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
Ask enough people for money for majic beans and eventually someone will bite.
Just some corporate arse covering
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
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.
Why did this get modded down? Parent has a valid point.
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?
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.
Depressing.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
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)
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 think the question would be whether SCO will have any money left to give back at all.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If that were true then humanity would be getting smarter. The birth rate is much higher now than it was during Barnum's time.
Well, just to be pedantic, the above statement only sets a minimum 'sucker birth rate'. It doesn't preclude more than one sucker being born each minute.
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!
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?
Somehow, this sinfest comic comes to mind when thinking about the licensing contract with SCO and the "your money back" concept...
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
You think there's going to be anything left of SCO if IBM wins?
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.
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.
> ..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.
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.