABLE AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS ENTERPRISE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE YOU MAY SEND US THE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR MAJOR CREDIT CARD, OR YOU MAY SEND TO US A SIGNED CHECK FROM YOUR BANKING ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO "SCO GROUP" AND WITH THE AMOUNT LEFT BLANK FOR US TO CONVENIENTLY SUPPLY.
KINDLY TREAT THIS REQUEST AS VERY IMPORTANT AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I HONESTLY ASSURE YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL AND RISK-FREE.
Hey, how about a refund of all fees ever paid if it turns out they have no claim? That is, all SCOSource fees should be payment for indemnification in the case that SCO IP is absent from *nix.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I don't see why I should pay good money for a commercial, binary-only, GPL-incompatible Linux license that doesn't even provide indemnification for its customers!
:)
No, it sounds like a much safer bet to stick with one of the big companies on this one, and avoid pissing off Linux developers and the FSF!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
and charge them to breath it..
Jeoin
How did you accuse SCO of respect and get a +5 in the processes?
I am not a lawyer but I know that difference between between the two. I think it is designed to scare the PHB's that pay attention to this stuff.
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
Sheesh... Apache 1.3.14.. man, thats an old version.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Apache/1.3.14 Server at shop.sco.com Port 80
as'i'nine adj. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.
[Latin asinnus, of an ass, from asinus, ass.]
asi'ninely adv.
asi'nini'ty n.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Method to exchange oxygen rich gases with gases not so rich in carbon based life forms. And no, I will not ask for royalites, I'll simply ask every to stop infringing.
thought VISA and MC don't do fraudulent transactions or transactions that have a high tendency of being fraudulent (like alot of p0rn subscriptions). I know it was on the news a few years ago; that VISA/MC got tired of the high number of reversed charges with p0rn that they were going to stop. Sort of a pre-emptive measure, and since it's only a matter of time until SCO gets knocked down to below Enron's level of bankrupcy after they lose the IP plagerism battle, it would be in VISA and MC's best interest to just say no.
At least, this will make it more interesting. It's better than the reality shows on TV.
Since SCO is now openly trying to extort (or claim, depending on your pov) money from end users, be they commercial or not for an operating system which they did not write, doesn't this allow Linus and everbody else who contributed to sue SCO for abusing copyright that they do not own?
I know Linus is everybody's teddybear, but wouldn't this finally be an excellent opportunity for him to get an injunction at the very least?
Could users go after SCO on that racketeering law, like that woman in NJ is going after the RIAA? IANAL, but it sounds vaguely similar to me.
("Hey, we're going to take you to court for not having an, um, a license! Yeah. Oh, but we'll gladly sell you a license. How much have you got?")
Here's to hoping for a response. I'll post anything I hear back
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Am i the first one to notice this, or is store.sco.com offline thanks to mydoom?
doh!
I was going to buy a license on my VISA card, and stop payment.
:(
They are selling me something that isn't theirs.......
In my book, that counts as 'STOLEN'. And I'm going to stop payment on this stolen property.
If everyone else does that, they will be in a WORLD of hurt.
VISA will go after them for all the charge back fees.
But...shop.sco.com is down
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I would be willing to make a trade of equal value. They can send me a license and I'll send them my next bowel movement.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Did anyone forward this story on to ibm? I think they might want to buy a few.
Now we can update our links to read:
litigious greedy bastards
Probably worth as much as my dot com era stock options.
I guess they'll have to accept my condolences.
Like everyone (and companies) running Linux are going to rush right out and *PAY* for a license. Bullshit! Why doesn't someone like Apple or IBM just *BUY* the rights for Unix, or SCO, fire the assholes who are causing them problems? Nope, take that back. KEEP THOSE ASSHOLES EMPLOYED, in a remote village in Siberia for the next 20 years with the contractual agreement that if they resign from their current positions, they forfeit all their stock options and other perks, and make them pay for the relocation costs to Siberia. Send the lawyers their too.
If I interpret the agreement correctly, then the "Linux" name itself is a dylexic scramble of unix-L and hence requires a name change. Hell, just start firing off lawsuits to all of the individual Linux developers, RIAA-style, for downloading "illegally" operating system source code that *looks like* and *sounds like* UNIX. Hell, I COULD BE A LAWYER if I was cold-hearted and greedy enough to rob people of their intellectual property, and almost forgot, twist the truth enough. Damn, SCO is starting to make Micro$oft *THE BORG* looks like saints. Bastards!
Feel free to tell them what you think! But be aware that they are running a bad word filter so you can't swear too much hehe cac@sco.com
An error occured while loading http://shop.sco.com:
Could not connect to host shop.sco.com
They missed the Christmas rush!
All of their claims seem to be against a specific version (2.4.something) with a specific set of patches applied.
Is using Linux 2.2 ok with them? It seems ambiguous. If you take their claims literally, then they should be going after BSD users, too, but they say BSD users are fine.
Which I find rather frightening, actually. They have a bunch of legal documents, which one would presume would spell out exactly who's at risk, and so forth. But their FAQ interprets it differently. It's reminiscent of the good ol' days when the bible was not allowed to be translated into common languages, for fear that people would be able to read it -- if you want to know what's in the bible, you have to go to a priest and have him interpret it for you.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
we got huge balls!!
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Read the FAQ on that site...just a taste of the garbage in it:
#
How can SCO expect me to purchase a license when its case with IBM hasn't been resolved yet? What if SCO loses its case against IBM? Will it reimburse Linux customers who purchased a SCO IP License?
