Slashdot Mirror
Computer Associates Pays Off SCO
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"."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".
...is it even legal to do that when the court hasn't even made a decision yet?
"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter," Computer Associates said in a statement. "CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
In August when CA did this they weren't intimidating/threatening? CA didn't know any better because they weren't paying too much attention to SCO's bullshit and not enough to the people who actually have a clue?
Sucks when you are caught between a rock and a hard place I guess.
Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Wasn't it already said that CA was buying a UNIX licenses and they added linux into the contract just for completeness?
CA lost a lawsuit against another company controlled by Canopy (SCO's parent company.)
As a part of that settlment, SCO was required to purchase UnixWare licenses from SCO. SCO placed language in that license that also gave CA the right to SCO's Linux IP. Now SCO is using this to say that CA is a licensee.
The really interesting part is that this shows Canopy manuvering other companies it controls to benefit SCO. This may give IBM an opportunity to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Canopy's assets in the counter-suit.
Mike
This article starts of with a complete untruth by stating that this "Purchase" is "key legal ammunition". It is no such thing has it will not have relevance in the court case so is more propaganda ammunition than anything.
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
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
The least you could do was change the title, as it stands your spreading FUD, try editing it to something more in line with reality like: CA Settlement mis-represented, Canopy Groups twisted web. or CA says 'not willing participant in fiaSCO' or CA says '2 for 1 licenses' do not an enorsement make.
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.
I was under the impression that CA bought the licenses under a sealed settlement under completely unrelated suit. Unless I'm mistaken, CA bought licenses for UnixWare (or some other Old-SCO product), for which each automatically included a binary Linux license.
It sounds like SCO quitely tacked on the "free Linux binary license" in order to give the illusion of legitamacy within the indrustry to their Linux claims. It's a sneaky, bullshit move. I hope that the courts see this the same way I do. OTOH, the EV1 move was not trickery on SCO's part. That was just EV1 being stupid.
-Turkey
2) The Beatles broke up.
3) The Berlin Wall is down.
4) The Soviet Union is no more.
5) Slashdot editors have poor memories or cannot search their own archives.
Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge:
You'll also find this on news.com.com.com.com:
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
Intellectual property, or IP, experts said CA's license could help convince a jury that SCO has a justified claim on Linux.
So if I can convince one person to pay me toll, that proves to a jury I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge? This reduces reductio ad absurdum down to the absurdum.
"Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury..."
To jury in closing args: "It must be our IP, and many others agree... we've already licensed it to several, large, well-respected technology companies."
Whether you agree with SCO or not (I don't), they're making a hell of an effort to control some key elements of open source software. We shouldn't laugh it off and expect them to go away... these guys are going for the kill... they're deadly serious. Their lawyers don't care whether they actually own any code or not. Wake up to this threat before it's too late.
They say this is not true http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03 /05/0249257&mode=thread
You are right and I think if you read deeply both articles are saying the same thing. From the forbes one:
And from News Forge:
It seems that SCO are once again desperately trying to twist the facts to sopport their case. In reality, SCO "just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses"
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
'Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".'
That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.
I'll probably be modded as flame for this, but I have to say I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...
How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I was just waiting for the daily SCO story after reading this new BOFH.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
I honestly think that for every company that pays SCO for that 'license' should be boycotted by the user community
This would not be productive. CA's minor contribution to SCO is not going to make the difference between SCO winning and losing their case. It might, however, make the difference between CA continuing to use, and sell, free of distraction, linux products to customers who might not feel comfortable using them otherwise. Which of these is better for the linux community?
I'm not a smorgasbord.
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?
The sad part is when you consider how many article submissions were rejected in favor of posting this misleading repeat.
CA's payment was only $19,000 - not bad to settle a $40 million lawsuit. I don't think CA's paying SCO $19,000 qualifies as a ringing endorsement.
Why were SCO IP licenses involved at all? Wasn't the lawsuit between CA and Canopy? Could this be enough to pierce the corporate viel between SCO and Canopy?
Some things are more important than an animated rat
For going through the trouble of reading the subject and/or body of this post, I hereby grant you license to IP I own in Linux.
Heh heh, now I can submit a press release claiming I sold Linux licenses to hundreds or thousands of Slashdot readers. Muahahahah!
(I feel compelled to add a disclaimer that this is satire and as far as I know I currently don't own any IP in Linux and therefore can't grant you any license. Geez, that's a joke kill.)
A good way for CA to distance themselves from SCO is to publically donate money to the OSDL defence fund. Issue press releases that you do so and that you don't approve of the SCO intimidation tactic.
)9TSS
We've known for five days now that CA only got the license because they were forced to in a settlement.
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1543091,00
"Sam Greenblatt, chief architect of the Linux technology group for CA, in Islandia. N.Y., told eWEEK that while 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 [Inc.]. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation."
With licensees like this, who needs enemies?
Steven
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Here and here.
Not that I'm against ragging on SCO and their stupidity, but isn't this horse dead?
If we should believe the Forbes article, signing the licence would be just as bad as paying for. If it i s signed SCO could use that to show that other companies respect SCO rights to Linux.
If it works this way, we could expect that SCO have given away their "we do not sue you, until we can figure out how" - insurance to a lot of companies and will have a lot of acceptance track record to show up in court. But lets hope they are too greedy to do that.
And by now it would be hard to pull this trick, as so far it has bin SCO customers that have bin dragged to court. People and companies using Linux without any SCO involvment seams to be at low risk.
Doing business with SCO could also trigger actions e.g. boycotts and lawsuits from the open source movement. They could expect denial of service attacs either from misled angry wannebe members of the open source community (hope it never happens) or instigated by the SCO/Microsoft combo trying to discredit the open source movement. In this war everything seams to be permitted. And the best way to stay out of it seams to be to avoid SCO at all costs.
By the way look at the SCO stock! Now below $11!
It seams that investors too, have lost faith in SCO. Time for a new hidden infusion from Microsoft?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
A least the investors got it right this time:
1 year SCOX chart
5 days SCOX chars
Slashdot already reported this last week. How SCO was spinning the breach of contract money as a Linux license.
"Sufferin' succotash."