Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Operating Systems Software Unix Your Rights Online Linux

SCO Licenses Now Available 669

Posted by timothy
from the mind-the-rush dept.
wes33 writes "Now available at the SCO website, genuine licenses permitting you to use SCO IP that is 'necessary for you to run Linux'. And they take VISA. Looks like they're saying that any code that is similar to Unix code counts as their Unix code!? Actually, the agreement needs analysis. It looks to me that you're paying for a pig in a poke, but IANAL. Here's some of the meat: '"UNIX-based Code'" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare. ... Provided You pay the applicable license fee and complete the required registration of the COLA, SCO grants You the right to use all, or portions of, the SCO IP only as necessary to use the Operating System on each System for which the appropriate CPUs have been licensed from SCO.'" The linked page says this so-called license applies only to commercial use.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Licenses Now Available

Comments Filter:
  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tuxedo Jack (648130) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:40PM (#8358374) Homepage
    Do they take Monopoly money?
  • Uh huh! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Red Warrior (637634) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:40PM (#8358379) Homepage Journal
    That'll happen. Sometime after the trial, where they prove they have anything worthy of licensing.
  • by vadius (669387) * on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:41PM (#8358387)
    The pricing is $199 for a desktop box, and between $620-$750 per CPU for servers, depending on how many you have. Also, the license says that this is for binaries only (not the source).
    • by rholliday (754515) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#8358462) Homepage Journal
      So if you obtain the source and compile it yourself, are you then required to purchase a license? Or are they saying that you can only legally use the binaries, and that compiling the source is not even supposed to happen?
      • by Liselle (684663) * <{ten.ellesil} {ta} {todhsals}> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:07PM (#8358594) Journal
        So if you obtain the source and compile it yourself, are you then required to purchase a license? Or are they saying that you can only legally use the binaries, and that compiling the source is not even supposed to happen?
        Silence! That's lawsuit round #2! :P
      • by rnturn (11092) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:37PM (#8358763)

        ... only outlaws will have compilers.

        ``... Law enforcement officials refused to say anything other than that the suspect's home computers were seized and later found to contain illegal copies of several versions of gcc. The Chief of Police had no comment on the widespread rumors that printouts of errno.h were found in the suspects home while police executed the search warrent. The President, commenting on the arrest following today's Rose Garden ceremony in which he signed into law a bill extending copyright protection to `forever and a day', said: `America is a safer place today as a result of the actions of these brave police officers. We should be proud.'''

        • by rholliday (754515) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:43PM (#8358797) Homepage Journal
          Showdown at the GCC Corral. Sheriff Torvalds and his old buddy Doc Stroustrup up against the nasty SCO Gang ... and the SCO gang don't never play fair ... :)
        • by jelle (14827) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:00PM (#8358901) Homepage
          I wonder how the duke boys are getting out of this one!
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:40PM (#8359464)
          from another thread on canadian privacy laws [slashdot.org]

          What if 20 years from now an activity that you consider perfectly acceptable like say, knowing how to program becomes unacceptable by the general community.

          Want an example? Think about it: If you can program in C, you can write viruses! that's scary for the non-programmers out there that think that software is a "product" that magically appears shrinkwrapped at the store.

          It starts when you first have to register all your compilers. Then you have a crackdown against free unregistered compilers and "Kitchen table linux dealers". 60 minutes runs a special about how computer shows allow unknown people to aquire software - including unregistered compilers (a compiler being an incredibily powerful piece of software that allows you to create any other piece of software... Including VIRUSES).

          Mandataory "Compiler licences" are required by the government where the person applying for one has to submit three photos, a blood sample, a retinal image and fingerprints. At least two of these are checked by biometric scanning every time the compiler is invoked (following the tradition of "smart guns" or "safe firearms").

          The compiler must be stored on an EPROM in a dedicated piece of hardware and the source brought to it on some kind of storage media. The output is removed on another storage media to prevent people hacking in and compiling software from their terminals. The compiler's hardware must be kept in a safe that weighs at least 150kg or is bolted to the floor. The sourcecode must be kept in a DIFFERENT safe, located in another part of the building. The compiler must be always carried turned off, in plain view, and without any source loaded, unless you have a "concealed compiler licence."

          If you are convicted of a crime you can kiss you compiler licence goodbye. Finally people pull out old copies of neuromancer and comment on how much these firmware compilers look like that chinese virus that Case used. Regular folks would never need such powerfull pieces of software. "Assault compilers" would be banned.