Some Linux users have the misunderstanding that the SCO IP License hinges on the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case. If that case were completely removed, Linux end users would still need to purchase a license from SCO to use the SCO IP found in Linux. The IBM case surrounds misuse of derivative works of SCO UNIX. It does not change the fact that line-by-line SCO IP code is found in Linux. The copied code includes copyrighted headers and other proprietary UNIX source code.
Whats going on here? I had the visa out ready to purchase my shiny new SCO license, and was greeted by a 'cannot connect to remote server'. i guess i'll just have to keep trying....
"This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any distribution of software from SCO or any other third party."
So you just agreed you have no right to aquire it.
If you accept this agreement, it look like all you "accept from SCO" is the right to be sued for knowingly contributing to Copyright infringement.
Stupid is, what Stupid Does.
If you're reading this, you have to buy a license, since you're using some implementation of sockets. The standard sockets API should be in System V (correct me if I'm wrong).
... #endif code in headers that everyone uses? What of code in Unix copied from/inspired by other sources?
Many, many standard C libraries, for that matter, are in System V. This would make Windows and Mac OS also infringing, if indeed SCO holds this much control.
Has Apple ever said anything about SCO and its possible complaints over Mac OS X's tri-BSD foundation? Has Microsoft offered indemnification for its users, since there is a lot of POSIX, and thus Unix, compatibility in Windows?
What of #ifndef thisfile_h #define thisfile_h
Since it covers any Unix or Unix-like code, sounds like we can just buy one of these licenses and run Solaris, AIX, etc.
Therefore, at least in Utah, they are above the law. The Church controls what goes on there since Utah is a theocracy.
So long as SCO is located in Utah and is financed by Angel Partners (LDS Church-owned venture capitalist), they will get what they want by the Mormon judges in Utah.
IBM will have to take this lawsuit out of Utah unless The Church decides that McBride is too much of a pain in the ass to bother with and is embarassing them (you'd think it would have happened by now).
The Microsoft "license fees" help with SCO's bottom line, but legally don't matter a lot at this point. SCO won't need that money until/if they have to appeal and this case gets moved outside of Utah.
Yeah, I know - moderate this as (Score -1: Truth Hurts)
I get all my COLA from Coke, and my IP address is no where near SCO's IP address.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
What I'd like to know (because IANAL) is, after SCO lose and go under will Darl be personally liable for the FUD his incredible public pronouncements have (intentionally) caused?
There is obviously a wide difference in scope between the actual confines of the SCO legal (non)case and the immense FUD and wild claims (3 million lines of offending code - anyone?) Darl and his co-directors have been bandying about. Not to mention the threats and blackmail.
A class action to hunt them down after SCO's demise?
while sco {
wget -O
}
from another thread on canadian privacy laws
:)
What if 20 years from now an activity that you consider perfectly acceptable like say, knowing how to program becomes unacceptable by the general community.
Want an example? Think about it: If you can program in C, you can write viruses! that's scary for the non-programmers out there that think that software is a "product" that magically appears shrinkwrapped at the store.
It starts when you first have to register all your compilers. Then you have a crackdown against free unregistered compilers and "Kitchen table linux dealers". 60 minutes runs a special about how computer shows allow unknown people to aquire software - including unregistered compilers (a compiler being an incredibily powerful piece of software that allows you to create any other piece of software... Including VIRUSES).
Mandataory "Compiler licences" are required by the government where the person applying for one has to submit three photos, a blood sample, a retinal image and fingerprints. At least two of these are checked by biometric scanning every time the compiler is invoked (following the tradition of "smart guns" or "safe firearms").
The compiler must be stored on an EPROM in a dedicated piece of hardware and the source brought to it on some kind of storage media. The output is removed on another storage media to prevent people hacking in and compiling software from their terminals. The compiler's hardware must be kept in a safe that weighs at least 150kg or is bolted to the floor. The sourcecode must be kept in a DIFFERENT safe, located in another part of the building. The compiler must be always carried turned off, in plain view, and without any source loaded, unless you have a "concealed compiler licence."
If you are convicted of a crime you can kiss you compiler licence goodbye. Finally people pull out old copies of neuromancer and comment on how much these firmware compilers look like that chinese virus that Case used. Regular folks would never need such powerfull pieces of software. "Assault compilers" would be banned.
Next revisionist historians will be saying: "In the pioneering days of the internet, widespread compiler ownership was a myth. The majority of internet users did not own a compiler, much less know how to read the source..."
Combined with "In the wild parts of the IT world, a compiler was a simple way to put food on the table of your family. Now that software is intensively farmed in third world countries we have no use for heavy duty compilers in first world, urban areas."
We're left writing everything in interpreted languages with all our arrays limited to 10 objects.
Eventually, only big corporations, the military and the police can afford the Class III licences required to own a compiler.
If you weren't a professional programmer, you'd wish that people hadn't poked around your life.
Your open secret has condemned you but you grit your teeth and type `gcc -Wall frommycolddeadharddrive.c`
You see, humans are at the heart of it NASTY. we can play with ideas all we want but you have to take into account the fact that we will not always do things in a way that minimises suffering for others.
So sorry. http://shop.sco.com -- could not connect to remote server.
Would you guys back off so I can make my purchase?
Hmm, what is this? Flagrant violation should also be researched, eh?
You could have cut that last sentence off it, as that refers to the other debate
I try to click on the continue button on this page.b uy.html
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howto
but all I got was the following message.
"The connection was refused when attempting to contact shop.sco.com"
hmm... now I wonder, are they not welcome me to buy a their licence? Since they refused to sell me the licence, I guess I will have to go without it.
Bob license works with everything and is only $1.00 /.
Just send it to
I tried to pay for the license, but the web site got slashdotted.
