Slashdot Mirror
SCO Sells First Linux Licenses in UK
Christopher writes "SCO has actually sold its first Linux licenses in the UK. These licenses permit the use of SCO's intellectual property that is apparently present in Linux distributions, and in binary form only. To my understanding SCO hasn't won yet and these licenses don't grant you any freedoms you didn't already have, but SCO's vice president Chris Sontag says that 20 to 30 organisations worldwide have purchased these licenses."
There are also people who sell land on the moon. It's wortless, and people pitty the ones who buy it.
Underholdning.info
05 Aug 2004.
Hmm
Outdated News for Nerds, Stuff that nobody wants to hear anything about anymore.
Ask enough people for money for majic beans and eventually someone will bite.
Just some corporate arse covering
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
Ya they all happen to be Microsoft, Microsoft England, Microsoft Germany, Microsoft India, Microsoft Brazil, etc etc etc.
...that there is AT LEAST 20 to 30 morons around the world.
Congrats SCO for convincing a bunch of PHBs that they need to pay you for nothing.
It just goes to show that the English will queue up for anything.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
At the very least, holding out until it is legally decided would seem to be the prudent way to go (unless you somehow *know* that SCO is going to win).
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
... will all those who bought licenses get their money back?
A 500 seat/licence company would be quite different.
You must be in bad shape if selling your first license in a country garners a headline. And 20 to 30 organisations worldwide? Is that supposed to lend merit to SCO's case. This just shows that there are still idiots out there, even at the corporate level.
You have to wonder if he's going after other organizations by just saying "oh sure, we've got 20-30 other organizations that have paid us money". The man at Mens Warehouse tried the same technique on me just last week. Although I would hope that the large companies that paid the loot are above GroupThink.
I anxiously await the day when criminal charges are filed against SCO executives for all this deliberate deception and fraudulently mafioso style collection of extortion fees.
For my own sanity I hope the day comes quickly, I can only stay entertained for so long.
Muu ha ha ha harrr.
Muu Haa Haa Haa Haarrrr.
Muu Haa Haa Haa Haarrrr!!!!
Just wondering what options these organisations will have once SCO's case is dismissed? At what point is public deception so severe that criminal cases can be opened against executives who knowingly lie to the public?
I have this great bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.
According to the date on the linked article, this is from last August.
People can't be that moronic. Sco isn't even near close to winning, or so atleast the educated folks at slashdot know. I have a feeling it might be M$ pushing anti-linux proganda through 'Liscenses' in which its more publicity than fear of having an almost bankrupt dellusional company 'sue' you for illegally using 'their' product.
je suis parce que j'aime
Good morning inhabitors of planet earth, our scientists tell us that oxygen was licensed in our galaxy far far away a long long time ago. Please pay us one animal or spare bodypart, for us to experiment on, for each and every one of you who want to breathe.
Sincerely,
Sigma Celesti Omega Galaxy.
Maybe this company actually did violate SCO's copyrights and are now paying up. It's not an impossibility. IMHO SCO are just playing this up for as much publicity as they can get.
...or anything, but you wonder how the sales patter goes...
...or 'protection'?
"Buy these licences because, if we win and you DON'T have one, you'll end up paying through the nose.."
is it equivalent to insurance?
This is in fact an ex-license!
It is no more!
It has ceased to be!
(Or, maybe:)
Customer: Aah, how about Unix?
Wenslydale: Well, we don't get much call for it around here, sir.
Customer: Not much ca--It's the single most popular operating system in the world!
Wenslydale: Not 'round here, sir.
Customer: and what IS the most popular cheese 'round hyah?
Wenslydale: Linux, sir.
Customer: IS it.
Wenslydale: Oh, yes, it's staggeringly popular in this manor, squire.
Customer: Is it.
Wenslydale: It's our number one best seller, sir!
Customer: I see. Uuh...Linux, eh?
Wenslydale: Right, sir.
Customer: All right. Okay. 'Have you got any?' he asked, expecting the answer 'no'.
Wenslydale: I'll have a look, sir... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
*is run over by rotten tomatoes*
I think it is impressive that they have managed to convince anyone that there is even something damp behind the dam, let alone bona fide water.
