SCO Licenses Now Available 669
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.
Uh huh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate, this will continue to be interesting to watch.
Commercial only is expected (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will SCO Provide Indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
Licence of a part (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine some other company thinks if they can brake GPL,
we sell our part of the Linux Kernel for because the kernel contains
that an evil OSS developer added to the linux source
I wonder why it takes so long to get SCO to learn that they are violating a licence, not their customers!
own? (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
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....
windows any one? (Score:5, Interesting)
That will sure increase the war chest!
Disclaiming of 'misrepresentation' (Score:5, Interesting)
ken, dmr, bwk (Score:3, Interesting)
Hello? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will SCO Provide Indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
Also I wish journalist would ask if SCOX is going to indemnify Unixware (or whatever their product is) customers against IBM claims of patent infrigement.
As I've said before... (Score:5, Interesting)
How long would these licenses last ? (Score:2, Interesting)
shop.sco.com timed out (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't SCO shift over to thescogroup.com domain after the last worm DoS? I'm pretty sure the page isn't unavailable because of the /. effect, but because of the wrong URL.
Looks like they don't want people purchasing licenses right now.
SCO Developer License? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note, no source code license is required as Caldera opened up old versions of the source under the GPL.
IANALD - I am not a linux developer
Dear SCO,
On Solaris systems I have coded a lot of network IO against system *.h files containing AT&T copyright notices. Some of these files include macros. Do I need an SCO source code or developer license to work with these files? Please clarify.
Isn't this a GPL violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if they do have rights to some code in Linux, then they can forbid everyone to use it, but they can't license it without putting it under the GPL.
Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Let's see if I understand this correctly... (Score:2, Interesting)
But I can use GPL'ed IP that isn't theirs in source format?
Seems like in order to sell a license, they have to explicitly state - with specificity - what code it is that their license applies to. Isn't that how licensing works, that you have to state what exactly the customer paid for a license to?
Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate over-reaching (Score:5, Interesting)
The boldface shows one option that I picked from their menus:
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?
Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
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]!
Not looking to settle with IBM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
So the true face of SCO is revealed... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry for Linus, he's said he doesn't want to get involved with the scum.
What I want to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Will their be a non-IP ownership indemnity agreement?
Somehow I doubt it.
"I prefer the term extortion because the X makes it sound cool!" - Bender on SCO IP fundraising
Re:Price (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What if? (Score:2, Interesting)
But if they sell it as a license to use the SCO IP, which _is_ part of Linux, I reckon the trouble they will be in if they are wrong has just grown a whole lot bigger, provided they actually sell some licences.
And IANAL, but reading their page it sounds a lot like they really are saying the latter.
Re: With that license... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Commercial only is expected (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe "borrow" someone's HP-UX or AIX cdroms and buy a license from SCO?
Really!!!
Re:Also... (Score:3, Interesting)
VISA? (Score:3, Interesting)
At least, this will make it more interesting. It's better than the reality shows on TV.
Linus and the kernel hackers? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
My response to SCO... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's to hoping for a response. I'll post anything I hear back
Anything resembling System V includes lots of code (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Darl and co's personal liability (Score:2, Interesting)
There is obviously a wide difference in scope between the actual confines of the SCO legal (non)case and the immense FUD and wild claims (3 million lines of offending code - anyone?) Darl and his co-directors have been bandying about. Not to mention the threats and blackmail.
A class action to hunt them down after SCO's demise?
don't tell me that this scenario might come true (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Whoopie! (Score:3, Interesting)
step2: wait 5 years for it to become a collectors item
step3: sell license on ebay
step4: profit!
Re:Hello? (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that they continue to pursue licensing where currently their legal standing has not been established is insane."
According to the SCO FAQ: "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."
There are also other choice Q&A's in the FAQ. Mostly stating that Linux does indeed have stolen code. Read their IP FAQ. It pissed me off just skimming it. What a crock of BS!