Is that the equivalent of shoplifting because the line's too long?
Oh well, fine by me.
Just for a joke, I clicked through to try to buy this. No, I was not really going to, I just didn't think they could be that stupid. The links point to the old site (sco.com). No shop, no nothing. It seemd mydoom prevented any of these sales. (wow, that means I actually read a linked article on slashdot, I must go wash).
You know the one who always posts "don't forget to pay your $699 license fee you cock-smoking teabaggers."
He'll be sorry he missed this...
SCO License available here
The other comments / observations are too obvious to read.
This is not my sig.
This whole SCO-thing is becoming a farce.
1. Darl's exit strategy is unsuccessful. And he knows it.
2. He will lose in court. And he knows it.
3. ZDNET journalists (ha!) write silly stuff.
4. Slashdot, Groklaw and countless other sources keep spending time on this.
Let's just wait until IBM annihilates them and ol' Darly has to go back to his multi-wife farm.
It seems that SCO makes no distinction betweeen unix software made by them and by other companies.
I have a copy of Sco OpenServer which I paid for, and legally own. (And, yes, I still use it in a production enviornment... it hasn't failed me in over 10 years)
According to the license, it looks like even I need to buy one of these licenses, even though I'm running SCO's own software.
Or am I missing something?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Don't forget what PR-savvy jerks they are! We Slashdot them and they send out a PR blurb that says "We got 98 Jigga-hits on our license site indicating tremendous customer interest..blah, blah, blah, etc."
They're *shits* - they'll twist everything good in the world - even a Slashdoting!
After all the trumpeting Caldera did about Linux there is no way in hell The SCO Group, which is essentially Caldera in wolf's clothing, can claim they didn't know about, authorize or understand the ramifications of distributing any code they may have had rights to under the terms of the General Public License. I know it, you know it, IBM's lawyers know it, soon Judges Wells and Kimball will know it, and most important, The SCO Group knows it.
IBM's lawyers would be able to blow this one out of the water in less time than it would take to . . . um . . . well in less time than it would take to do a very fast thing.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Hey, anybody got Darl's credit card number?
This is like coke-a-cola suing pepsi drinkers because they are drinking something that tastes like their product.
SCO must have a) shut off the web server service, or b) blocked out port 80, or c) pulled the web page.
The server is up, but you can't access the web page. Pinging it returns the IP address and responses are relatively quick:
Pinging shop.sco.com [216.250.128.240] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=236
Ping statistics for 216.250.128.240:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 77ms, Maximum = 88ms, Average = 80ms
Say NO to SCO.
I use Linux. Linux is Open Source. Linux is free. To pay for something that is free just goes to show how bad our economy really is... It's not Open-Source that is making it bad, but what I just said.
I won't pay a damn cent. They can sue me if they choose to... and if they win, I still won't pay anything. I'll run and hide in the confines of my Linux box.
I can fold up into a cracker.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
SCO has cleverly designed a license which requires no proof of SCO IP in Linux. They are asking licensees to pay money for the right to not be sued by SCO for SCO IP that "is in" Linux. Whether any SCO IP actually exists is irrelevant since the license is nonspecific on the amount and type of SCO IP it covers. Even if eventually no SCO IP is found in Linux, it could be argued that licensees made their own judgements on why they needed to purchase a license despite knowing there was a possibility that the quantity of SCO IP to be found in Linux was actually zero. The only thing SCO technically has to deliver under the contract is to not sue its licensees.
There is nothing but profit for SCO from any corporations that purchase licenses since there is nothing that they have to deliver, and they have protected themselves by making no specific claims about IP they actually own. By agreeing to the license terms, you explicitly hold SCO harmless for any of their actions. It's easy money if anyone falls for the scheme.
So how is this different from the Nigeraian email fraud that takes money out of innocent people's pocket? Can SCO be sued for stealing my money? How about paying and sueing them afterwards?
Ah, another person who's read "Adolescence of P1." Thought it was just me. :)
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Hey -- if they get 100,000 hits to that page from the /. link, are they going to announce tomorrow in their next press release that, "Thousands of customers are inquiring about purchasing licenses!" or are they going to accuse /. of trying to DDoS the site?
Your Servant, B. Baggins
would lead me to believe they are ignoring older lawsuit regarding bsd since the licence covers any possible contingency of ip violation almost every system that even remotely resembles unix is at stake boy if they win I.T. will be set back thirty years at least
http://www.linuxarkivet.nu/mlists/openbsd-announce /02/msg00001.html
> From: Dion Johnson <dionj@caldera.com>
> To: wht@minnie.tuhs.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:03:37 -0800
> Subject: Liberal license for ancient UNIX sources
> Dear Warren, and friends,
>
> I'm happy to let you know that Caldera International has placed
> the ancient UNIX releases (V1-7 and 32V) under a "BSD-style" license.
> I've attached a PDF of the license letter hereto.
Feels like it happened such a long time ago...
Geeze... You ever graduate first grade? Try reading the post before you run off at the mouth. He said McB would likely die at his own hands. It's not a threat. It's a statement of the sorry bast--d's mental state.
I intended to buy a license to protect me against any future legal problems but couldn't decide which license I should buy.
I have a few questions:
My operating system (I won't quote its name here now, because I don't have the license yet) reports two CPU's. I've got one of those hyper-threading CPU's. Should I buy two licenses? Do you carry fractional licenses?
I am a typical desktop user but I run proptfd, samba and postfix. Now, does this qualify my machine as a server?
What do you mean by the "name of the server"? Names can change as you very well know, for instance www.sco.com can grow to become www.thescogroup.com.