          Next revisionist historians will be saying: "In the pioneering days of the internet, widespread compiler ownership was a myth. The majority of internet users did not own a compiler, much less know how to read the source..." :)

          Combined with "In the wild parts of the IT world, a compiler was a simple way to put food on the table of your family. Now that software is intensively farmed in third world countries we have no use for heavy duty compilers in first world, urban areas."

          We're left writing everything in interpreted languages with all our arrays limited to 10 objects.

          Eventually, only big corporations, the military and the police can afford the Class III licences required to own a compiler.

          If you weren't a professional programmer, you'd wish that people hadn't poked around your life.

          Your open secret has condemned you but you grit your teeth and type `gcc -Wall frommycolddeadharddrive.c`

          You see, humans are at the heart of it NASTY. we can play with ideas all we want but you have to take into account the fact that we will not always do things in a way that minimises suffering for others.

      • by daviddennis (10926) <david@amazing.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:20PM (#8359014) Homepage
        Correct. You are expressly not authorized to view or modify the Linux source code if you agree to the license. I think this means you can't even compile the kernel to add/remove device drivers.

        When I tried to get through the ordering process, I got:

        Safari can't open the page "http://shop.sco.com/" because it could not connect to the server "shop.sco.com".

        at about the time it would have started getting serious and telling me pricing and other details.

        So I tried again. Got:

        Internal Server Error

        Geez, you'd think an operating system vendor would know how to run, well, an operating system.

        Right?

        Um.

        Right?

        D
    • by dubiousmike (558126) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:31AM (#8359768) Homepage Journal
      I just downloaded a license from Kazza
  • Also... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tuxedo Jack (648130) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:42PM (#8358393) Homepage
    If it turns out that they lose the suit but get the license fees from everyone anyways, this could open them up to RICO Act suits (triple damages, court costs included).

    At any rate, this will continue to be interesting to watch.
    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Camel Pilot (78781) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:48PM (#8358446) Homepage Journal
      This would almost entice be to buy one of the licences (A much better risk/reward ratio then a share of SCOX). However before I would buy I would have to be ensured that if SCOX went broke that McBrib^des personal retirement account is attachable.

      • Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gaijin99 (143693) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:06PM (#8358587) Journal
        However before I would buy I would have to be ensured that if SCOX went broke that McBrib^des personal retirement account is attachable.
        I would be so happy if the personal fortunes of CEOs and board members were subject to penalties in the event of corporate misbehavior. It isn't going to happen any time soon, but it would be absolutely fantastic. Give 'em an incentive to not comit crimes.

    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)

      by darnok (650458) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:53PM (#8358498)
      > If it turns out that they lose the suit but get
      > the license fees from everyone anyways, this could
      > open them up to RICO Act suits (triple damages,
      > court costs included).

      From where I'm sitting, that looks like a pretty good investment.

      Anyone know if I can buy options on SCO licences? I don't want to buy them now, but I'm happy to invest some loot now to ensure I get the option to buy them at some later date. Now, where's my court calendar...?
    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RichMan (8097) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:04PM (#8358568)
      Tripple damages only if you can collect.

      IBM will be a lot higher up the collection chain than you.
      SCO has some funny financing that might see the money pulled back, or into Novell.

      SCO's chance of winning -> negligible
      Your chance of collecting if they lose -> even lower
    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mr2cents (323101) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:12PM (#8358615)
      I bet that by the time SCO is convicted the company will be bankrupt and all the money will have magically disappeared. If they aren't already planning this, I would be surprised.

      From the article:
      Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system.

      Why should anyone be concerned about allegations?? Everyone can make allegations! I am more concerned about criminal behaviour of companies [lwn.net]!
  • by JusTyler (707210) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:42PM (#8358395) Homepage
    The linked page says this so-called license applies only to commercial use.

    I believe SCO said that they were only going to be chasing commercial users of Linux. Okay, they're still crazy, but at least it seems they have a vague sort of 'respect' for the hacking/academic community.. just not the businesses that use Linux.

    That aside.. I can't wait for this all to be over, it's really putting the heebie-jeebies up some of my clients.
  • Whoopie! (Score:5, Funny)

    by stateq2 (754984) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:42PM (#8358399)
    Quick, grab a licence while you still can! They're selling like hotcakes.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:42PM (#8358401)
    Even microsoft users should be coughing up !!

  • Sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by Deraj DeZine (726641) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:43PM (#8358402)
    I'll buy one, but I'm going to need to borrow their license to print money, first. Photoshop won't let me scan dollar bills anymore...
  • by mlmitton (610008) * on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:44PM (#8358412)
    I want to know whether SCO will indemnify Linux-users against the possibility that, once the legal wrangling is done, we do not need to pay them license fees for Linux. Will they refund the money? It would be a good public-relations move for them to do this, even if it would amount to an empty promise: If no one needs to pay SCO for Linux, then SCO will be bankrupt PDQ and there won't be any money to refund.
  • by Hawkxor (693408) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:44PM (#8358414)
    What advantages does that bestow on me? Oh, I see, none.
    Why am I better off than I would be without an SCO license? Hmm, that's not explained either.
    So without it I'll be sued or something? Well, apparently not.
    But SCO has legal backing in doing this at least, right? Actually no.

    So...anyone want to take bets on how many people actually buy a license? Probably fewer than the number of people who have bought X-10 minicams from those popup windows.
    • by Kris_J (10111) * on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:29PM (#8358715) Journal
      It's protection money. You pay SCO now and they promise not to throw a brick through your X Windows. Until they decide to hit you up for some more protection money later.
    • by Arker (91948) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:33PM (#8358740) Homepage

      What advantages does that bestow on me?

      Can't see it giving you any advantages, but it sure does a lot for them. If you buy one, you have a contract with them so they can still sue you after the courts rule they don't own squat.

    • by lspd (566786) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:43PM (#8358799) Homepage Journal
      So...anyone want to take bets on how many people actually buy a license? Probably fewer than the number of people who have bought X-10 minicams from those popup windows.

      Do they have an affiliate program? I could definitely see selling licenses in a sort of evidence-eliminator way.

      YOU ARE RUNNING UNLICENSED UNIX CODE
      Penalties for violating the SCO group's copyrights
      are $50,000 per line of infringing code. Our source
      scanner shows you are using 1,102,213 lines of
      proprietary and confidential SCO source code.
      CLICK HERE [thescogroup.com] to purchase a SCO
      binary runtime license. Failure to do so will result
      in $55,110,650,000 of legal liability!
      This offer will not be repeated.
    • by wkitchen (581276) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:55PM (#8359578)
      So...anyone want to take bets on how many people actually buy a license?
      It is the enemies of free sofware who will purchase licenses. They are the only ones with anything to gain by doing so. Not any direct benefit, but indirectly through the fulfillment of their desire to harm the open source community by lending false credibility to SCO.

      So the success of SCO's offer depends mostly on how many of these there are. This offer might just bring the vermin crawling out from the woodwork. Like cockroaches, for every one you see in the open, there may be many more hiding in the crevaces.

      Not everyone who's against free software can afford to contribute millions of dollars [com.com] to SCO's fud campaign. This gives the little guys a chance.
  • Price (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:44PM (#8358415)
    Hmm... lets see. Only $149.00 for annual license for one CPU, eh? What a bargain! BTW, I sell annual leases to vacant lots on the moon, but due to court proceedings I can't show you proof that I actually own the moon at moment...
  • own? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pixitha (589341) <acidrainNO@SPAMpixitha.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:45PM (#8358422) Homepage
    they dont even "own" unix anyhow..
    Groklaw quote:
    "This is one of the fundamentally misleading positions SCO has adopted. "UNIX" is not an operating system but rather a brand of operating systems. The brand, "UNIX" is the intellectual property of the Open Group who owns the relevant trademark and certifies systems as being compliant to its UNIX specifications. The Open Group is an international vendor and technology-neutral consortium. IBM is a sponsor of the Open Group while SCO is a member."

  • Predicament (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:45PM (#8358424)
    SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user's predicament

    in other words, "SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user predicament created by SCO".

    I beat my dog every day but I really feel for the poor thing too. Right. Who are they kidding?
  • Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)

    by maliabu (665176) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:45PM (#8358425)
    on the website it says they're offering a license that cures the IP infringement in Linux. So can they be sued for misleading in a product once the infringement is proven imaginative? similar to the guy who sued spammer for false claim in penis enlargement pills.

    however, i believe another interesting question is, if they are sued for misleading, how much can you still get out of SCO after it's being savaged by IBM....
    • Re:Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)

      by netsharc (195805) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:31PM (#8358725)
      On another point, shouldn't this be the time the kernel hackers (or their lawyers) start suing SCO, because SCO is claiming -- without evidence -- that they own (parts of) the kernel?

