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."
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?
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.
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
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.
It's wortless, and people pitty the ones who buy it.
It's not worthless to SCO.
According to the recently release USL vs UCal agreement, USL couldn't take legal action against anyone for whom UNIX code had become public knowledge, but reserved the right to still take legal action against licensees to hold them to contracts.
So according to this agreement, anything public knowledge about UNIX can go into Linux if it wanted to. Filenames, headers, code, whatever. It's ancient and decrepit now, but the freedom was there.
Now, they can only sue licensees hence the legal action against IBM, Autozone and DaimlerChrysler, all of whom are licensees of UNIX.
Now if SCO sells licenses, they get more licensees.
Licensees they are OK to sue.
Buy an SCO license, open up a world of litigation upon yourself. Listening EV1?
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)
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.
"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
Or that SCO offered some companies a $1 (or one pound) license so they'll be able to make the claim that some companies are jumping on the SCO bandwagon. SCO is all about PR these days.
Paying $1 for this nonsense is a reasonable business decision.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
They would have bought them earlier but a bunch of Americans were first in line.
Oh, and by the way British and English aren't interchangeable terms. For example, people from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands are British too.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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
The licenses are ridiculous in terms. Among other things if you buy an SCO license, you are agreeing
Never to contribute any code to linux, even your own homegrown code.
Never to use Linux and SCO UNIXware together, which means existing SCO Unixware licensees have basically agreed to a license that doesn't allow them to migrate to Linux, only to stay with unixware or move to another OS entirely, say Windows.
"It's not worthless to SCO."
Truer words, mon frere...
"When it was launched in the UK, SCO said that by purchasing the licence, customers are "properly compensating SCO for the Unix source code, derivative Unix code and other Unix-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux"."
Of course, I really wonder if this is actually on the license agreement, because they certainly haven't mentioned Linux taint in court for a looooong time, and statements like this have a habit of being challenged in the UK. Think Sontag has spent a lot of time over here?
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
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.
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