At least some people in UK believed that they had to send them money. :-)
Am I legally aloud to go around selling 'licenses to use' something that isn't currently and 'officially' mine? Say I deem SCO's products to have IP derived from me, can I go around selling my "SCO License" or can SCO sue me for such? (if so.. Linux should sue SCO for tainting their products/image)
Newsflash: Only 1 in 10 million complete idiots would buy a SCO license.
This whole "case" turned boring quite a while ago.
Being a Brit I have to say that I have experienced the most ineptitude from the UK IT community, for one I have had more frustrations with UK websites from that country than any other so far.
So, I am not surprised some idiots in the UK have purchased licenses from SCO, bet they thought they got a great deal especially as the exchange rate is favourable to them.
StarTux
Please don't start another slashdot cliche joke(I dont't know the exact term). I am already sick of "will it run on linux" and "netcraft confirms it".
It would be interesting to know who these org are organizations because:
1. We might want to avoid them like the plague;
2. We might want to help the poor bastards out - they clearly need help;
3. We might all want to hit them up to buy our own "IP licenses". If they will buy this crap from SCO, they will buy it from anybody.
Funny how they never give out just who the purchasers are isn't it...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's even possible that licenses arise from internal politics; if a manager wants to hold his IT department in check, and stay with the conservative and familiar, buying licenses is an excellent way to prevent the IT department from making strategic decisions by stealth, since further penetration of Linux requires a purchasing decision!
Wikileaks, no DNS
From Eek the cat? The Squishy Bear episode?
Depressing.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
How can I get in contact with these companies?
I have some magic beans they might be interested in purchasing.
The SCO Group has such a poor reputation for telling the truth that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both sales claims are pure fabrication.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
As has been pointed out over on Groklaw, under the terms of the USL-BSDI agreement, USL basically couldn't go suing anyone for doing stuff with UNIX unkless the party being sued had licensed UNIX from them.
:)
Sooooo... by buying a SCO license, and thus establishing a contractual relationship with SCO, you basically put your name on the list of parties SCO could potentially file a lawsuit against.
Splendid, isn't it?
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
If Chris Sontag would kindly provide the contact details for this company, I have an interesting proposal for them. For US$1000, I will sell them all rights I have to traverse the Brooklyn Bridge in perpetuity, free from any threat of lawsuit from me.
Hurry, because beginning next year, I'm going to erect a lemonaid stand on one end and start chargine tolls. Then the license goes up to US$2000.
..is up again. Let them morons play their game, I'm playing mine:-).
Most important thing with SCO is, of course, not to forget to short the fucker when the time comes, which is made time consuming by the sheer amount of news about the stupid case you have to skim through to be on top of it.
"SCO's intellectual property that is apparently present"
No, the SCO IP is only reportedly present. They'd have to present actual evidence for it to be apparent. Ironic, considering that all of the Linux source is apparent - it's the secret SCO diff's that aren't so visible.
--
make install -not war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Sontag were using higher numbers, I could understand his using a range. But SCO has only sold a maximum of 30 licenses in the whole damn world. I think Chris should be able to remember an exact number.
You'd think he would wake up each morning with that number in his head. It would be something like "Jesus, the Feds are coming after us for 23 counts of racketeering."
Maybe he could use a computer to help he remember a more exact number! I heard once upon a time SCO was a software company, they just might have someody who could setup a machine that can track numbers in the low double digits.
Microsoft UK or something similar probably.
Ok So everyone pays and then they loose..
Do i get my money back?
I think the government needs to do something about this.
If I hate my employer, would it be improper to convince them to buy a SCO license. Don't get me wrong, I hate SCO, but I really hate my employer.
in the guise of a license is still extortion. These purchases should be contrasted with the number of companies that have bought insurance via OSRM to see which form of FUD drums up the most business among the cowards and ignorant who only have one principle: CYA
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
If you buy any SCO *nix product a _linux_ binary license is automatically included. This was a recent licensing change to make it look like SCO Source actually had a heartbeat. Someone probably bought Open Server and this is how SCO is playing it. For once, nothing to see here (presumably)
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Vendor claims two customers so far Guess they want to save the companies the embarrassment of paying for something they didn't need to. Or perhaps SCO just wants to keep the FUD going as yesterday their web site had a banner with "We own all your code... pay us all your money"...
SCO has in the past stated that they are tying the "SCO Licences" in with their support contracts.
So basically this could be the total number of support contracts that SCO has sold so far.
Sounds to me that (even for a month) that this is quite minimal and a further sign that SCO isn't making headway.