Do you also own proftpd, apache, samba, postfix? How will I know that you will not start asking for more money to cover licenses of programming in C, breathing etc.
By the way; do you also own stdio.h? Should I revise my old programs to get rid of them? On second thought, you might send me the list of IPs that you do not own. This might make life easier for both parties.
I shall appreciate a prompt answer.
Informative, it's because because it begins with the word "interesting" and moderators are sheep.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
This "license" is worthless. According to SCO, reasonable notice of termination of the license in regards to IBM AIX was declairing that at some time there was some piece of SCO IP infringed on. By the date of termination in June 2003, SCO still had not provided anything that the rest of the world would consider a reasonable notice. Yet, SCO still declaired termination of the license. Given SCO's history of declairing "something is wrong" as reasonable notice, I don't see how this likely to be terminated license is worth anything.
... if you cannot connect to shop.sco.com. This is the number listed by SCO for inquiries about SCO product purchases. Be polite.
The page on the SCO site selling the IP licenses alreay seems to be slasdotted. Slashdot, buckle up for a lawsuit.
I welcome our litigious-bastard overlords (SCO)!!
(Don't chop my head off for saying this).
Yeah guys - you sure are going to persuade the entire fucking world to PAY YOU MONEY to use FREE SOFTWARE.... hahahhaa... Good fucking luck.
Linux is an unauthorized derivitave work of the UNIX operating system. This has been established, and despite this, a lot of people are still running illegal copies that are the property of SCO.
If people want to be using Linux for commercial use, they should purchase the SCO Intellectual Property License and use it legally.
This whole SCO debacle reminds me of the tactics used by some Internet malcontents to disrupt mailing lists and news groups. The purpose of the malcontents is to absorb as much of the list members' time in arguing or discussing the malcontent's postings.
The tactics involve posting inflammatory articles, abusing particular people, deliberately misunderstanding other people's posts, etc. All of which is designed to make other people waste their time and get angry.
Think about the following:
The only way to deal with this sort of Internet abuse is to ignore the persons completely. They disappear as soon as they realise they cannot get a rise out of anyone.
If I understand the limitation of liability clause, SCO refuses to indemnify licensees if they should prove unable to use the product or otherwise incur damages due to IP issues. Not only is there the little problem of the GPL, but we can't be sure that there isn't a little infringment lurking in SCO's past, can we? If indemnification is so important for open source vendors, how come it isn't for SCO? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So, what, the psudocode ("Non-literal form") for a function which acts like a function ("Function") which is merely sort of like ("Similar to") a function they own is ALSO a function they own?
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
No, no refunds, ever.
for not paying up now, Linux hippies. You've had the free ride at someone else's expense. Cough up.
Now all I need to do is learn how to be extremely cynical, sarcastic, and coldly technical all at once. But that's just me.
C|N>K
Where do I sign up? The host shop.sco.com (linked from How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License website) is up and running, but with port 80 closed! What is going on? See:
pth@sd:~$ nmap -vp80 shop.sco.com
... good.
Starting nmap V. 2.54BETA31 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
No tcp,udp, or ICMP scantype specified, assuming vanilla tcp connect() scan. Use -sP if you really don't want to portscan (and just want to see what hosts are up).
Warning: You are not root -- using TCP pingscan rather than ICMP
Host shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240) appears to be up
Initiating Connect() Scan against shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240)
The Connect() Scan took 0 seconds to scan 1 ports.
The 1 scanned port on shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240) is: closed
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2 seconds
pth@sd:~$
Is that another desperate PR stunt? I would like to buy a license, to sue them in the future for selling it to me. My lawyer adviced me that it would be a better investment than SCO stock, especially in the case of class action lawsuit. Does anyone has any comments about their EULA? Is it legally binding? If so, then would it be enforceable? And the most important question: Where do I sign up? Thanks.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
where else is SCO trying to sell licenses (and threatening legal action)? Seriously, I'm all for it playing out in courts, but why doesn't someone (IBM, Redhat) try and get a gag order or something. I still want to know how this is legal. It'd be like taking payment for land you're fighting over in court.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just want to confirm that switching to kernel 2.6 will save me the hassle, right?
isn't this supposed to be under the appropriate topic?
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
The license might get some value, when collectors start looking for them.. :D
I'm a little bit confused... So is it Open SCOurce or not?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
All you need to do is post a copy of the page or just list what the page says. There's no need to give them any more excuses for creating FUD...
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
For a start, they can take their complaint up with my vendor, with whom I have a commercial agreement (yes, I'm one of those people who actually bought support. Call me crazy.).
No big deal, here, so far. I'm sure anyone with common sense feels the same way about SCO's ramblings, and as such there's nothing "special" about my statement.
However, I, for one, welcome any invoice(s) SCO might send me (after deobfuscating my email address, of course). Threats of legal action, if they deem it necessary, are fine, not that they'd do that, now, would they?
I expect exactly as much response from me posting this email address here as I managed to get from them when I asked them what the story was with licensing in AU -- in the context of the Australian Trade Practices Act; absolutely none. Even if SCO were technically clued enough to browse Slashdot, they haven't the balls to actually, you know, try their claims on here in Australia. For a start, I'm sure they know how our competition watchdog feels about misrepresentation -- or, indeed, "accidental" misrepresentation...
Come on, SCO, I'd love to be able to fax a copy of any invoice to the ACCC. They'd love to hear from me, too, I'm sure.
Don't they understand that they will only drive corporations to BSD??? I mean, ever since the whole BSD vs. AT&T thing back in the early 90's, BSD is in the clear...
