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
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.
Start charging yourself to log in. Congratulations, you're a data processing service bureau. If only you had more than one customer...
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....
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 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.
Until I can buy them at ThinkGeek I'm not gonna waste my money. :)
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?
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.
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.
Ok disregard this post, two seconds after hitting submit I realized that not only am I not a lawyer but also an idiot.
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
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.
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.
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.
Moderators: How the fuck is this Interesting? More like +5 Incoherent.
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?
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.
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.
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
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 ...)
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.
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."
... 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
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/
... when I say, "The fine people at SCO can line up to take turns kissing my ass."
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!
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 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
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!
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!
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.
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.
Yeah, but at least the moderators think you're an Informative idiot.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
SCO License available here
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!
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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."
The license might get some value, when collectors start looking for them.. :D
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...
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
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.
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.
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?
---
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).
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