Most of the time in the past when SCO announced that someone had "bought" a Linux license it turned out to be a deception. The most common ploy was to tack a Linux license onto a court settlement or a purchase of a Unixware license. The article quotes only SCO sources and the customers are not named, so don't expect this time to be different. Wait a few days and see if any customer names come up, then see what the customers have to say.
I'd guess they'll say something like, "Linux license? What Linux license?"
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I personally know some people who are able to sell you your own property for double the amount you paid for it originally, and who will leave you behind smiling, thinking you've made a good deal.
It's all about finding the right person: gullible, easily persuaded and with lots of money to spend.
No wonder SCO is able to sell "their" linux licenses...
in purchasing of licences that is about to happen... kinda like my ass after Taco Bell and few beers.
Unfortunatly in Corporations you do get some very strange behaviour, usually as a result of knowing very little about a subject and ensuring any descision cannot come back and bite them (Mix CYA and 'a little knowledge.....).
I do some work for a charitable organisation with very little IT assets and not much money at the area I was in. I needed a stand-alone PC for office applications, so donated an old PC and loaded Linux and Openoffice. Perfect....until their IT guy (in name only) saw it and demanded I produce the 'licence'. After explaining about GPL, his eyes glazed over and his response was 'I must have a licence for each PC in case Microsoft check, and anyway, if you did not pay for it, therefore you must have stolen it, and so it must be illegal and stolen and I am not having anything like that on my watch'. Sigh
Give SCO a call and ask them point blank if they actually sold any of the $699 (or whatever they were asking) Linux licenses. I am guessing they sold a few copies of their crappy Unixware or Openserver products that include the "license" and they are talking out there ass as usual.
That's pretty stupid, a license with SCO. I read about the BSDi settelment at Groklaw, and it seems that SCO only has the right to sue their own licensees about Unix copyrights/IP/whatever.
SCO Linux licenses on genuine paper may become a collector's rarity, just like some early 20th century printed shares are now. Because of very limited number, it is a perfect investment for your grandchildren to buy some now!
There you are, staring at me again.
Well, not really an IT company, but one of my college tutors thinks "Windows Server XP" and Windows Server 2003 are seperate products, Windows 3.11 was the first networking operating system, and MacOS, Linux, UNIX and Solaris all take their networking parts from it.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
I will be boycotting them.
----
It's "In Soviet Korea, elderly racists comment you!".
1) If SCO includes the licensed material with the license. If I'm gonna buy a license, I want to be sure I'm running the code I licensed and not some miscreants cobbled hack that delivers the same functionality.
2) How to merge this binary with my linux once I've got the linux compiled? If I'm gonna buy it, I want to use it. That way if my linux fscks up there is someone I can sue. SCO warrants the stuff, right?
3) The market has any faith. Baystar appears to be cutting it's losses. I heard at the bar that baystar was finessed into keeping quiet through margin advantage on another investors bailout. IIRC Baystar was questioning SCO's claims on linux back in the summer (northern hemisphere).
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
"Richard Perkins, regional director for UK and Ireland at the company, told vnunet.com that two companies had signed up for licences in the past quarter, but would not give further details."
Because they know that confidence in any company that bought these sea shells would go through the floor. If they're *that* dumb, how good is their product/service?
Ever considered these companies are buying these licenses so they can sue the hell out of SCO for fraud/extortion/etc. as soon as the whole IP part of the SCO-IBM case finishes? I bet they'd be able to get more money out of it than they paid for the licenses.
That is if SCO will have any money left ofcourse.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The bluff by SCO is that you can buy a license now and pay not so much, or you can wait until after the lawsuit and if they win you'll be paying a lot more. If you fold now, you don't get your chips back if SCO loses. At this point we're pretty sure that IBM holds all the aces, but I bet that most of these sales are politically motivated or the people buying them aren't very good at poker either.
I wouldn't be surprised if the comapnies in question are associates of the companies in the US that purchased licenses. It'd be just like SCO to count the Microsoft or Sun UK branch offices as new licenscees.
Besides which, if SCO loses the next legal action you will see out of them will be a bankruptcy filing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
These people are smart because once it is proven that SCO sold something that wasn't theirs, they can sue SCO for even more money (pain and suffering or something)...assuming SCO isn't backrupt by then.