Not that I'm going to switch any of my Linux boxes to BSD (I actually have some machines with BSD too), so even if SCO won the case (severly unlikely), users would simply begin the switch to BSD or another OSS kernel, and with it, development of software...
IANAL... ...But I play one on TV!
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
If SCO is gonna make money from The Linux Kernel from their small bit of code.. Then Linux Kernel developers have a right to claim money off SCO for use of the rest of the kernel's code in their small 20 lines of 'IP'...
without the kernel developers code, what SCO thinks is their code is completely useless
- DensitY
This way of doing business which is tipically american (the american corporations are doing their better to export this corruption everywhere) is harmful for the world. Americans should stop this decadence that grabs aways from the hand of people the possibility to build a better life for itself and theirs families consigning the power to corporations.
Just Buy Your License (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23, @12:33AM (#8360003)
Linux is an unauthorized derivitave work of the UNIX operating system. This has been established, and despite this, a lot of people are still running illegal copies that are the property of SCO.
If people want to be using Linux for commercial use, they should purchase the SCO Intellectual Property License and use it legally.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this essentially say that if someone were to develop code that performs similar functions to SCO's code, they'd be in violation of SCO's attempt to take over the world? Maybe I'm just misreading it, or looking for something that isn't there...
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
If it is software you can buy the license at Darl's. Got a stolen AutoCAD? Yup, that does disk I/O and runs on a computer. Similar, right.
Legalize it for $149 a year, not bad...
This must give other OS vendors at least a handle to attach SCO...
Thomas
SCO today anounced the licenses were finally available. Today they received heavy interest in these licenses with many customers expressing interest.
355 South 520 West Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 USA I'll do it as well, I live in Orem, which isn't that far from Lindon. Perhaps I can contact Pres. Hinckley (Mormon Prophet) and see about getting Darl Excommunicated, I did serve with his son on my mission. ;-)
This is an outrage. i am seing all of these SCO kiss my ass and SCO suxors posts, but the fact is that you as Linux and GPL users are guilty of letting this happen, where is RMS, and Linus why hasn't every company using Linux filed suit against SCO by letting them make these claims Linux Will die. the fact is that 99% of the people who are aware of the SCO Linux controversy believe that SCO will win SCO has already won the public opinion, and now the legal opinion is next. unless SCO is inundated with law suits and public outcry Linux will cease to exist. this is not a troll post the other day i mentioned this to my boss and he believed that SCO owned Linux, after talking to about 10 non technical geeks i realized that they all believed that SCO was going to win, why dint you try the same experiment and you will see that the rest of the world thinks that SCO is right. there is only one way to change this, fight fire with fire, sue SCO call your DA and charge SCO for fraud, call the sec write your senator and explain to everyone you know why you are convinced that SCO is wrong. but i encourage you talk to a few non geeks, ask them about SCO and you will be terrified to see that most normal people believe that Linux is infringing on SCO.
THIS IS NOT A TROLL
i like Linux its a great OS and i would hate to see it die before it had a chance to bloom. fight back, sue write and talk to non geeks.
hey, you never know, they might become collectors items,
Be a good communist/terrorist/kiddie fiddler (strike out what doesn't apply) and use GIMP like the rest of us ;)
:)
Kjella
P.S. Actually I don't use GIMP. Paint Shop Pro, baby
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
They don't actually mention Linux except by reference to "Operating System". This licence is not offering anything. It's only a "licence" to not be sued. So! Their only product really is barratry, after all.
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux(R) operating system.
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO's standard commercial license.
"Software" shall mean the Operating System in Object Code format.
"Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and related system documentation, including all comments and any procedural language.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
"Update" shall mean the updates or revisions in Object Code format of the Software that You may receive. Update shall not include any alteration, modification or derivative work of the Operating System prepared by You.
GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under this Agreement to be in vi
"If you don't want anything bad happening to your business in the future, pay up."
Now, where did I hear something like that before...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Good one, Sir!!! LOTFL!!!!!!1 :))))))))))
As for their excuse... they have no right to distribute Samba except under the GPL. D'ohl MacBride is officially on record as having said that the GPL is unconstitutional and violates "the U.S. copyright and patent laws". Ergo, they are illegally distributing Samba, whether by distributing it in violation of the constitution, or in the absence of permission from the copyright holders.
shop.sco.com not accepting connections.
503 Service Unavailable
this is a link to a page with this link which goes nowhere.
Could SCO be accused of pulling a Bait & Switch? First SCO distributes Linux under the GPL, companies become dependant on it, and now they demand cash for Linux.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
So, in paying for this license, you agree that anything you develope IN unix/linux becomes their IP...
What a wonderful license.
And they called the GPL viral.
SCO will have a hard time convincing any judge that it is more than an agent (getting 5% of System V license revenue) for Novell. Apple is largely covered by the Novell-UCB settlement. Microsoft is good friends with TSG after their contribution to the warchest. I guess Darl will call Redmond soon for a new donation.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
...well what about Germany/Australia, SCO will never be able to claim anything in that countries unless all claims are validated by a court.
I would be happy to see many Linux devs moving to
my country, the american IT economy is biting its own ass, if SCO has sharp teeth or just a squisihy
teethless mouth like a HoBo remains to be seen, anyway.
I don't care if those who bought their bullshit and paid up lose their cash.
What I care about is that the responsible within SCO and their shareholders are held accountable. If what we suspect is the case (moved from software development business to litigation businiess), these lowlives really need to be put behind bars! After all, if this flies, what will stop another company from doing something similar?
Stop the brainwash
What are you waiting for? Complain!
I just made my complain, the details of SCO in the UK are the following:
Trader's Name
SCO
Trader's Address:
Titan Court
3 Bishop Square
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Trader's Phone No
01707 226014
Trader's Fax No
01707 226190
I verified the phone number and it is current.
Remember, this company is trying to charge you for something whose owenrship is dubious to say the least. I equalled it with somebody tryng to sell you the right to "Lord of the Rings" without showing he actually has the legal rights to do so.
Complain! It takes 5 minutes and could help (for once let the goverment do something useful).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Coming up: used SCO licenses on Ebay. No bidders so far: $1.00
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Confronted with a bill for a SCO Linux license, The Al Quaeda Group sent the equivalent of $699 in C4 to the Utah based company's HQ. According to the press release by The Al Quaeda Group, VISA declined to give them a credit card, so they decided to use an alternative way of payment.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Otherwise Al Capone would have called as witnesses the business owners for which "protection" was successfully sold.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
YEah, Right :)
:) better yet, the pirate-ware price is just under $1. so for 100 buck, you get 100 software :) guarentied to works!
in Indonesia, you are not going to find a person buying the licence, heck, I'm running an un-lincence windows 98, XP sp1, and not getting sued for like 6 year
so, move out to indonesia, develop any program you like, and sell them for thousand bucks for the US maket, with out ever buying any licence.
They have a potential profit monster on their hands. If the American legal system rules in their favor, then it'll be ILLEGAL to not give them a bunch of money. All it'll take is some back-room dealing asshole of a judge or government type to give them the nod, and suddenly, according to American Law, you'll owe SCO a bunch of money, some of which will probably pass to the appropriate 'Law' maker in fat envelopes.
In other news, Bush has bypassed congress to install another judge. .
Get the hell out of the US. SCO is a bunch of 'survivor-winning' psychopathic assholes, but their time in the sun may well come thanks to the chaos being brewed up by Bush and his kind.
-FL
What we really need to do is find out who are all the people working for these Bozos and point out they are making themselves unemployable.
We need a name list - a real 'Hall of Shame'
- for chrissakes ther are some TECHIES in there who SHOULD KNOW BETTER !!!!!!!!!
Soon, real soon now Darl will be delivering my pizzas, hot and on time. The only tip he'll get will be a kick in the ass.
Um, I just clicked on that link, and it's good. I tried downloading the source for aalib (picked at random), and it worked.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
(i'm-no-lawyer-but).. from what I understand it is not the user who has breached their copyright (if there is any violation at all) but the distributor of the OS.
You may not have a licence to copy this work, but you do have a right to use it unless you enter a contractual agreement not to.
If you redistribute it you will be infringing their (alleged) copyright.
disclaimer: don't be dumb enough to trust anonymous legal advice.
But Mork from Ork is white.
If anyone is going to buy a SCO licence They may want to buy one of mine too.
Just send 10 of your local currency notes to me and I'll give you nothing in return.
Thank you, Come again.
For being stupid? Even if a different sort of Trolly stupid?
From what I have read, if it looks like Unix and behaves like Unix it is Unix. Well I'm not too sure about that. I have been writing code now for a good 8 years and they're sometimes only one way to do thing. ADT are probably the most common. So with what is stated in the SCO license, some of my applications are infringing on they're IP because I'm using a stack. Come on! Anyway that's my 2 cents
I sell hotcakes! You insensitive clod!
How do I let someone know when my hotcakes are selling well?
So, will SCO be making an educational discount available?
And two potential blunders in the license I'm curious about:
First it does seem that while SCO has the "does not grant a right to recieve any distribution of software from SCO or any other third party", and I'm not a lawyer, it seems that they are revoking their rights (for $699) to sue you for possessing a pirated copy of their software.
Second, SCO IP is defined as IP in binary code licensed by SCO under its standard commercial license. Does Caldera/SCO cross-license IP with anyone? If so, is there any situation where Caldera/SCO would be the reponsible party if you use such IP? They've given up their own right to go after you in such a case, as far as I can tell. Is there any chance that they've given out more rights than they want to? I'd love to find a terrible loophole in their license.
May we never see th
Steve
Hey!
Im probably way out on a limb, and there is something about their verbiage that I have missed, but:
Linux (and Caldera aka Lineo) all advertised that you could buy (or download) a single copy of the media and load it on as many systems as you wanted to.
Does this mean that I could buy a single license to go with my single purchased/downlaoded copy of the installation media and, following the Linux GPL license install it everywhere?
Just curious.
Look what my ISP (wanadoo.fr) did to the shop.sco.com namespace :
...
02/23/04 15:09:59 dig shop.sco.com @ 193.252.19.1
Dig shop.sco.com@193.252.19.1
Non-authoritative answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for shop.sco.com type=255 class=1
shop.sco.com A (Address) 127.0.0.1
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns.wanadoo.fr
sco.com NS (Nameserver) ns2.wanadoo.fr
ns.wanadoo.fr A (Address) 193.252.19.1
ns2.wanadoo.fr A (Address) 193.252.19.2
That's so funny shit!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvor Hardin
Next revisionist historians will be saying: "In the pioneering days of the internet, widespread compiler ownership was a myth. The majority of internet users did not own a compiler, much less know how to read the source..." :)
How would that be revisionist history?
---
In most countries there are consumer associations and fair trade offices.
You can raise a complaint in exactly those grounds: they are trying to sell something which they can't probe they own.
SCO should STFU regarding charging anybody until all legal maneouvering is done and dusted.
We can force them to retreat regarding this today, in a couple of years they will be history, but I want them to stop now because there are many of us out there trying to make business while this litigious bastards are trying to steal something to which they have no right whatsoever.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Monopoly courts and monopoly lawyers
Following in SCO's footsteps, I have decided to sell licences for your use of the internet. That's correct - you're favourite intraweb browser contains code which is my intellectual property.
