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Outdated News for Nerds, Stuff that nobody wants to hear anything about anymore.
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.
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.
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?
According to the date on the linked article, this is from last August.
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.
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)
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.
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 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
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. =====
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!
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?
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
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...
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!
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.