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.
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
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
Does that mean you have to pay multiple times if you have a compile different compiled kernels sitting in /boot?
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."
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"
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....
It looks like they are trying to get Windows added to the list... POSIX compliance.
That will sure increase the war chest!
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.
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.
So if you obtain the source and compile it yourself, are you then required to purchase a license? Or are they saying that you can only legally use the binaries, and that compiling the source is not even supposed to happen?
Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
... 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?
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.
We all know what "permanent and irrevocable" means to SCO ...
Lurking in the desert
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.
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.
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?
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 ...)
Running sshd or Samba makes your computer a server. Between those two applications, I'd say that nearly no one qualifies for the "Desktop" license. How is SCO planning to enforce that, anyway? Does each license come with a free portscan?
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...
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."
Here's an in-depth article describing that phenomenon. I never thought of it this way, but indeed it's analogy is striking!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I think (though not completely positive) that the parent is referring to the fact that MS Windows code actually contains Unix code for use in interfacing with Unix systems. Since SCO is licensing only binaries, and MS contains those binaries within a wrapper, then servers utilizing MS software would have to pay SCO the $699 per processor fee. (Of course I could be mistaken, so please consult an expert.)
Correct. You are expressly not authorized to view or modify the Linux source code if you agree to the license. I think this means you can't even compile the kernel to add/remove device drivers.
When I tried to get through the ordering process, I got:
Safari can't open the page "http://shop.sco.com/" because it could not connect to the server "shop.sco.com".
at about the time it would have started getting serious and telling me pricing and other details.
So I tried again. Got:
Internal Server Error
Geez, you'd think an operating system vendor would know how to run, well, an operating system.
Right?
Um.
Right?
D
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?
Here's to hoping for a response. I'll post anything I hear back
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
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
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.
step1: buy SCO license for Linux
step2: wait 5 years for it to become a collectors item
step3: sell license on ebay
step4: profit!
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
So the success of SCO's offer depends mostly on how many of these there are. This offer might just bring the vermin crawling out from the woodwork. Like cockroaches, for every one you see in the open, there may be many more hiding in the crevaces.
Not everyone who's against free software can afford to contribute millions of dollars to SCO's fud campaign. This gives the little guys a chance.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
Like many a geek, I can highly recommend playing the new Lord Of The Rings Monopoly instead, if time (or indeed an enjoyable evening) is a concern.
It replaces the '1' on one of the dice with the Eye Of Sauron, and every time it appears on a roll you move the Ring along one property. Once it reaches Mount Doom (previously known as Mayfair), the game ends, and whoever is the richest at that point wins. So far, on four-player games, that is only just about enough time for one player to go bankrupt, so no-one ends up sitting around for 3 hours waiting for the increasingly obvious conclusion, and everyone has fun.
Its the first 'novelty' Monopoly board that I've actually thought really worth buying to supplement a standard set.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Technically, if you buy this license, SCO will know exactly who you are, and once they find you running your machine with an open web or ftp port they can sue you for breach of contract.
Now, IANAL, but that's exactly how that sounds to me, and I wouldn't put it past SCO to issue a license that the other side immediately breaches.
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