... was directly copied from numerous projects I have developed.
For example, look a line 321 in main.c:
for(i=0; i<count; i++)
Or line 5:
unsigned int i;
Thankfully you can use the internet legally! That's right - simply PayPal your payment to payments AT zone-mr DOT ath DOT cx now!
Maybe I have not looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a way to apply for/aquire a license via telephone or US Mail.
I don't know all the legalities involved, but it sure seems, to me anyway, that they are trying very hard to stay away from any potential for wire/mail fraud charges.
What is the bet that if you managed to get them to send you a paper application/document of any type, they will refuse to use the USPS and instead use Fed Ex. or United Parcel, etc.
I think it is time to try an force their hand. Contact them via registered US Mail, asking them for a license application, a EULA and an exact description of the property to be covered by the license. Provide them a prepaid and registered return shipping envelope. Provide a P.O. Box as the only available method of contact. As far as I know, a P.O. Box is undeliverable to anyone except the USPS
Surely a prospective license applicant has the right to inquire as to the exact nature of what is going to be included in the purchase prior to purchase. I cannot imagine that they can reply, legally, with "Stuff that we cannot reveal". Maybe they do not have to give line by line details, but surely they would have to state the general material that requires a license.
I suppose you could even get more detailed, explain your server/client configuration. Ask them for a detailed quote to bring your installations up to "legal" status as you desire to avoid potential litigation.
Seems they would only have two options. One: Send you the information as you requested and potentially expose themselves to mail fraud. Two: Fail to respond, as specified, at which point it would appear that they cannot proceed against you as you acted in "good faith?" trying to acquire the "necessary" license(s).
So, could the screwy definition that SCO has chosen for "UNIX-based" consititute an infringement of the intellectual property of the Open Group trademark for UNIX (TM)?
That would be an irony for you: "No, no, your code is fine, but your license itself violates our intellectual property; you must cease and desist using it immediately."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Surely the Linux vendors are getting pretty pissed off at SCO's FUD when they say things like, "These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO property and many are running critical business applications on Linux." They used the word "allegations" in the previous sentence, but it would be very easy (yes, I know this is the whole idea) to scare people into buying a "just-in-case" license. Depending, of course, on the cost, which I didn't see, because their store site is down).
Like I said, I know that's the whole point of what they're doing (part of the whole point, anyway), but they shouldn't be allowed to do that as long as the illegality of Linux hasn't been established. Seems like RedHat and the rest would have a pretty good case against SCO for damaging the reputation of their products.
RP
I assume that's a property in the UK version of the game. Is it the one just before Go (aka "Boardwalk" in the U.S.?)
Linux is an unauthorized derivitave work of the UNIX operating system.
People, it is illegal to use Linux without a license from the SCO Group. Face the facts. Just because it used to be free and fine, doesn't mean it is now.
If people want to be using Linux for commercial use, they should purchase the SCO Intellectual Property License and use it legally.
If you don't want to pay for the license, don't use Linux.
What the heck is Mayfair? I played lots of Monopoly as a kid but never saw Mayfair anywhere. Is this some non-US thing?
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
How in the hell do you license systems that run X?
Lets see, I have two computers running headless with client applications installed and I have a desktop workstation running an X Server. If I run applications on either of them using remote X, the server is on my Desktop and the client is on the "server?". So which freaking systems needs a server license? All or none?
SCO's defined limitation of a desktop, "It may not host services for clients on other systems.", and SCO defines a server, "A Linux server system is one that hosts services for clients on other systems.".
Is a client a person or a program run by a person? Does accepting data from a remote program that is being run by a person that is using the computer receiving the data qualify as a server?
In this case, do I need to acquire server licenses for all the desktops and a desktop license for the server?
Finally, my gateway/firewall. It technically provides a service, as it lets us connect thru it. Is NAT considered a service? Normally I admin it via ssh, so it would seem to qualify as a server. However, I am not clear that the firewall is providing a service to me by running ssh for it's own administration. It is kinda providing a service to itself which would not seem to qualify. Hell, I don't really want to connect to it, it just kinda forces me because it needs attention every now and then. Maybe I should be licensed by SCO as I run linux on a remote device(my computer) and I provide a service to the firewall! I wonder what SCO will charge for a Human Server License? Surely they own some sort of genetic DNA copyrights! If I disable ssh and connect a monitor and admin it locally can I avoid a server license? Then again, allowing my to avoid standing in a dark closet balancing a keyboard on my knee while looking at 14" monitor on the floor is a service I suppose. Does providing convienience require a server license?
Screw it, I am dumping all this gear in a river and getting web TV!!!! Please tell me SCO does not hold Web TV rights! $699.00 is a bit steep for that screwy web access!
....when someone posts Darls credit card # for me to use.
Doesn't NT and it derivatives have some System V concepts in it?
Do the windows users out there need to buy a license as well?
Cheers
Could someone make me a copy of one of those please?
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
I'm sure that most people here recall what Rambus did with JEDEC--how the company pretended to be a part of the JEDEC process during the development of DDR SDRAM standards, and how RAMBUS withheld critical info from the other members of JEDEC as to patents it had already filed which it considered pertinent to the developing DDR SDRAM standard it was helping to formulate with the other JEDEC members. Then, long after the DDR SDRAM standard was adopted by the JEDEC members, and the stuff started shipping in quantity from JEDEC member companies, wham! Rambus comes along and says "Surprise! Guess what guys--we own the rights to this stuff and you're going to have to pay us!"