      I'm sorry for Linus, he's said he doesn't want to get involved with the scum.
  • windows any one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jackb_guppy (204733) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:46PM (#8358427)
    It looks like they are trying to get Windows added to the list... POSIX compliance.

    That will sure increase the war chest!
  • Lightbubls (Score:5, Funny)

    by CeleronXL (726844) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:46PM (#8358429) Homepage
    How many SCO executivess does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    Five
    1 to claim ownship of the IP
    1 to file suit against bulb manufacturers
    1 to threaten bulb endusers
    1 to send off asking how to use a bulb ...and 1 to fumble and drop it.</pathetic attempt at Funny rating>
  • by sanermind (512885) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:47PM (#8358438)
    I note that in the limitation of liability, they disclaim 'misrepresentation'?
  • by Halo- (175936) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:48PM (#8358447)
    Until I can buy them at ThinkGeek I'm not gonna waste my money. :)
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:49PM (#8358458)
    End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO IP in Linux in binary format only.

    Oh okay then, that's fine, I use the stock Linux kernel as-is. I never need any SCO IP in binary format in it.

    Unless you count the output of /dev/null as SCO's...
  • Hello? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tremanhil (246867) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#8358461)
    Okay, what happened to the whole AT&T Memo which clarified that AT&T didn't own or have any claim to derivative works... I've not seen anything in the press about it blowing SCO's case out of the water since it was released on Groklaw...

    Their claims are A. Unsubstantiated, and B. Even if they were substantiated they have no claim to the derivative works that IBM contributed.

    The fact that they continue to pursue licensing where currently their legal standing has not been established is insane.

    I hope IBM, and Redhat intend to countersue the executives and board of SCO, and the Canopy group for the FUD they have been spreading once this case is closed in favor of IBM.
    • Re:Hello? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:13PM (#8358618) Homepage Journal
      They have working on two fronts. The legal front and the handwaving PR front. I have always though the legal front was the only one anyone should be concerned with, as it is the only thing that could result in a ruling that might hurt Linux. It is also becoming clearer that SCO has a very weak legal case, which means that there is probably little to worry about.

      OTOH, many articles, like the present, concentrate on the PR front. This is where SCO makes claims, such as we 0wn Linux simply because we wish we did and we want out wishes reality, and then back this unique view of reality with threats, websites, and sound bytes. It is sad because we are not in 2000 and the dotcom boom is over.

      So yes, the ATT letter does seem to make the case against IBM moot, which is why they changed their case against IBM. OTOH, nothing short of bankruptcy and fraud lawsuits will change their opinion that SCO deserves money from anyone who run Linux because Linux just stole everything from Unix. It's too bad that argument did not work for Apple. I suppose we would not have to deal with monstrous MS plague. Or perhaps we should be glad that the argument did work for IBM, otherwise we would still be paying $5000 for a basic Intel machine. Of course that might mean the Mac, and even solaris and alpha machines, would be extremely competitive.

  • What if? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vaystrem (761) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:50PM (#8358465)
    ... you buy the license, and then a court decides that SCO's license is not required for the operation of Linux, could you then sue SCO for fraud?
  • by shoemakc (448730) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:52PM (#8358485) Homepage
    Getting slower.....slower......slower....stopping...

    Hmmm, you know....this is one of those sites I just really don't mind slashdotting.

    -Chris
  • by Shoten (260439) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:52PM (#8358486)
    I know a good bit of law, but this is out of my range. It does sound to me that there's a very high chance that (even if their claims are correct) they're accepting money to license something that isn't theirs to license, provided there's just one UNIX System V-like option out there that doesn't include any of their code. Is this not a criminal act, or at the very least an actionable one?
  • by quandrum (652868) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:54PM (#8358504)
    Licensing linux code from SCO invalidates the GPL on the rest of the kernel code. The licenses are not compatible. You will never get hundreds of kernel developers to re-license the code for your use. If you really think you need to buy this, give up. Install FreeBSD.
    • by God! Awful 2 (631283) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:53PM (#8359217) Journal

      Licensing linux code from SCO invalidates the GPL on the rest of the kernel code. The licenses are not compatible. You will never get hundreds of kernel developers to re-license the code for your use. If you really think you need to buy this, give up. Install FreeBSD.

      AFAIK, the GPL doesn't prevent you from *using* a program that infringes on patents or copyrights, it only prevents you from distributing said code. So your license to use the code cannot be revoked just because you stupidly decided to take out a license from SCO.

      -a
  • by Galileo430 (614516) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:00PM (#8358538)
    I really think this is a clever new business model. Charge people for using another company / group's product.

