SCO Run-Time Licenses: Get 'em While They're Hot! 587
ddtstudio writes "Well, if you've been holding off your payments to SCO for your Linux usage, eWeek reports that you need wait no longer. SCO has now made available for your IP pleasure their run-time licenses -- that is, if you can get one. Seems there are some problems getting even sales people at SCO to answer the phone. Is this any way to run a business?"
choices choices.. (Score:5, Funny)
answers on a postcard..
This is so going to ruin my karma.... (Score:5, Funny)
goatse.cx ?
Re:This is so going to ruin my karma.... (Score:3, Funny)
An Open Response To Darl McBrides Open Letter (Score:5, Interesting)
(First Draft)
Dear Mr. McBride,
First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Gabriel. I have been working in the technical field for 15 years, as a Network Administrator, Applications Manager, Network Manager, Sr. Networking Engineer, and now, Freelance Consultant. And, yes, I'm an MCSE.
My first experiences with Unix occurred in the late 1970's, during school field trips to local colleges. I also did Unix technical support for students while taking a class in Pascal in the late 1980's. My first experience with Linux dates to 1994, when I downloaded whatever Linux kernel was available at that time.
While I did install it successfully, on a Compaq Deskpro 386/25, I quickly abandoned it as the system didn't have enough memory to support X Windows. Several years later, in 1998, I became a Caldera customer, with a purchase of Caldera OpenLinux Base ver. 1.22, with Linux kernel 2.0.33. I ran into similar problems again.
About a year ago, I became interested again Linux, and now run Linux on my home workstation in a dual-boot configuration with Windows XP.
About 4-5 months ago, I began following the SCO v. IBM story. I was at first inclined to be open-minded towards SCO's claims. It wouldn't be the first time a small company has had its copyrights violated by a larger vendor, though the violator is usually, in my experience, Microsoft, as exemplified by Caldera's history with DR-DOS.
However, the more I researched the story and SCO's claims, the more convinced I became that SCO's claims were, well, baseless. Being the type that usually likes to "root for the underdog", I was surprised by my conclusions.
Anyway, that's enough introduction. What follows is an Open Response to your Open Letter to the Open Source Community. I grant everyone, including you, permission to re-publish it, or quote from it, without restriction, except that my comments be properly attributed to myself. Consider it under a "BSD-style" license if you like.
1) The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
Mr. McBride,
Response to Paragraph 1 of your "Open Letter":
This is very difficult to respond to, because your analysis of the issues and of the reasons for the Open Source community's anger is, in the words of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "so bad it's not even wrong."
For instance, your own lawsuit against IBM does not allege that "SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux" -- it alleges that code *owned* by IBM but under contractual "control" rights to SCO has been copied into Linux. Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU?
Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?
The truth is there are many reasons the Open source community is angered with you and the actions of The SCO Group and The Canopy Group, none of which have too do with "intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model." We don't believe such problems exist. We do believe that The SCO Groups legal theories of what constitutes "derivative works" have no basis in copyright, patent, or tradem
I called and asked. (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose 2/3 of them were pissed off slashdot trolls, and the other 1/3 of them were slashdotters trying to act serious about it, I talked to an operator a long time about it acting serious and asking exactly what I was buying, I hope alot of other slashdotters do too
Phone SCO and ask.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. If I fail to purchase a SCO License will SCO sue me
Push the point until the sales rep says yes they will sue you if you don't buy a license. This is a threat
2. Ask them what code in Linux infringes their IP, and where you can find details so that you can remove it
Give them the chance to substanciate their claim of stolen code in Linux so that their threat to sue is not extortion. They will of course refuse
3. Ask them if the SCO IP License allows you to redistribute the Linux source code that contains their IP under GPL
They have made it quite clear in the press release that they will not.This contravenes the GPL license of Linux
4. Explain that their 'binary only license' is in direct contravention of GPL and ask them to indemnify you against being sued for non compliance with the source provision requirement of GPL
They obviously will not do this because their license mutually exclusive with the GPL.
I think it would be interesting to post replies to these questions, Perhaps I may even make an international phone call just to see what they have to say.
Answers to these questions may be useful in any future legal cases against SCO so if you can record the call and identify the rep you spoke to it will help the case against them for extortion, or perhaps not in the strange legal system of the USA
Re:choices choices.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget that SCO went from "contract dispute" to "Linux is our bitch" to "We own anything and everything even remotely related to Unix", and now seem to be switching between those arguments randomly. I don't know about you, but contradictory press releases and interviews do not a court case make.
Re:choices choices.. (Score:5, Funny)
The unprofessionals hate him. They will be unprofessional about it.
IBM will be professional.
Some of us will be unprofessional.
We are not asking anyone's opinion or advice.
Re:choices choices.. (Score:4, Informative)
SCO has already givin up their right to be treated as professionals.
Re:choices choices.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are professionals alright.
Professional criminals to be specific.
Serious professionals don't pull punches (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious professionals don't pull punches with their opinions, and stand behind their statements.
Faced by a "case" that is comprised largely of barratry, fraudulent accusations, and public grandstanding such as SCO is delivering, I see no reason anyone should "watch what you say".
SCO is going to lose, of that I have no doubt. Darl is going to plead insanity because there is no other way he can hope to avoid jail time in such a massive case of fraud. Those stuck with the stock with cry that the government owes them payback for allowing the fraudulent case to continue, and if it's in the hands of investment corps, they'll turn around and recover their losses on the backs of the consumers.
This case serves one purpose and one purpose only -- to highlight the utter insanity of the current US legal system with respect to IP law and it's enforcement.
Or have you not noticed that IP law is the only case where one is guilty until proven innocent, with no way to recover the costs of defending against the barratry? The fact that SCO is being allowed to demand license fees and threaten charges against those who don't pay for their unproven claims is the worst abuse of US law I've seen to date.
Calling McBride and SCO "asshats" is being extremely polite in the face of their behavior.
Re:choices choices.. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF??? Have you been in a cage the last half year? No easy shots?
Look at this diamond [216.239.39.104] (yeah, they removed the page since then).
Or how about:
""A significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual-property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers" who contribute to Linux, the suit said.
Re:choices choices.. (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright infringement? I don't remember anything about copyright infringement unless your talking about the continued distribution of linux by SCO in violation of the GPL. I'll grant that there definetly is code in both IBM AIX, Sequent's Dynix, and Linux that is common but is that because its IBM's code to do with as they please because they own it, is it because it code that IBM got in SVR4 and distributed illegaly, or is it because the code in question either came from BSD or is too trivial to appear different?
The case is not about copyright infringement, SCO is very carefull not to talk about copyright infringement, which has a legal definition, but rather talks about The undefined, nebulous concept of intellectual property. SCO may hold the licenses for both IBM and Sequent, and both those licienses are reported to have very different terms, and since IBM now owns Sequent and its IP, which liciense applies may either make or break SCO's arguements. Also it's interesting to note that IBM's OS390 is the only UNIX that has no lineage to the original AT&T unix.
Get 'em While They're H (Score:4, Funny)
-B
Re:Get 'em While They're non-existent (Score:5, Interesting)
Well when I got the guy, I basically inquired about the 'sco/linux' licenses that I keep hearing about on the news.
him: "What do you need to know?"
him: "Have you read the press release?"
him: "Have you seen the lawsuit information?"
Me: "I don't have internet access, I just wanted to know what I need to buy so I don't get in trouble. Can you please mail(snail) me the license agreement, some product information, and purchasing information so I can send you a cheque?"
Him: "...?"
EOF
He didn't know what to say. Apparently a sales rep will call me back, but all I want is something on paper that says what this license _is_.
How come if you called anyone else and said "I want to purchase a license for this software" They would jump on it and get your CC# when all SCO is doing is going on and on about lawsuits? This has to be a joke.
Ok. end rant.
Re:Get 'em While They're non-existent (Score:4, Insightful)
OK guys - what crime did I just commit? Fraud? Extortion? Attempting to obtain money under false pretenses? I'm damn sure that'd be illegal behaviour. It would if I did it anyway. Maybe if I was publically traded it'd be another matter.
Point is, I rather suspect that it'd be just as illegal for SCO to do it - especially since their claim to Linux is only marginally stronger than my claim to Feet(tm). But as long as they only talk about it there's no evidence for anyone to base a case around. So there'll be no sales.
It's just more FUD. And possibly, as someone else pointed out, a ploy to get future victims to identify themselves. But mainly FUD I think.
