SCO Licenses Now Available

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.

With that license...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even microsoft users should be coughing up !!

So lets suppose I buy one.

[Hawkxor]

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.

Re:Commercial only is expected

[Samari711]

i wouldn't say that. they're just going after the people who are the easiest targets to find and who are the most likely to cough up the money.

Re:Commercial only is expected

[avalys]

But at least it seems they have a vague sort of 'respect' for the hacking/academic community...

I wouldn't go that far - the license is binary-only.

already said but,,,

[phrostie]

ok mod me down for being redundent, but the opengroup really needs to standup and put a stop to SCO.
unix methods belong to them if anyone.

Re:Also...

[JasonStiletto]

don't give them money to prolong this, they'll go broke long before Rico comes into effect, so you wouldn't even get your money back.

Re:Will SCO Provide Indemnification

[Mick Ohrberg]

I wouldn't put it past them to say "Sure, we'll give you your money back!", followed by a -swish- as they launder all the money and take off for Cuba or something. I do remember that Gartner recommended not paying up [slashdot.org].

I hope this douesn't turn out like something I was personally victimized [usdoj.gov] by.

I love this part

[Mycroft_514]

From the SCO website IP license FAQ:

Hasn't SCO already indicated that it's okay for its code to be distributed by distributing this code itself that is now in question? Haven't they essentially GPLed their code?

During the period that SCO distributed Linux (2001 to 2003), SCO was unaware of the copyright violations. Once it became aware of the alleged infringements, it ceased all distributions of Linux to new customers. Copyrights cannot be given up by unintentional or illegal inclusion in a GPL product. The owner of the copyrights must transfer the copyrights in writing or some other affirmation, which SCO has never done. U.S. Copyright law also protects copyright holders from illegitimate contribution by also requiring express permission, which again, SCO has never granted. U.S. Copyright law states: "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent." U.S.C. 204.

Further, Section 0. of the GPL states the following: "0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

SCO has obviously never placed a notice indicating that our UNIX source code or derivative works can be distributed under the terms of the GPL license. Distributing the code is very different from contributing the code. SCO has never accidentally or knowingly contributed the code.

And they still continue to distribute Linux after they discovered it infringing. I love all the contradictions.

Re:Let's see if I understand this correctly...

[BCW2]

I think you have nailed the inconsistant and incoherant claims from SCO right on the head. Nothing they have done in the last year makes any sense.

If brains were dynamite, could anyone at SCO generate enough energy to blow their nose?

Re:Hello?

[fermion]

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.

it's like a mad-lib

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful

perhaps that's what makes it so interesting. it's incoherence invites you to build from it an quality /. post.

Another possibility is it was modded up through the power of suggestion. Note that the post has the word "Interesting" right at the top.. Perhaps the poster has determined a way to game the system. We shall soon see.

Did anyone read the EULA?

[Spruce Moose]

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!

Re:Whoopie!

[Citizen of Earth]

Quick, grab a licence while you still can! They're selling like hotcakes.

They might actually become a collector's item after SCO goes bust. Of course, if you buy one, you are giving SCO all the information to sue you with whatever half-baked scheme they come up with next time. They have demonstrated great glee in suing their customers.

Re:Pricing and Binary only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Dude, it's SCO, it's not intended to make sence. As long as it doesn't make sence, they can never be proven wrong. All unicorns are white.

Read Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems pretty clear that they are talking about UNIX System V codebase, and not the UNIX(tm) trademark to anyone with basic reading skills and minimal understanding of the IT market. I guess that's not you though.

Of course, SCO might not own System V either, but that's another question.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

The newsletter doesn't need to be a legally binding document. The intent of the contract is all that matters. AT&T clarified the intent of the words in the contract in the newsletter and in letters sent to licencees. They did not modify the intent, and therefore doesn't need to be legally binding.

SCO is in no position to interpret the intent of the contracts between AT&T and IBM since there weren't party to it. If AT&T and IBM agree that any AIX code added on top of System V is completely owned by IBM with no restrictions, which is likely the case, SCO's lawsuit, and SCO as a company, are destroyed.

Re:So lets suppose I buy one.

[Arker]

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.

Probably not

[Arker]

It sort of comes under caveat emptor. If you're stupid enough to buy this thing, you deserve it.

so, what they are really saying

[XO]

Is that they want money from every commercial user of EVERY UNIX LIKE OPERATING SYSTEM.

Hmm. SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, Tru64, UnixWare, OS/390, NCR UNIX, UX/4800... that's all the true UNIXes according to Opengroup.

Of course, Linux still has to be proven free of Unix.. And Linux isn't really a UNIX, as it hasn't been certified as a true UNIX. ...This reminds me of this letter that I just got from the State of Michigan, that goes a little something like:

Due to a new law passed in October of 2003, you are now required to pay an additional $150 fine for a ticket that was issued to you in November of 2002.

Retroactively changing the agreement! W00t!

Re:Pricing and Binary only?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, since you're doing nothing wrong.

Re:Pricing and Binary only?

[Haeleth]

Replying to myself... bad, I know... but I should probably acknowledge that the above post is incorrect, and its parent is correct: their "Linux license FAQ" does make it clear that their IP license only entitles you to use Linux binaries, not "their" Linux source.

Since they still refuse to identify what Linux source they "own", it's unclear how you're supposed to stick to that part of the license, or indeed how you're supposed to get Linux binaries in the first place. The whole thing is a bit weird.

Oh this is so funny

[deadline]

The are claiming rights to methods that they do not own. You can not protect a method with a copyright (even if you did own the copyright) This is like saying, I have a mystery novel to sell. If you decide to read any other mystery novels, you need to pay me because I own the method of describing a mystery in a novel. You see I might own a copyright to a story some else wrote.

I am not a lawyer but I know that difference between between the two. I think it is designed to scare the PHB's that pay attention to this stuff.

Re:Read Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is what they meant, then that is what they should have said. I am not going to try and guess or assume anything SCO says. If they keep saying they own UNIX, am I suppose to assume "Oh, they must mean UNIX System V"? If that is what they mean, they better say it. However, they won't - because they want analysts, etc, to "assume" that SCO owns all of UNIX.

I don't see the clarity you're talking about in their acts and declarations, aside from making claims that they have thus far been unable to prove.

Re:But...

[Trejkaz]

I doubt it matters what OS the computer is running. A human has to process those orders at some point.

Re:Potential ramifications?

[Shoten]

Uh...what does the "current administration" have to do with this? Three years ago it was even worse, at the end of an 8-year Clinton era. I hate W worse than almost anyone (I live in DC, we hear about 5x the dirt on him here), but he's got nothing to do with this. Trying to drag him into it is just going to muddle the issue.

Re:So lets suppose I buy one.

[krusadr]

From my chair it seems to offer the chance to not be sued.

Like a protection scheme from a gangster movie. Racketeering in the 21st century.

STOP - DON'T CLICK-THROUGH TO SCO!!!

[GerryGilmore]

Don't forget what PR-savvy jerks they are! We Slashdot them and they send out a PR blurb that says "We got 98 Jigga-hits on our license site indicating tremendous customer interest..blah, blah, blah, etc."

They're *shits* - they'll twist everything good in the world - even a Slashdoting!

SCO: Internet malcontents?

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole SCO debacle reminds me of the tactics used by some Internet malcontents to disrupt mailing lists and news groups. The purpose of the malcontents is to absorb as much of the list members' time in arguing or discussing the malcontent's postings.

The tactics involve posting inflammatory articles, abusing particular people, deliberately misunderstanding other people's posts, etc. All of which is designed to make other people waste their time and get angry.

Think about the following:

1. Whenever discussion about SCO dies down, SCO presents yet another outrageous claim making everyone waste their e-breath over how ludicrous the claims are.
2. SCO respond to rational arguments, like "Please provide explicit references to the copyrighted code", with more outrageous claims and lawsuits, etc.

The only way to deal with this sort of Internet abuse is to ignore the persons completely. They disappear as soon as they realise they cannot get a rise out of anyone.

Re:SCO Seems To Be Blocking Requests To It

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

WHY would they do that? Wanting to claim they got DDOSed again? Darl needs to be prosecuted for fraud.

--
Long live Debian! Free Software! Help keep it free. Click the link in my sig. For too much information, click my homepage.

Morons! Apache is BSD licenced!

[Anonymous Coward]

As for their excuse... they have no right to distribute Samba except under the GPL. D'ohl MacBride is officially on record [thescogroup.com] as having said that the GPL is unconstitutional and violates "the U.S. copyright and patent laws". Ergo, they are illegally distributing Samba, whether by distributing it in violation of the constitution, or in the absence of permission from the copyright holders.

Re:don't tell me that this scenario might come tru

[Endive4Ever]

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..." :)

How would that be revisionist history?

No Telephone or USPS options?

[Billnvd65]

Maybe I have not looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a way to apply for/aquire a license via telephone or US Mail.

I don't know all the legalities involved, but it sure seems, to me anyway, that they are trying very hard to stay away from any potential for wire/mail fraud charges.

What is the bet that if you managed to get them to send you a paper application/document of any type, they will refuse to use the USPS and instead use Fed Ex. or United Parcel, etc.

I think it is time to try an force their hand. Contact them via registered US Mail, asking them for a license application, a EULA and an exact description of the property to be covered by the license. Provide them a prepaid and registered return shipping envelope. Provide a P.O. Box as the only available method of contact. As far as I know, a P.O. Box is undeliverable to anyone except the USPS

Surely a prospective license applicant has the right to inquire as to the exact nature of what is going to be included in the purchase prior to purchase. I cannot imagine that they can reply, legally, with "Stuff that we cannot reveal". Maybe they do not have to give line by line details, but surely they would have to state the general material that requires a license.

I suppose you could even get more detailed, explain your server/client configuration. Ask them for a detailed quote to bring your installations up to "legal" status as you desire to avoid potential litigation.

Seems they would only have two options. One: Send you the information as you requested and potentially expose themselves to mail fraud. Two: Fail to respond, as specified, at which point it would appear that they cannot proceed against you as you acted in "good faith?" trying to acquire the "necessary" license(s).