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!
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."
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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
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 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.
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.
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...
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?"