Re:Get 'em While They're non-existent (Score:5, Informative)
SCO ceased to be a company when this whole mess began. It's only purpose in life is to act as a litigation engine. Nobody would buy their products unless under threat of extortion anyway.
Negotiating Prices... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this a contest for the best offer? I'll raise the offer with my finger.
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:3, Funny)
Is this a contest for the best offer? I'll raise the offer with my finger.
I'll double that
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:4, Funny)
And just what in the hell makes you think we'd offer you the same terms we gave our token Fortune 500 client?!
-- Darl
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:3, Funny)
However it is still not too late to get the Microsoft deal. $10,000,000 for up to zero machines!
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll give you nothing... and that's my final offer."
Pay me $50 per CPU... And I'll consider not filing a complaint with my state Attorney General
Re:Negotiating Prices... (Score:3, Funny)
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
NOBODY expects the SCO License Audit! Our chief weapon is suprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and a littany of grandiose claims in press releases.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and grandiose claims... and an almost fanatical devotion to the UNIX license.... Our *four*... no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such diverse elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries that could immediately be followed up on....
900 calls. 300 of em serious.
Ya gettin the message Darl?
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dang it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dang it! (Score:4, Insightful)
> bought at $10, instead I placed my faith in justice and shorted them... Oh well, at least I can add my name to the list of those
> screwed by SCO
First, it should be clear by now that you should not take investment advice from
Juridicial Advice? (Score:3, Insightful)
> or juridical advice.
You mean some guy asked the folks on
Re:Dang it! (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's press releases are being reported as straight news. The business world isn't going to wake up and smack SCO because right now they have no clue about what SCO is really up to.
Re:Dang it! (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair to SCO, not that there's any reason to be, their very first claims that the SCO Openserver and Unixware *libraries* should be licensed and paid for by end-users had some merit. If they had left it at that and charged a fair price - say $100 give or take $25 - to license those libraries, then most of us would not have had any issues with them.
BTW, I know and you know that those libraries kinda suck, but they're a niche product for corporate deployments that need that support, so the relatively high price I'm suggesting for them is probably a fair value to the clients who would actually need them.
Other than that, I agree; none of their other legal theories have any credibility whatsoever.
Did they expect calls? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or it's just a cheap screening tactic to try and weed out the 2 real buyers from the 800 anti-SCO people who just want to argue with them?
What if. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it legal for company A to send you an invoice for a product you got from company B?
Re:What if. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What if. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, at least not in this case. In this case SCO has threatened to sue people who are not licensed. The only reason you are asking is so that you won't be sued.
Re:What if. (Score:3, Insightful)
But they are not asking for it, SCO is. SCO is saying pay up or else, and he's just reacting to SCO's statements. It's not like linux users have been screaming for binary only licences all these years and SCO is finally providing the service.
Re:What if. (Score:5, Informative)
SCO are being quite careful about ensuring that people know this is not a Linux license, but rather a license for any IP that may be contained in Linx. They've even gone as far as to make a part of the license contract be an agreement that they don't owe anything in return, even if it's found that there is no SCO IP present.
If SCO were flat-out licensing Linux to you, you would have a case. But it's a bit more blurry (though that doesn't mean it's entirely legal) with the way they're handling it.
You can be sure that SCO's laywers have been hammering on this for quite a while, and while the broad strategies SCO have been using seem pretty strange, SCO isn't going to hang itself when it comes to collecting cash instead of just spewing bizarre quotes to the press.
Re:What if. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we have ebay selling 'buyer insurance' while denying that the service is actually insurance, or saying they will actually pay anything out. We have SCO asking for money without possible refund if the product never materiali
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3)
Blake: Stand by to fire at Rebel base.
NO CARRIER Linus: Great shot, kid. That was one in a million.
Re:Go Big Blue! (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
Re:Go Big Blue! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a business? (Score:4, Funny)
Therein lies the key. Since when did it become a business? I thought the consensus had pretty much realized by now this was a Pump-And-Dump scheme?
SCO "Run-Time" License Ready (Score:4, Funny)
Disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing (Score:5, Interesting)
You can be sure as hell that this is one thing that will not happen. IBM is well aware that if they capitulate on this one, there will be a dozen or more copycat suits of varying degrees of merit. It's better to obliterate a case like this and to make it an expensive mistake for SCO's investors than it is to negotiate.