The folks who have no real insight into the legal
shenanigans of SCO are the ones prone to buy up
the worthless licenses. Oh well. But this is how
microsoft got so big.
A few orgs in the UK - like PC World - are using SCO products, My bet is this license has been bundled with an existing product or service upgrade.
i imagine the license fee is a miniscule amount and probably is cheaper than paying a solicitor's reatiner just in case IBM vs. SCO doesnt result in a clear victory for IBM.
Maybe its just some people , to use that delightful washington DC acronym , CYA.
Wanted : A Signature.
Doing ANYTHING to support these scam artists is not a sound business decision. It's been obvious to anyone that has done a little digging that they're bluffing and they're holding a busted strait. They don't own anything, the stuff they claim is infringing belongs to other players- you get the picture.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Could we all be missing a good deal here? What happens when SCO is shown in court that they do not own the license to Linux? Can those that did buy licenses get their lawyers to extract double or triple the cost of the license plus court costs from SCO? This could actually be a shrewed investment. If SCO by some twist in the fabric of the universe actually wins they are covered already. If SCO looses those companies sue and double or triple their money. hmmmmmm........
Sontag: These 20-30 licensees means we've covered the cost of the paper to print the licenses and there was enough left over for this cool Chia Pet!
20 - 30 sales? Is it just me or doesn't anyone else think it's odd that SCO throws out a number with a 33% gap in possible sales? That's huge. Even so, 30 sales worldwide? What a joke.
Didn't these dorks read the USLvBSDi settlement terms? The release of these is HUGE and a death blow to the SCOSource license program especially section 3c:
"c. USL agrees that it shall take no action against any person who utilizes any methods and concepts in the Restricted Files which as of this date have become available to the general public by acts not attributable to the University, its employees or students. Nothing in this provision shall limit USL's rights against a third party arising out of a breach of any license agreement with USL or AT&T."
SCO *can't* sue except for breach of contract, as the "successor in interest" to this agreement. (See a lawyer)
That's why dburns work on getting this settlement out to the world is so important.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
I think we have taken that joke as far as it will go while still being funny. I see no problem with letting it die a nice, peacful death.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I'm wondering how many of those licenses went to companies that are owned or controlled by the SCO's parent, the Canopy Group.
My company recently outgrew our office in Orem, Utah, and we moved to one in Lindon. Right next to SCO's headquarters, in fact (we're not affiliated with SCO or the Canopy Group).
Anyhow, it's a very cold morning. Want to know how cold? Well, I just saw Darl McBride walk into his office, and he had his hands in his own pockets.
When you're dealing with companies with million dollar accounts and expenditures, it's an executive decision that's required for these expenses. I personally think that the executives are doing it to save their asses (no, not assets, asses): they all are covering their butts on the slim, slim chance that SCO might win. That way, the board won't fire them if SCO wins.
But the downside is the the legions of Linux lovers will cry "foul" and "traitor" if they do. Hmmm...losing your job versus some people calling you l0s3r? What would you choose?
Linux at home
To my understanding SCO hasn't won yet and these licenses don't grant you any freedoms you didn't already have, but SCO's vice president Chris Sontag says that 20 to 30 organisations worldwide have purchased these licenses."
Like the saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute.
BTW, 20 to 30 who have purchased a SCO license doesn't impress me considering how many use Linux thoughout the world. Now if they said a few thousand then I would be worried.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Finally it has been revealed... Heres a list of the licensees of all 20 licences sold by SCO.
Microsoft Redmond
Microsoft Cincinatti
Microsoft Atlanta
Microsoft Austin
Microsoft Memphis
Microsoft Phoenix
Microsoft Pittsburg
Microsoft UK
Microsoft Australia
Microsoft Latin America
Microsoft Russia
Microsoft Hong Kong
Microsoft Latvia
Microsoft Korea
Microsoft China
Microsoft Egypt
Microsoft South Africa
Microsoft Saudi Arabia
Microsoft Chile
Microsoft Canada
Truly SCO has a worldwide spreading...
Funniest two words put together that I've seen all year.
You weren't very specific as to the type of animal, just one for each human.
Putting moderation advice in your
Don't give them any ideas !
You are great player! Present you with points!
wow!