    Hey Windows users, you owe me $99.95 a year for those "Icon" things I invented last year.
  • Cola (Score:5, Funny)

    by ixplodestuff8 (699898) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:01PM (#8358548)
    IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS lICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA").

    Hello, I am the CEO of Coca-Cola, SCO please pay use $699 for use of the word "COLA", thank you.
  • The EULA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joey Patterson (547891) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:02PM (#8358555)
    THE SCO GROUP, INC.

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE

    IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.

    YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

    This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.

    DEFINITIONS

    "Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.

    "Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.

    "CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.

    "Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.

    "Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.

    "Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.

    "Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux(R) operating system.

    "SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO's standard commercial license.

    "Software" shall mean the Operating System in Object Code format.

    "Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and related system documentation, including all comments and any procedural language.

    "System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.

    "UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.

    "Update" shall mean the updates or revisions in Object Code format of the Software that You may receive. Update shall not include any alteration, modification or derivative work of the Operating System prepared by You.

    GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

    Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or rights.

    SCO grants You and You accept from SCO, the following limited, non-exclusive rights. This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any distribution of software from SCO or any other thir
    • Re:The EULA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by somneo (108745) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:24PM (#8358679) Homepage
      "Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.

      Running sshd or Samba makes your computer a server. Between those two applications, I'd say that nearly no one qualifies for the "Desktop" license. How is SCO planning to enforce that, anyway? Does each license come with a free portscan?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:07PM (#8358589)

    The boldface shows one option that I picked from their menus:
    any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V

    Therefore, SCO is talking about "any code that in its functionality is similar to any Code contained in UNIX System V".

    Is there any software in the world that doesn't have a major component fitting this description?

  • by mehaiku (754091) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:07PM (#8358593) Homepage

    Darl has but one innovation
    Ill conceived litigation
    It's a shame he can't find
    Work made for his kind
    But who'd pay him for masturbation?
  • Hehe (Score:5, Funny)

    by cca93014 (466820) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:15PM (#8358628) Homepage
    Looks like we took their shop website [sco.com] down.

    That's their shop website [sco.com].

    Did you get that? Their shop website [sco.com].

    All those links are different btw. Really. Just like this shop website [sco.com]. They all need clicking on.

  • by Spruce Moose (1857) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:15PM (#8358630)
    The EULA [thescogroup.com] seems to craftily say you can use 'SCO IP' without actually saying whether there is any SCO IP in the kernel or exactly what it is. From the EULA:
    "SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO's standard commercial license.
    and a bit further down:
    "UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare(R), or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
    finally:
    Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or rights.
    Nice one!
  • by El (94934) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:37PM (#8358768)
    IBM could have just demanded that everybody running Windows 3.0 obtain a license from IBM, because it is obviously a derivative of OS/2!!! It was that easy, and those morons at IBM didn't even think of it! What the hell were they thinking, they gave up the OS/2 market to Microsoft, and all they had to do was just sue Microsoft and every one of it's customers!
  • by GypC (7592) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:43PM (#8358791) Homepage Journal

    ... when I say, "The fine people at SCO can line up to take turns kissing my ass."

  • OUCH! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth (584963) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:52PM (#8358849) Journal
    7. If SCO currently ships Samba and Apache in its own products, how can it justify this if it believes that the GPL is invalid and unenforceable?

    While SCO believes that the GPL is a poorly written and unenforceable license, SCO is not aware of any intellectual property violations regarding Samba and Apache. However, should any arise, SCO would take all efforts necessary by removing the offending products or obtain the appropriate IP licenses.

    Next up, RMS in custody; charged with battery after finding the SCO marketroid who was spouting GPL blasphemies. SCO martketroid expected to survive after 6 hours of surgery to remove a stamped steel printout of the GPL from the rectum. May have issues sitting down later in life.

  • by theolein (316044) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:42PM (#8359136) Journal
    Since SCO is now openly trying to extort (or claim, depending on your pov) money from end users, be they commercial or not for an operating system which they did not write, doesn't this allow Linus and everbody else who contributed to sue SCO for abusing copyright that they do not own?

    I know Linus is everybody's teddybear, but wouldn't this finally be an excellent opportunity for him to get an injunction at the very least?
  • by hankaholic (32239) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:44PM (#8359160)
    ... via their web feedback form:

    As the head of a department which uses a large farm of Linux machines, I find myself concerned with the legal issues surrounding the use of Linux in a commercial environment.