All kidding aside, at this point the most favorable outcome for SCO (whether they know it yet or not) would be for IBM to dig deeply enough to scare SCO into dropping the case and retiring to a quiet corner to expire without any of the principals doing time for fraud.
Re:Disturbing (Score:3, Insightful)
It occurs to me that IBM would not want to own control of the UNIX(TM)* sysV codebase. It would put IBM in too powerful a position with respect to other vendors, and cause them to gang up on IBM. There could be lawsuits about IBM abusing its monopolistic control of the source code and licenses that its competitors need to operate. Such accusations would be a problem even if they are false.
* UNIX(TM) is a tradema
Never buy a x.0 release. (Score:5, Funny)
Salesmen (Score:3, Funny)
This is SCO's idea of the travelling salesman problem?
Good job guys! (Score:5, Funny)
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries that could immediately be followed up on...
Translation time! (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, a zero-length file...
Oh wait, my mistake; there are millions of lines of SCO code in Linux. Entire programs, even.
Just WHAT am I licensing??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Failing that, they're racketeering vaporware.
MadCow.
But what do their employees think (Score:4, Interesting)
And by that I mean the coders (if they have any left)?
Sure, the sales people are just doing their job, but what about the coders at the company? Surely they can't believe the drivel thats coming from above?
Is there actually anyone left in that company that has more than 2 ethical brain cells?
Remember, this company was once Caldera, who produced a linux distro, so is there anyone left from those days?
Re:But what do their employees think (Score:5, Informative)
And by that I mean the coders (if they have any left)?
You've pretty much answered your question in the parenthesis. SCO has laid off most of its development staff, and there have been a few high-profile people quitting as well. What's left at SCO is mostly the legal team and a handful of salespeople.
If you visit SCO's website and look at the hiring page, you'll presently find no open positions. I think this means SCO are pretty much digging in and wagering the entire future of the company on this lawsuit.
Re:But what do their employees think (Score:5, Insightful)
This was also clear from the ineptitude of their slide presentation: If there were any competant techs in the company, the execs would at least have had them sanity check the presentation to avoid making fools of themselves. Which evokes the amusing image of SCO execs and lawyers staring dumbly at Linux and SysV code in Word and, with only the fuzziest comprehension, trying to figure out what to paste into PowerPoint.
Re:But what do their employees think (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting thing happens when you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough. Not only do you begin to sway the masses, you begin to believe it yourself. I have to wonder if this is possibly what has happened here. The human mind is an amazing thing. One moment it is capable of the most keen observation and insight. The next, it very easily knows how to apply its own filters to make you not se
Re:But what do their employees think (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not in the decision making process here, but a couple people have been keeping me up on what's going on, and I gather that corporate is very, very pissed off at SCO and is considering a breach of contract lawsuit (our su
Sep 9th: SCO CEO Posts Open Letter to OS community (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm [linuxworld.com]
Darl's interesting quoting style (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm [linuxworld.com]
From the above link, this quote:
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This appears to be the ComputerWire article referred to
http://au.news.yahoo.com/030826/20/lfff.html [yahoo.com]
The paragraph in which the "error" quote reads:
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
I looked what Perens said in the original (referred to be ComputerWire)
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
Re:Darl's interesting quoting style (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that the code in question won't compile suggests to me that it's so ancient it hasn't been supported in compilers since well before the 2.x series (which I've compiled on my systems).
It's a shame that all this info can't be directed to the stock-owners in such a way that they understand it. If so, and if any of them have any sense, SCO would take a huge hit.
realityshunt
Re:Darl's interesting quoting style (Score:5, Informative)
All the same, the code was released years ago under an open source license in 2002 by Caldera, now SCO, and that even if it had still been in the kernel, the developers would be completely in their right.
Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Darl's interesting quoting style (Score:4, Insightful)
So, SCO where's the beef? (Clara Peller)
Re:Sep 9th: SCO CEO Posts Open Letter to OS commun (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Darl implies that because one person allegedly associated with the open source community has launched a DDoS attack against SCO and, again allegedly, ESR didn't turn this person in, the whole open source community is suspect. I don't think so.
2) Allegedly (again) some SCO proprietary code made its way through SGI into the Linux source tree with the SCO copyright notices removed at some point along the way. Darl claims that this means that all Linux code is therefore suspect. Again, I don't think so.
3) Continuing from 2, this conveniently ignores copyrighted BSD (Berkely Packet Filter) code that was presented as an example of Linux code that infringes on SCO copyrights. It seems that somehow the original BSD copyright notice got removed at some point and now SCO calls the code their own. For Darl, SCO employees removing someone else's copyright is not a problem.
4) Darl seems to be really concerned about warranties and indemnifications not provided by open source software and Linux but he must not have ever read a software EULA. They always claim to limit the liability of the licensor to the cost of the product. As an aside, this concept doesn't work with open source software since the customer has the source code and is freely permitted to change it as they see fit. No one can warrant a product when the end user can make changes, not that the warranties provided by closed source software vendors are anything to make you sleep well.
5) Darl (talking about profitable business models) apparently wants to return to the time when software companies thought they could make big bucks by selling software licenses. All it takes is a quick look at the TCO and ROI arguments for Windoze vs. Linux to see that these times are long gone and that isn't just because of pricing pressure from Linux. Software buyers are more concerned now about support, service, stability, maintainability, etc. The initial cost of the software license is a small component at what buyers look at when selecting an operating platform for a business. A litiguous vendor such as SCO is not someone I would consider even if there weren't technical arguments against choosing them. Also, I haven't exactly heard of SCO as being a paragon of customer support which is supposed to be the argument for selecting a closed source vendor.
Its time for dinner so I'll stop at this point.
Re:Sep 9th: SCO CEO Posts Open Letter to OS commun (Score:3, Insightful)
They now admit that SGI was responsible for one example of "stolen" code they have been touting, but forget to mention that was removed from the kernel and was only compiled into intanium kernels.
"To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model."
This is much stronger than the "derivative code" claim, because they are saying one million actual specific lines of code were taken, not just ideas a
The devil can quote scripture (Score:5, Insightful)
... to his own ends, and this is precisely what has happened here in the LinuxWorld article.
I will not go into the details of the misquotations from ESR and Mr. Perens, or his abuse of the DDoS attack, as several other astute /. posters have already done so above (below? not sure where the post will appear in the thread). I will instead turn to the interesting tidbit that Mr. McBride mentions near the end, after all the talk about the flaws in the Open Source development process:
It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation tableAnd to this I can only respond: Mr. McBride, how the FUCK can we negociate with you or work together with you when you WON'T REVEAL A SINGLE GODDAMN LINE OF INFRINGING CODE?
Mr. McBride is playing an interesting game here. He is acting as the master manipulator of the public mindset. Whether this was his intent from the beginning or simply a means to cover up a huge blunder is irrelevant at this point. While it is true that many of his statements are contradictory to the rational person, his intended audience is NOT the rational, but the business world and the media. He knows all the buzzwords that make business/media sit up and pant like lapdogs. What makes this an uphill battle for the OSS community is the very fact that we eschew these buzzwords and prefer to rely on fact. Unfortunately, fact is apparantly not what business/media wants to hear. I am sure that in the next few days we will see reports from the media that Mr. McBride is presenting the proverbial olive branch to the community. I can almost guarantee that the very term "olive branch" will be used.
It will be interesting to see if this is successful in affecting the tide of opinion. I sincerely hope not. But then again, the vitriol and self-contradictory, specious, racist bullshit spewed by Adolf Hitler was enough to sway the masses.
Ungrateful! (Score:3)
ESR has already stated how he feels about being the guidon holder for open source.
1. Take my job, please. [catb.org]
2. Understand my job, please. [catb.org]
Further, if you can find someone who will do all of that, and perhaps more, you need to send him an e-mail, because he wants to know about it. Why not use this [catb.org] as a starting point when you're looking.
As for what ESR has done for the Open Source Community-at-large, ponder this, batman: You need the idealists [stallman.org], the pragmatists [perens.com]
Next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)
Crisco, too.
Negotiate this (Score:5, Funny)
Here in America we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Right to change / contribute (Score:5, Funny)
We will give you a license to run this code we fail to identify. It's not a license to all unix code but only the code we claim is in linux kernels 2.4 and 2.5, and it's a binary only license but we don't actually compile it, someone else does. We won't actually tell you what you are paying for, and what you may not modify or contribute to. You are just going to have to trust us.