20 to 30, they're on a roll!
i wonder how many 'infringing' copies of linux have been installed since they started. much less since about an hour ago.
int main(){ char ln[0]; ln[15]=(ln[14]=(ln[13]=(ln[12]=(ln[11]=(ln[10]=((l n[0]=((ln[1]=((ln[2]=((l
Britain is well known for ripping off its people with hugely over priced goods coupled with excessive taxation. It is not surprising that the Brits would agree to pay for something that is actually free.
... Perhaps it would be a good idea to bottle air and sell start selling it in the UK, I could make a fortune.
Hmmm
Companies are probably purchasing these licenses so that they can sue when SCO lose their court cases, and make profit from the whole thing.
I know all the kewl /. geeks spell it "pitty." Do not be led astray.
So why don't you bludgeon him with a lead pipe and burn the body in a public place to serve as a warning to others?
Is it 20, is it 30, is it some number in between, or is it bullshit? "Oh, it's 30. GOOD 30!"
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Because it seems to me that SCO might be willing to pay people to take their farcical licenses, just to generate this kind of pitiful press release. Given that SCO don't crow about how big these 'purchasers' are, it seems reasonable that they're small, and small companies don't in general buy (in the sense of paying money to a vendor) for licenses that they don't need.
Hmm, I wonder if the 'purchasers' insisted on anonymity as a condition of 'sale'? You know, I'm half tempted to give them a call myself and see how much I can squeeze out of them for the priviledge of increasing their UK 'sales' by 50%.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
That should be a bridge in *London* :o)
That horse may be dead, but I see no problem with beating it into chunky pulp. Then, beating it to a frothy paste. Continue until atomized.
Since SCO never purchased the copyright on UNIX, which remained with Novell;
And Novell own SUSE, who have released a version of Linux under the GPL;
then Novell {being the UNIX copyright holder} have given their blessing to Linux being GPL'ed.
Since SCO do not hold the copyright on any UNIX code that may be present in Linux,
and Novell have not authorised SCO to act on their behalf,
then SCO are acting under false pretences.
Doing something you weren't asked to do to somebody else's property is called trespass in this country, and is a civil offence for which legal aid is not available. It's a defence to trespass that you had good faith that the rightful owner would have wanted you to do what you did; however, there is no way SCO could have good faith that Novell wants them to collect licence money {which would belong to Novell, as the copyright holder, not SCO. Misappropriation of funds is a criminal offence}. Finally, since the GPL does not permit what SCO is doing, SCO are guilty of copyright violation to some extent or other. While there is next to no point in Novell pursuing for damages in the civil courts {they wouldn't have made any money so they can't have lost any money} Novell could still testify against SCO in any criminal copyright violation case.
Did I mention that in the British civil courts, the loser almost always pays all costs; and a successful prosecution for a criminal offence doesn't bar you from instigating separate civil proceedings to recover damages?
Bye-bye, SCO. Thanks for collecting so much evidence againstg yourselves.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I mean the name, isn't it registered? Can anyone make something called Linux? Like Linux License?
So can SCO call thier licenses "Linux" or just 'use of derivative unix components that we believe we bought licenses to, then lost them, then sold them, then found them, then shredded them, then imagined them, and are now trying to sell them, even though, buggered if we can remember where we put them, so we will take something similar' licenses.
I'd buy one if they called them that.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Buying a Linux license from SCO is pretty high on the list of useless/worthless things to buy so perhaps there's some other stuff they might buy.
In the UK and happily running 2 x Whitebox and 1 x RH9 servers sans licences!
AT&ROFLMAO
I own substantual parts of the Moon's shadow! Your aspersion has affected the value of my rights. I will sue you for your posting as slander, maybe even challenge you to a duel. We can take this up in court on the moon.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
SCO+Licenses+sold=Sucker born every minute
Danger Will Robinson! You are now entering a condescending Unix user zone!
When you pay people to "buy" your licenses, shouldn't it be possible to get more than just a few bites?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
No RECENT news is good news:
I think we can assume nobody got suckered into this in the 3rd quarter, and that nobody else will before SCO files Chapter 7.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If SCO can sell imaginary "licenses," what's to stop us (FLOSS evangelists) from giving away real ones? Apparently people have gotten used to the idea that software needs some kind of strict license, cost, or license cost associated with it. So go print something fancy and give them what they want!
If people want to pay money for a silly piece of paper (which, come to think of it, is what they purchase when they "buy Windows") let them! Just slip them some software while you're at it.