    I have two questions regarding the purchase of SCO IP licenses.

    First, I have read in several trade publications that purchasing SCO licenses will protect me against legal action by SCO. What legal action could SCO bring against me as an end-user of Linux?

    Second, will SCO indemnify me against the possibility that it is determined in a court of law that SCO IP was not misappropriated? My technical staff is of the opinion that there is no reason to purchase such licenses, but the promise of a refund if a court of law determines that SCO's claims are invalid would certainly help to justify the expense.
    Here's to hoping for a response. I'll post anything I hear back ;)
  • by Eric Damron (553630) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:47PM (#8359171)
    I would be willing to make a trade of equal value. They can send me a license and I'll send them my next bowel movement.
  • OMFG (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:05PM (#8359281)
    Read the FAQ on that site...just a taste of the garbage in it:

    #

    How can SCO expect me to purchase a license when its case with IBM hasn't been resolved yet? What if SCO loses its case against IBM? Will it reimburse Linux customers who purchased a SCO IP License?

    Some Linux users have the misunderstanding that the SCO IP License hinges on the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case. If that case were completely removed, Linux end users would still need to purchase a license from SCO to use the SCO IP found in Linux. The IBM case surrounds misuse of derivative works of SCO UNIX. It does not change the fact that line-by-line SCO IP code is found in Linux. The copied code includes copyrighted headers and other proprietary UNIX source code.
  • by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:12PM (#8359323)
    If you're reading this, you have to buy a license, since you're using some implementation of sockets. The standard sockets API should be in System V (correct me if I'm wrong).

    Many, many standard C libraries, for that matter, are in System V. This would make Windows and Mac OS also infringing, if indeed SCO holds this much control.

    Has Apple ever said anything about SCO and its possible complaints over Mac OS X's tri-BSD foundation? Has Microsoft offered indemnification for its users, since there is a lot of POSIX, and thus Unix, compatibility in Windows?

    What of #ifndef thisfile_h #define thisfile_h ... #endif code in headers that everyone uses? What of code in Unix copied from/inspired by other sources?
  • by moosesocks (264553) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:05AM (#8359636) Homepage
    It seems that SCO makes no distinction betweeen unix software made by them and by other companies.

    I have a copy of Sco OpenServer which I paid for, and legally own. (And, yes, I still use it in a production enviornment... it hasn't failed me in over 10 years)

    According to the license, it looks like even I need to buy one of these licenses, even though I'm running SCO's own software.

    Or am I missing something?
  • by Bystander (227723) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:26AM (#8359742)

    SCO has cleverly designed a license which requires no proof of SCO IP in Linux. They are asking licensees to pay money for the right to not be sued by SCO for SCO IP that "is in" Linux. Whether any SCO IP actually exists is irrelevant since the license is nonspecific on the amount and type of SCO IP it covers. Even if eventually no SCO IP is found in Linux, it could be argued that licensees made their own judgements on why they needed to purchase a license despite knowing there was a possibility that the quantity of SCO IP to be found in Linux was actually zero. The only thing SCO technically has to deliver under the contract is to not sue its licensees.

    There is nothing but profit for SCO from any corporations that purchase licenses since there is nothing that they have to deliver, and they have protected themselves by making no specific claims about IP they actually own. By agreeing to the license terms, you explicitly hold SCO harmless for any of their actions. It's easy money if anyone falls for the scheme.

  • by wotevah (620758) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:39AM (#8359799) Journal

    http://www.linuxarkivet.nu/mlists/openbsd-announce /02/msg00001.html

    > From: Dion Johnson <dionj@caldera.com>
    > To: wht@minnie.tuhs.org
    > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:03:37 -0800
    > Subject: Liberal license for ancient UNIX sources
    > Dear Warren, and friends,
    >
    > I'm happy to let you know that Caldera International has placed
    > the ancient UNIX releases (V1-7 and 32V) under a "BSD-style" license.
    > I've attached a PDF of the license letter hereto.

    Feels like it happened such a long time ago...

  • Just use BSD... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OneFix (18661) on Monday February 23, 2004 @02:50AM (#8360319)
    Don't they understand that they will only drive corporations to BSD??? I mean, ever since the whole BSD vs. AT&T thing back in the early 90's, BSD is in the clear...

    Not that I'm going to switch any of my Linux boxes to BSD (I actually have some machines with BSD too), so even if SCO won the case (severly unlikely), users would simply begin the switch to BSD or another OSS kernel, and with it, development of software...

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...