Well... I think it's only approperate to respond in binary... Enclosed is a hex represnation so in order to bypass the lameness filter
46 55 43 4B 20 5A 4F 55 21 21 21
Re:Right to change / contribute (Score:5, Funny)
What's really funny is that you got spelling flames for something written in hex. If there was ever any doubt that Slashdot is full of computer nerds...
suing or no suing (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO Group has been threatening corporate Linux users with legal action unless they obtain a license for its intellectual property, but until now, businesses have been unable to buy that license.
Now I may not be kept up to date on the current SCO status but I thought last week SCO said they have no plans to sue linux users - no?
So if they are not going to sue, what motivation would anyone have to but a licence?
And how the heck can they demand payment before clearing establishing their IP?
Of course... (Score:5, Funny)
What does a litigation company need with sales people?
New Court Tactic? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Well, we offered licensing. Publicized that we offered it but no one took us up on the offer your honor. What more could we do?"
Then they go about laying out lawsuits like the RIAA. Kinda scary when you think about it that way.
Let's see if I've got this right (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO guy (who's nervously flicking his Bic) believes that he can smell some burning wires in my store. For $699/CPU he will insure me against fire hazards.
Is that about right?
Not required using X-windows remotely (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't they sell some before? (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me for being shocked, but didn't SCO announce on August 11th in a press release [yahoo.com], that they'd sold the first license? And didn't SCO then go on to tell us that SCO had signed up at least one additional customer since it sold its first IP License for Linux on Aug. 11 [infoworld.com]?
Wait there's more...
There is an interesting coincidence about the timing of 1st license announcement.
According to marketwatch.com on 11 August:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical/defau
Stock opened at $10.45
Heavy trading (965,500 shares)
Fell to a low of $8.27. From Yahoo message board (see below) this low appears to be part of a sharp decline around late lunch time.
Stock closed at $9.289
Go look around here for what was being said on the yahoo board around 1.30 to 2pm this time: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&acti
The press release when SCO announced their first license was at 2.03pm ET according to the time stamp on it:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html [yahoo.com]
No doubt the timing is all coincidence.
Another coincidence is that Michael Olson, had a 10b5-1 sell on that day:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
No doubt, another coincidence.
So here's the quick summary:
1. SCO issued a press release, August 11, saying they sold their first Linux IP license: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html [yahoo.com]
2. The press release, luckily for SCO, appeared immediately after the stock crashed to a low of $8.27
3. A SCO insider had a pre-arranged plan to sell stock (and did so) on that day , 11 August: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
4. In September, SCO later said they had sold at least one other Linux IP license: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/03/HNscocu
5. In September, SCO later said they hadn't sold any Linux IP licenses: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=
6. I am not sure of the order of articles 4 and 5 in date, but article 4 appears to have been published before 5.
I will happily pay SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I will happily pay SCO $699 for a copy of the list of THOSE 300 customers! Seems like a good investment ;-)
Secret webpage to get SCO license uncovered! (Score:3, Funny)
Just tear off as much as you need [yimg.com], sign it (in brown), then mail it to SCO using the appropriate recepticle..
(You'll know what to do!)
DANGER! MUCH more expensive than money! (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're a fool if you buy one.
SCO is not suing IBM for misappropriation of their IP. What SCO IS suing IBM for is VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THEIR LICENSE.
Right now you probably don't HAVE a SCO license - shrink-wrap style language and all. This makes you nearly immune to suits from SCO.
But if you buy a license - even one - you are not just out the money. You have also paid them by entering into a contract, with contractual obligations. And if you buy one NOW, after all the publicity over their claims to own UNIX and evertying related to it, you can't claim ignorance of their claims.
If you use linux on one machine, and you pay them a sale price of a couple hundred bux, what are you going to tell the judge when he asks you:
- Why aren't you paying them whatever their latest asking price is for another license for your next two hundred machines.
- Why did you distribute this open-source software that SCO says contains their IP, in violation of your contract with SCO.
After all, if you signed the contract and paid the money. Didn't you just admit that this IP was theirs?
IMHO, anyone who buys a SCO license has just signed away, forever, his right to work on open-source code. As an individual you can't EVER release your work. As a company you can't EVER release your employees' work. (And good luck hiring any new employees with open-source experience.)
No open-source drivers for your products. No folding your fixes back into the mainstream, so you don't have to make them again on every new release of whatever open-source tool you fixed or improved for your critical business process.
So if you're contemplating buying a SCO license, ask yourself: "Is that REALLY what I intended to to?"
Who in their right mind.?!?!?!?!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's see if I get this right: people are willing to buy a license without actually being able to read it ?? I mean, isn't this the root of the entire problem in the first place: a mis-understanding or blatant ignorance of licensing rules?
Yikes!
Viral fantasies? (Score:5, Interesting)
The danger here is that SCO is not trying to make a claim contrary to the GPL model, but is trying to present a claim that is arguably isomorphic with part of the GPL's own claim, so that SCO either wins (not at all likely) or loses in a way that potentially weakens part of the GPL structure, providing that future courts look back on this case and see it as a precident against licensing giving an ownership right to derivative works.
Which would be exactly why Microsoft has put them up to this; and why it's far more than a pump-and-dump.
Dreams of two pronged letter (Score:3, Funny)
Dear RIAA,
It has come to our attention that D McBride is using this SCO product to build file sharing technolgy at a mega level. He has secretly assembled a complete catalog of some 472,000 songs that he will offer via his web site.
Dear SCO,
It has come to our attention that Capitol Records is using 4500 copies of Linux to run their offices with.
Insider Sentiment is Negative (Score:3, Interesting)
Insider Tearsheet for the week ending September 06, 2003 [thomsonfn.com]
Even the insiders don't have faith in this crap. They are selling, not buying.
Open Letter today from Darl (Score:3, Informative)
I could only manage the first few lines but some brave soul might be able to read the whole drivel.
Re:Open Letter today from Darl (Score:3, Interesting)
All I can say is the more that I read from Mr McBride the harder I think it must be for his staff to hear him with his head rammed that far up his arse. For instance:
But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Se
Corporate Licenses? SCO is Doomed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before Celestica would agree that licenses are appropriate, SCO would have to prove that they own the right to give them out. This will be interesting and while it is going on, the question will be asked are there any distributions that do not have the offending code and, from Celestica's perspective, could we wait for a distribution that SCO has no possible claim of ownership on?
Next a costing agreement would have to reached in which Celestica, which builds systems is licensed for the systems used in house, built, tested but not shipped using Linux as well as built, tested and shipped with Linux installed would have to be presented with a bill that reflects the different uses within the corporation. As part of this, a monitoring agreement would have to be put into place. Oh, did I mention that we built systems in every continent except Africa and Antartica?
Before any cheques would be written, a service agreement would have to negotiated. This is great news for somebody like me - we will not buy software licenses without any terms of support that goes with it.
Finally, an MOU regarding confidentiality would have to be in place between Celestica and SCO so that before new and unannounced systems are introduced to our manufacturing lines there is a process to set up a three way CITR between SCO, Celestica and the OEM to allow development and installation of manufacturing software. As part of this MOU, all existing relationships between SCO and their customers would have to be disclosed along with details so that we can make this process as painless as possible.
Creating a software license of this scope will take us 9 months or more and will include a hefty legal bill for both parties. Our procurement people are pretty sharp and SCO will have a tough time negotiating a price that is more than a fraction of what the street price single processor Linux license will be despite the additional legal costs and support infrastructure investments that will have to be made as part of the agreement.
"I pity the fools!"
myke
Here's why not to buy..... (Score:3, Informative)
Counterstrike (?) (Score:3, Interesting)
Something I came across that may be of interest in this discussion. I considered submitting a story on this, but rather than risk it getting rejected, I'll just mention it here.
ESR may have something up his sleeve. Check out this article [eweek.com] on eWeek. ESR has apparantly come up with some program that can compare source trees at a phenominal rate. He's keeping mum on what he exactly intends to do with it, but he's wearing a mighty big grin.
Anyone have a few minutes? (Score:3, Funny)
SCO Slave: "Hello, Thank you for calling SCO, owner of %110 of Linux sources, how may I own^H^H^Hhelp you today?"
You: "Yes, I was considering going for a walk, and I was curious if you own my legs."
SCO Slave: "Why yes we do, we own your right leg. You're required to sign up for our $50,000 right-leg usage license."
You: "Alright, so, after I pay for my leg, I'll be able to do what?"
SCO Slave: "oh, you'll be able to go for a walk, and continue using your legs like you used to."
You: "Legs? I thought you said my right leg."
