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.
Even microsoft users should be coughing up !!
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.
i wouldn't say that. they're just going after the people who are the easiest targets to find and who are the most likely to cough up the money.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
don't give them money to prolong this, they'll go broke long before Rico comes into effect, so you wouldn't even get your money back.
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.
OTOH, many articles, like the present, concentrate on the PR front. This is where SCO makes claims, such as we 0wn Linux simply because we wish we did and we want out wishes reality, and then back this unique view of reality with threats, websites, and sound bytes. It is sad because we are not in 2000 and the dotcom boom is over.
So yes, the ATT letter does seem to make the case against IBM moot, which is why they changed their case against IBM. OTOH, nothing short of bankruptcy and fraud lawsuits will change their opinion that SCO deserves money from anyone who run Linux because Linux just stole everything from Unix. It's too bad that argument did not work for Apple. I suppose we would not have to deal with monstrous MS plague. Or perhaps we should be glad that the argument did work for IBM, otherwise we would still be paying $5000 for a basic Intel machine. Of course that might mean the Mac, and even solaris and alpha machines, would be extremely competitive.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
Replying to myself... bad, I know... but I should probably acknowledge that the above post is incorrect, and its parent is correct: their "Linux license FAQ" does make it clear that their IP license only entitles you to use Linux binaries, not "their" Linux source.
Since they still refuse to identify what Linux source they "own", it's unclear how you're supposed to stick to that part of the license, or indeed how you're supposed to get Linux binaries in the first place. The whole thing is a bit weird.
I doubt it matters what OS the computer is running. A human has to process those orders at some point.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
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!
WHY would they do that? Wanting to claim they got DDOSed again? Darl needs to be prosecuted for fraud.
--
Long live Debian! Free Software! Help keep it free. Click the link in my sig. For too much information, click my homepage.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn