Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Computer Associates Pays Off SCO

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the say-it-ain't-so dept.

jford235 writes "Forbes reports that CA has paid the fee to SCO for their license. The deal went down in August but today CA has says that they have taken steps to "distance itself from SCO"."

8 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading Headline by Thorofin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".

    1. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read Groklaw as ever. There is more in later stories too).

  2. Isn't this a repeat? by mbenzi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't it already said that CA was buying a UNIX licenses and they added linux into the contract just for completeness?

  3. What a lame headline... by Filter · · Score: 5, Informative

    To run this story under that headline makes this site seem as desperate as Forbes. The real story is easy for anyone to see about 5p down

    >>"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter,"
    >>"CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."

    --

    "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

  4. CA sees it a little different by mtthws · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the funny thing. CA is saying they did not pay off SCO. They were just buying unix liscense they were forced to by as the result of losing a lawsuit about unix liscenes. SCO threw they indemdification for one linux manchine for every unix liscense in there so they could claim CA was a linux liscense. CA keeps saying they want nothing to do with the linux liscense.

    --
    "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
  5. Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses by _bug_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    As you can see here CA was GIVEN these licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy Group, one of SCO's major investors. Canopy was looking to lighten the financial burden, and so they threw in the licenses like they were water.

  6. Update the Article! by kuwan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge:

    CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
    Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
    As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.

    You'll also find this on news.com.com.com.com:

    Computer Associates, which has begun making its management software available on Linux, acknowledged it had the license, but took pains to distance itself from SCO's methods.
    "CA disagrees with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers. CA's license for Linux technology is part of a larger settlement with the Canopy Group. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation," said a statement from Sam Greenblatt, senior vice president and chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group.
    Greenblatt has been an outspoken Linux fan. "The whole world is going to unite around a single operating system, and it's going to be Linux," he said in a keynote address at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in January.

    Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)

    --
    infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
  7. Thanks for pushing SCO's FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Don't the /. moderators even bother to RTFA at all?

    The headline effectively states CA bought a SCO Linux license, when nothing of the sort happened.

    Canopy put a SCO Linux "license" in with other stuff in the settlement of a breach of contract lawsuit.

    And now SCO (and /., apparently) start spouting off hou that means CA bought a Linux "license".

    Anyone now doubt that Canopy and SCO are intertwined? Or that they both have Bill Gates hand shoved up their asses like the ragged sock puppets they are?