SCO Slave: "Of course not, we own both your legs, and as I said before, the license fee is $70,000."
You: "But I grew these legs myself!"
SCO Slave: "Our research has determined that your legs contain parts stolen from our leg product"
You: "What?"
SCO Slave: "Your legs contain our patented 10-Toe module, as well as the version 3 rotating ankle."
You: "Alright, so if I pay $70,000 for the use of my legs, you'll leave me alone."
SCO Slave: "That's right, $100,000 for the use of your legs and torso."
To find out how the story ends, call them yourself, and share you results!
Klowner
Here's a contact that works (Score:3, Interesting)
Hans Bayer: hansba@sco.com
I've written a lengthy letter that starts like this. E-mail me for full text:
Thank you for your reply. I shall fill in my details and will expect you to fill in yours.
My in-use Linux distributions are:
Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, running a straight file- and printserver. I was given the installation CD at a conference with no restrictions on use or requirements for license fees, and being published under the GNU GPL, I assume that no additional license fees apply. I am considering changing this, since you seem not to be upgrading this product further - which means that support for USB and other new technologies is spotty at best.
RedHat 8.0.94, running kernel 2.6-test4, AMD Athlon workstation. This is a public beta downloaded from the Internet, and updated with the latest kernel from www.kernel.org. It is a kernel build without SMP, thus RCU is not in use. NUMA does not apply to the i386 platform. It does use the Ext3 journaling file system, but since this has been developed as an extension of the legacy Ext2 FS, and independently of the JFS from IBM, there is presumably no SCO IP involved here. The heritage of IBM's JFS is being discussed on the Internet, no need to go into details here.
The first piece of code you presented at the recent SCO conference has been removed earlier by the Linux kernel programming team, as it was shown to be of too poor quality for a modern OS. The second piece was developed independently from published specs by a person never exposed to the Unix source code - it must be a mistake that your chose this, thus I'll give it no further consideration.
Summing up, I assume that you have no code in this kernel, and thus that no licensing fees will apply. If you differ on this, please let me know the details (modules / file names) and I'll look into not compiling it in, or having it replaced by new code.
SuSE 7.0 Personal, boxed, running on a Pentium-based laptop. Since you have a joint project with SuSE to develop UnitedLinux, SuSE customers should (according to SuSE) be free from any additional licensing. This is currently running kernel 2.5.70, and I offer you to remove any SCO IP from the kernel. All I need to know is which elements of the kernel are in question.
Furthermore, I'm planning to set up a web/ftp server, based on Pentium (possibly dual CPU). At this time, I'm undetermined which Linux distribution/kernel version to use, and I am curious about which ones can be used without violating any IP problems. Therefore, I kindly ask your advice on the subject. Please be specific, however, any claims without sufficient details to investigate the matter will be disregarded. We intend to use only code that has been legally licensed and is free to use.
Since the pricing of your SCO IP Licenses is set quite high, I am mainly interested in removing any and all SCO IP from our computers, which should resolve the matter completely. Therefore, I ask you in good faith and well in advance of any court decision to provide me with details on how to do so. Please also note that all code in the Linux kernel has been licensed to me under the GNU GPL by the copyright holders. I consider my licenses to be complete and covering - if you have an IP issue, I think you should contact the individual copyright holders first, to clear out any problems. Since IBM has taken the SCO Group to court for breach of the GPL, any licensing issues will of course be pending the courts opinion on the matter.
Re:Here's the text - it's slowing already (Score:3, Interesting)
That means 2/3 of the callers told SCO to go fsck themselves.
Re:Proof... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'de like to talk to a salesman (Score:3, Interesting)
A while ago, someone noted that the estimated number of Linux users is roughly equivalent to the number of dollars SCO is presently holding.
If each Linux user could do something that woul
Re:What about for SCO UNIX? (Score:3, Funny)
The last thing we need is a bunch of RIAA clones, flooding the network with worthless files.
More like Pump and Squeeze (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that they hold the majority of the stock means they just can't just dump it. If the
Re: Y A SCO Headline... (Score:3, Interesting)
See, now this shows the difference between me and SCO. If I had been SCO, I would have sued your ass off for making a line by line copy of my own post [slashdot.org]. Since I am not SCO, I will do no such silly thing, other than to draw attention to your lack of courtesy in failing to attribute the post.