No doubt this was the Rambus revenge on the market for rejecting Rdram, and a secondary strategy the company employed as a backup in case their Intel-backed Rdram initiative failed, which it did. Although suffering some initial judicial setbacks, Rambus still has its eye on the prize and is quietly working through a variety of appeals courts in several countries. Although what Rambus did with repsect to JEDEC was obviously and highly immoral, Rambus continues to pursue the proposition that their actions were not, however, illegal with respect to the application of existing patent law.
Enter SCO, using much the same approach and srategy Rambus publicized, in relation to the use of of its undescribed, undefined unix code.
The idea here, and the strategy here, is pretty much a "sucker-bait" or "bait and switch" tactic that a number of companies are attempting to inflict upon their respective markets. As a strategy what it involves is offering so-called "free Open Source" standards or software to the markets for an extended period of time so that an appreciable market penetration occurs, and then the ax falls--or at least tries to fall...;)
Out of the blue, people everywhere who have been using oss, and have become accustomed to it and have integrated it into their business environments are told by SCO: "Surprise! It wasn't really free or open to begin with, and we're sorry you didn't realize this, but now we're telling you, so pay up!"
Contrast this way of doing business with the traditional method of informing your customers in advance that you are selling proprietary software at a price that is to be negotiated prior to the sale of licenses, the way that Microsoft, for instance, has always done things (or Apple with OS X, etc., and every other commercial software company you might think of.)
The situation relative to JEDEC and its open standards hardware committees is fairly easy to correct, providing that JEDEC member companies are willing to sign written, stringent agreements designed to eliminate the possibility of a Rambus repeat in the future. I would assume as the other JEDEC companies have never before pulled a Rambus that they would be willing to do so as it is in their direct interests. But if not, it's difficult to see much of a future for sensible concepts like JEDEC in light of the abuses Rambus has inflicted on the concept.
The so-called "open source" software situation is, however, not nearly as clear cut, imo. The main thing for people to realize and ponder is that "Open Source Software" is not manna from heaven. It doesn't fall out of the sky, and lots of people who contribute to it spend appreciable amounts of time and resources doing so. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect, therefore, that the various contributors to oss code have sometimes very different motivations for their contributions, and some of them may well have longer-range plans for it similar to what has developed with SCO. I really think it is quite unreasonable given the present circumstances to think otherwise.
From what I've seen of the SCO positions as publicized, SCO doesn't actually have a position other than the idea of winning the day in court somewhere through a process of attrition, based on the notion that statements that would seem ludicrous and absurd to the technology sector might s
Has anyone thought of buying these fuckers via a hostile takeover.
"Next revisionist historians will be saying: "In the pioneering days of the internet, widespread compiler ownership was a myth. The majority of internet users did not own a compiler, much less know how to read the source..." :)"
This is already the case, depending on what you mean by "the pioneering days of the Internet." Are you talking about ARPAnet? Ok, well then maybe not. But if this is 10-20 years down the line, you could be referring to "now," in which case I'd say yes, probably 95% of the people on the Internet don't know how to read source or compile code. Personally, I can read source and have some understanding of it, but damned if I can get anything I write to compile (I'm not a programmer).
Not every geek is a programmer, and that's okay.
+++ATH0
the lukewarm prosecution of the Microsoft case, energy policy, Enron, and Halliburton might indicate that if you are a big company or have donated large amounts of money to the appropriate party, you might be able to break the law, hose your investors and employees, and walk away scot-free (or nearly so). Executives might be encouraged to take the money and run, knowing that if they give money to the right people they could escape the consequences of their misdeeds. I don't think GWB has anything to do with SCO, but when public policy is written as a consequence of donations to the exclusion of much else, executives might understandably believe that other things might be purchaseable as well.
you mean, the last three Republican administrations, who have run up lots of debt (well over half) while magically expanding the gov't further? If this is smaller gov't then apparently we aren't speaking the same language....
Unfortunately, all the talk of lawsuits and RICO, etc. etc. is for naught. Most people do not buy Linux distros, therefore, they have no damages to claim. If everyone purchased a distro, they might have a claim for damages, and two, they would be putting money in the pockets of those companies that make good software at a reasonable price, making them more fit to litigate. Or, imagine tens of thousands of people buying distros, then filing suits in small claims court? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps?
What a deal!! Better than the GPL!!
This is a golden opportunity to hit SCO in the pocketbook!
:-)
Sign up and pay for a license. Once the transaction goes through, call your credit card company and reverse the charge. This costs SCO money - they refund your original amount plus pay a fee to the bank. If enough ppl do it they will lose the right to accept credit cards.
P.S. IANAL, so if this constitutes fraud, I wouldn't know.
A pretty blue button with the text "Buy Now!" follows.
...that a "SCO license" is like a "fishing license" or "deer hunting license". Is it SCO season already? Oh boy! My favorite time of the year!
Beware blue cats moving at
a. "pros," or professional users who use multiple operating systems and really just view each in terms of their usefulness as a tool and are really indifferent as far as a choice of OSs go.
b. the "priests," or users who view Linux and open source software as the solution, no matter what, as the solution and are fanatical and closed-minded.
c. the "zealots," users who generally use a male body part as their web pseudonym and are terrorists. He says "The Zealots are rude and crude, and the sentence "two beers short of a six-pack" defines them well."
I wonder, has the author ever considered the possible existence of Linux users, like myself, who just like Linux and the whole concept of open software?
If we can steal Darl McBride's credit card #.. then we can max his credit card by buying linux licencese.. at $669 a pop we could max out his credit card easily.... I think that would be more useful than a DOS attack on the shop site..