Computerland, for example, ended up with a bunch of Linux licenses as a reault of a (supposedly unrelated) out-of-court settlement with the Canopy group. They acted very surprised when it was announced that they were among the list of companies owning Linux licenses.
If your company has any vestigal connection to either SCO or Canopy, then it may turn out to be one of the '20 or 30' companies with Linux licenses.
AFAICT the only valid business logic for buying a LINUX license is to comfort skitish investors and/or customers with the knowledge that there is no legal liability. The only other reason for getting a Linux license is that it's a side effect of getting something else that your company needs from SCO. Companies in such a position who care, at all, about such acquisitions may actually be ashamed of them.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
In other news, SCO just had a setback in their DaimlerChrysler case. SCO wants that case stayed until SCO vs IBM is decided. This is wierd, because SCO is the plaintiff in the DaimlerChrysler case - they started it. But they were losing, so they want it stayed. The judge just denied the stay, and the case will be heard in January. That's the case where SCO claims that because DaimlierCrysler used some UNIX-based product in the distant past, they can't use Linux now without paying SCO. This very weak claim is on its way to being laughed out of court.
That's the real SCO news today.
> ..SCO's intellectual property that is apparently
> present in Linux distributions...
It most certainly is not. Despite two court orders requiring them to do so The SCO Group (which is _not_ the Santa Cruz Operation) has failed to produce a single line of infringing code.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
SCO's vice president Chris Sontag says that 20 to 30 organisations worldwide have purchased these licenses
20 to 30? What, he doesn't know how many? He has trouble counting such a large number?
I'll bet that "20 to 30" actually means something closer to 15.
There's a crime of "obtaining funds by deception" aimed at nailing fraudsters who use false information e.g. claiming property as theirs to extract money from people. Given that SCO have no proof of ownership over the disputed code I can't see how they can sell anyone anything.
Should the case fall through I look forward to the arrest of the head of the UK arm of SCO and, should McBride, Sontag etc., ever land in the UK their arrests also. After all, conmen are among the lowest forms of scum.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I wasn't aware of ANY S.C.O. code that was in Linux, either in source or binary form.
I recall some IBM developer who added code to Linux several months ago, but it was removed immediately after it was discovered that it had come from IBM.
Sincerely,
Fnarg McSprangl
Deputy Vice Ajutant
Ruling Council of the Eastern Universe
Galactic Demolition and Comments Rating Subcommittee
There is 0-10% chance of snow in hell today.
did ya know that if you license something you don't own to other people long enough and often enough and the people with the rights do nothing that the people doing the licensing gets to keep what they stole?
It does not hold in every nation but it does in some. Once it happens in one nation, the risk of a domino effect becomes greater or of being able to persuade other nations becomes easier.
Despite SCO's false claims, allowing them to sell licenses to Linux is inevitably going to have a very significant negative impact on the future of Linux worldwide.
In some places one must defend their property rights or they lose their property.
In Korea, dying a nice, peaceful death is only for the elderly.
(Runs while dodging flying objects thrown by the angry mob)
Whilst meanwhile, their stocks continue to fall.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Ok, let me guess who that would be...
....
Microsoft of AD (Andora),
Microsoft of AE (United Arab Emirates),
Microsoft of AF (Afghanistan),
Microsoft of
by proxy no doubt, as it would be silly for SCOG to buy their own licenses just to prove a point. Who ever it is just follow the money to know for sure.
The dollar's so weak now that I bought 5 this morning with coffee.
I beat my dead horses into their constituent fermions, you insensitive clod!
English is easier said than done.
...except for the few fed intravenously.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No, no. They threaten companies with weak leadership into buying Linux licences. You know, SCO sends a stern letter in legalspeak warning they'll start a long drawn-out legal battle if they don't cough up the money pronto.
SCO don't actually produce anything. They extort money from people. That is Darl's specialty. He's a corporate pirate. A scumbag.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I read a few years ago there are 2.5 million linux servers. I wonder what fraction of one percent are covered by SCO licenses.
Out of how many, again?
Sheesh, you could send fake-ass "Invoices" for 'Services Rendered' and get back a much higher number of payments. I guess even the mooches aren't falling for the SCO scam.
I should say Darl's actions are scumbagish - I don't personally know Darl McBride and I'm not justifies in getting personal by name calling.
It was an off-the-cuff remark that I maybe should've kept to myself. I apologise.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON