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.
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:SCO Seems To Be Blocking Requests To It (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO Seems To Be Blocking Requests To It (Score:5, Funny)
Re: But... (Score:5, Funny)
> Do they take Monopoly money?
Yep, it was specially designed for pretending to buy pretend property.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh - Marvin Garden has two hotels.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
No "unless" about it. You can't trade a property with a house or hotel, period. All buildings in the color group must be sold at half price before any property is traded, and the new owner may then buy them at full price (if he has the whole set).
-- Micah the Monopoly guru (now if he could just find someone else who wants to play it right...)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Do they take Monopoly money?
I am trying to get through to their online store, but it looks like that server is slashdotted right now. I wonder what sort of mischief I could do...
I do plan on stuffing an envelope with Monopoly money and sending it to them. I wonder what kind of response, if any, I would get?
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
From SCO? Probably not much. From the Treasury Department, on the other hand....
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
He he he. Why, heck no TJ. Them fellers at SCO ain't that stupid. Oh, no. Ya see, them boys is educated.
Yep. The only thing next to Federal Gov't Green is what we all calls "Conferderate Money". Jeff Davis. Robt. E Lee. You know, them fine Southern Gents that we haven't seen in over 140 years. Why I got a whole mess'a them bills all stacked quiet away-like just fer this kind'a 'mergency.
Of course I have no reservations on sending the whole lot of it to Darl's kin. Kinda like to keep it in the family, y'know.
Well, I guess I'm gonna go count me a stack up and get 'em ready to send to 'ol SCO. Yeeeeeep. My license is in the bag (He he he he he he).
Ya'll be good now, ya hear....
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Where do I sign up? (Score:5, Informative)
Where do I sign up? The host shop.sco.com [sco.com] (linked from How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License [thescogroup.com] website) is up and running, but with port 80 closed! What is going on? See:
pth@sd:~$ nmap -vp80 shop.sco.com
... good.
Starting nmap V. 2.54BETA31 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
No tcp,udp, or ICMP scantype specified, assuming vanilla tcp connect() scan. Use -sP if you really don't want to portscan (and just want to see what hosts are up).
Warning: You are not root -- using TCP pingscan rather than ICMP
Host shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240) appears to be up
Initiating Connect() Scan against shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240)
The Connect() Scan took 0 seconds to scan 1 ports.
The 1 scanned port on shop.sco.com (216.250.128.240) is: closed
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2 seconds
pth@sd:~$
Is that another desperate PR stunt? I would like to buy a license, to sue them in the future for selling it to me. My lawyer adviced me that it would be a better investment than SCO stock, especially in the case of class action lawsuit. Does anyone has any comments about their EULA [thescogroup.com]? Is it legally binding? If so, then would it be enforceable? And the most important question: Where do I sign up? Thanks.
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:5, Funny)
You just did. They're going to use nmap on you, discover that you're running Linux, get your name and street address from your ISP and then send you a bill in the mail.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
--
Tomas
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Uh huh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Funny)
When compiler are outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)
... 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.'''
Re:When compiler are outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When compiler are outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)
But that really doesn't matter since SCO only manages to shoot themselves in the foot most of the time.
Re:When compiler are outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pricing and Binary only? (Score:5, Funny)
Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate, this will continue to be interesting to watch.
Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)
> 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)
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)
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]!
Re:Also... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Commercial only is expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoopie! (Score:5, Funny)
Did somebody say hotcakes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did somebody say hotcakes? (Score:5, Funny)
With that license... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: With that license... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Will SCO Provide Indemnification (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.
So lets suppose I buy one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So lets suppose I buy one. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So lets suppose I buy one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So lets suppose I buy one. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Price (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Price (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Price (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Predicament (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
I'm sorry for Linus, he's said he doesn't want to get involved with the scum.
windows any one? (Score:5, Interesting)
That will sure increase the war chest!
Re:windows any one? (Score:4, Informative)
Lightbubls (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:Lightbubls (Score:5, Funny)
Zero. The SCO executives simply wait for a Linux developer to screw in a lightbulb, then SCO claims ownership of the house.
Disclaiming of 'misrepresentation' (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll hold off... (Score:5, Funny)
We're quite safe then (Score:5, Funny)
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
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:Hello? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)
Going....Going...... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm, you know....this is one of those sites I just really don't mind slashdotting.
-Chris
Potential ramifications? (Score:5, Informative)
As I've said before... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As I've said before... (Score:5, Informative)
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
New Business Model (Score:4, Funny)
Hey Windows users, you owe me $99.95 a year for those "Icon" things I invented last year.
Cola (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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?
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?
Wasn't this earlier today? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
Did anyone read the EULA? (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is going "Damn, why didn't we think of this!" (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure I speak for everyone here... (Score:5, Funny)
... when I say, "The fine people at SCO can line up to take turns kissing my ass."
OUCH! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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
Do they accept bartering? (Score:5, Funny)
OMFG (Score:5, Informative)
#
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.
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
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?
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.
old Unix sources released under BSDlicense in 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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:Shazbot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is wrong with the US (Score:5, Informative)
And by "Every country other then the US", you must mean "Germany and Australia", because they're the only ones who have enjoined SCO from trying to sell licenses.