Seems to me that regardless of the outcome of the IBM/Novell issues/cases, they are going to keep making the accusations that there is still SCO code in the linux kernel and it's sub-systems.
Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like not only do they need to lose their IBM case, but they also need to be court ordered to drop these claims.
Re:So lets suppose I buy one. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What a farce... (Score:1, Interesting)
1. Darl's exit strategy is unsuccessful. And he knows it.
2. He will lose in court. And he knows it.
3. ZDNET journalists (ha!) write silly stuff.
4. Slashdot, Groklaw and countless other sources keep spending time on this.
Let's just wait until IBM annihilates them and ol' Darly has to go back to his multi-wife farm.
What about SCO's own software? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
SCO Seems To Be Blocking Requests To It (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO must have a) shut off the web server service, or b) blocked out port 80, or c) pulled the web page.
The server is up, but you can't access the web page. Pinging it returns the IP address and responses are relatively quick:
Pinging shop.sco.com [216.250.128.240] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.250.128.240: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=236
Ping statistics for 216.250.128.240:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 77ms, Maximum = 88ms, Average = 80ms
No need for actual SCO IP (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
the way its worded (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO Licensing (Score:2, Interesting)
I intended to buy a license to protect me against any future legal problems but couldn't decide which license I should buy.
I have a few questions:
My operating system (I won't quote its name here now, because I don't have the license yet) reports two CPU's. I've got one of those hyper-threading CPU's. Should I buy two licenses? Do you carry fractional licenses?
I am a typical desktop user but I run proptfd, samba and postfix. Now, does this qualify my machine as a server?
What do you mean by the "name of the server"? Names can change as you very well know, for instance www.sco.com can grow to become www.thescogroup.com.
Do you also own proftpd, apache, samba, postfix? How will I know that you will not start asking for more money to cover licenses of programming in C, breathing etc.
By the way; do you also own stdio.h? Should I revise my old programs to get rid of them? On second thought, you might send me the list of IPs that you do not own. This might make life easier for both parties.
I shall appreciate a prompt answer.
Re:own? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why doesn't SCO just simply publish this code so that it can be taken out of Linux if it is indeed infringing? And why do you require a non-disclosure agreement to view some of this infringing code?
[snippola]
SCO has confidentiality clauses in all of our contracts with more than 3,000 licensees that specifically state that this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.
Um, okay.. but SCO has already distributed their own version of linux, source code and all. If there is SCO-owned UNIX source in linux, doesn't this mean that SCO has already distributed said UNIX source, thus putting themselves in violation of said contracts?
Did they write these contracts on Moebius paper or what??
Re:What about SCO's own software? (Score:1, Interesting)
NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace.
Dear SCO customer,
Starting on November 1, 2003, SCO will institute new procedures for you to access binary updates and source rpms. If you own an SCO licensed copy of Linux (such as such as OpenLinux, eDesktop, etc.), it will be necessary for you to register (or re-register) in order to continue to receive support files.
My advice: forget it. Their protection racket means you cannot use the source. You also cannot use their binary kernels because they havn't been patched against the very serious flaws that were revealed in the last two weeks.
Either tell sco to fuck off or go to BSD
I run Linux... (Score:4, Interesting)
For a start, they can take their complaint up with my vendor [redhat.com], with whom I have a commercial agreement (yes, I'm one of those people who actually bought support. Call me crazy.).
No big deal, here, so far. I'm sure anyone with common sense feels the same way about SCO's ramblings, and as such there's nothing "special" about my statement.
However, I, for one, welcome any invoice(s) SCO might send me [slashdot.org] (after deobfuscating my email address, of course). Threats of legal action, if they deem it necessary, are fine, not that they'd do that, now, would they?
I expect exactly as much response from me posting this email address here as I managed to get from them when I asked them what the story was with licensing in AU -- in the context of the Australian Trade Practices Act; absolutely none. Even if SCO were technically clued enough to browse Slashdot, they haven't the balls to actually, you know, try their claims on here in Australia. For a start, I'm sure they know how our competition watchdog [accc.gov.au] feels about misrepresentation -- or, indeed, "accidental" misrepresentation...
Come on, SCO, I'd love to be able to fax a copy of any invoice to the ACCC. They'd love to hear from me, too, I'm sure.
Just use BSD... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Just use BSD... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry, borther in BSD, SCO is just our common enemy
Re:SCO Seems To Be Blocking Requests To It (Score:4, Interesting)
(note: see disclaimer in sig
Re:What about SCO's own software? (Score:1, Interesting)
All your code are belong to us. (Score:2, Interesting)
What a wonderful license.
And they called the GPL viral.
Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)
It replaces the '1' on one of the dice with the Eye Of Sauron, and every time it appears on a roll you move the Ring along one property. Once it reaches Mount Doom (previously known as Mayfair), the game ends, and whoever is the richest at that point wins. So far, on four-player games, that is only just about enough time for one player to go bankrupt, so no-one ends up sitting around for 3 hours waiting for the increasingly obvious conclusion, and everyone has fun.
Its the first 'novelty' Monopoly board that I've actually thought really worth buying to supplement a standard set.
Re:It's worse than that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, if you buy this license, SCO will know exactly who you are, and once they find you running your machine with an open web or ftp port they can sue you for breach of contract.
Now, IANAL, but that's exactly how that sounds to me, and I wouldn't put it past SCO to issue a license that the other side immediately breaches.
The open source, open standards scam is a strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
No doubt this was the Rambus revenge on the market for rejecting Rdram, and a secondary strategy the company employed as a backup in case their Intel-backed Rdram initiative failed, which it did. Although suffering some initial judicial setbacks, Rambus still has its eye on the prize and is quietly working through a variety of appeals courts in several countries. Although what Rambus did with repsect to JEDEC was obviously and highly immoral, Rambus continues to pursue the proposition that their actions were not, however, illegal with respect to the application of existing patent law.
Enter SCO, using much the same approach and srategy Rambus publicized, in relation to the use of of its undescribed, undefined unix code.
The idea here, and the strategy here, is pretty much a "sucker-bait" or "bait and switch" tactic that a number of companies are attempting to inflict upon their respective markets. As a strategy what it involves is offering so-called "free Open Source" standards or software to the markets for an extended period of time so that an appreciable market penetration occurs, and then the ax falls--or at least tries to fall...;)
Out of the blue, people everywhere who have been using oss, and have become accustomed to it and have integrated it into their business environments are told by SCO: "Surprise! It wasn't really free or open to begin with, and we're sorry you didn't realize this, but now we're telling you, so pay up!"
Contrast this way of doing business with the traditional method of informing your customers in advance that you are selling proprietary software at a price that is to be negotiated prior to the sale of licenses, the way that Microsoft, for instance, has always done things (or Apple with OS X, etc., and every other commercial software company you might think of.)
The situation relative to JEDEC and its open standards hardware committees is fairly easy to correct, providing that JEDEC member companies are willing to sign written, stringent agreements designed to eliminate the possibility of a Rambus repeat in the future. I would assume as the other JEDEC companies have never before pulled a Rambus that they would be willing to do so as it is in their direct interests. But if not, it's difficult to see much of a future for sensible concepts like JEDEC in light of the abuses Rambus has inflicted on the concept.
The so-called "open source" software situation is, however, not nearly as clear cut, imo. The main thing for people to realize and ponder is that "Open Source Software" is not manna from heaven. It doesn't fall out of the sky, and lots of people who contribute to it spend appreciable amounts of time and resources doing so. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect, therefore, that the various contributors to oss code have sometimes very different motivations for their contributions, and some of them may well have longer-range plans for it similar to what has developed with SCO. I really think it is quite unreasonable given the present circumstances to think otherwise.
From what I've seen of the SCO positions as publicized, SCO doesn't actually have a position other than the idea of winning the day in court somewhere through a process of attrition, based on the notion that statements that would seem ludicrous and absurd to the technology sector might s