Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Caldera

SCO Sells First Linux Licenses in UK 295

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-is-still-going-on dept.
Christopher writes "SCO has actually sold its first Linux licenses in the UK. These licenses permit the use of SCO's intellectual property that is apparently present in Linux distributions, and in binary form only. To my understanding SCO hasn't won yet and these licenses don't grant you any freedoms you didn't already have, but SCO's vice president Chris Sontag says that 20 to 30 organisations worldwide have purchased these licenses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Sells First Linux Licenses in UK More

SCO Sells First Linux Licenses in UK

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Underholdning ( 758194 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:20AM (#10951641) Homepage Journal
    There are also people who sell land on the moon. It's wortless, and people pitty the ones who buy it.
    • That has more of a purpose for when we inhabit the moon. Although I do not know how valid it will be considering that the US govt may not acknowledge the purchase, and that is if the US even inhabits the moon first. But as for SCO, if you have open source things, why do you need a license to use it?

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MoonFog ( 586818 )
        Purchasing a spot on the moon is a scam. It cannot be purchased because nobody has the right to sell it because nobody owns it. IIRC, this has been agreed upon by all countries in the UN (feel free to correct me on this).

        As for SCO, they still claim that they own the rights to the code and that it shouldn't be open source, it was "stolen". That's why they claim license money and unfortunately some companies buy into it.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

          by Phisbut ( 761268 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:07AM (#10952048)
          It cannot be purchased because nobody has the right to sell it because nobody owns it. IIRC, this has been agreed upon by all countries in the UN (feel free to correct me on this).

          You are correct on this. From Wikipedia : [wikipedia.org]

          In 1979 a Moon Treaty was drafted by the United Nations which prohibits military action on (Article 3) and ownership of the moon by signatory states, their corporations or citizens (Article 11). Non-signatory UN-member states are free to accede to it at any time. Non-UN-member states appear unbound by the treaty.

          Since the US signed the Moon Treaty, no US citizen may claim ownership on any part of the moon.

          • Thanks for the link! Why didn't I check wikipedia myself?

            IMO, this is a good idea, we fight over enough down here, if not the moon.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

            by lakin ( 702310 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:30AM (#10952258)
            Except, the US never signed the moon treaty. They did sign the Outer Space Treaty, but that limits the government, not citizens or companies.

            http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/moon.htm [nasa.gov]

            This is also mentioned on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
            There is more detail here [affs.org]:
            "Only nine nations have ratified the Moon Treaty (Australia, Austria, Chile, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, and Uruguay), while over 90 have signed the Outer Space Treaty. By UN agreement, five signatures are sufficient to validate a treaty as an international instrument, but there is concern at the refusal of the USA and Russia/USSR to sign--the two nations most likely at present to engage significantly in space exploration."
            • My bad... somehow, I thought that On April 25 the United States Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. meant they ratified it, but I guess it doesn't... ahhh... the joy of politics...
              • Now I see where I went wrong... The Lunar Government [wikipedia.org] page has a link titled "Moon Treaty", but it actually points to the Outer Space Treaty. [wikipedia.org]

                And a couple of lines below, it clearly says All space faring nations (USA, UK, Russia, China, etc.) refused to sign it. I should learn to read it all before posting... :-S

        • It's an obvious scam to begin with, just like plots on the Moon. TSG's got very little rights to speak of as the settlement spells it out very clearly- the removed code from the 4.4BSD release is the only stuff that a successor in interest could lay claim to. Novell's that successor in interest right at the moment, as it's plainly clear that TSG didn't have what it takes to make a transfer of ownership in what little Novell actually owned.

          Anybody that has bought a "license" at this point in time would pr

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hey look at least there's some basis for selling land on the moon.

      There's actually land on the moon isn't there?

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zork the Almighty ( 599344 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:26AM (#10951689) Journal
      Next you'll be sued for depreciating the value of someone's moon land!
      • I own substantual parts of the Moon's shadow! Your aspersion has affected the value of my rights. I will sue you for your posting as slander, maybe even challenge you to a duel. We can take this up in court on the moon.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Amiga Lover ( 708890 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:31AM (#10951725)
      It's wortless, and people pitty the ones who buy it.

      It's not worthless to SCO.

      According to the recently release USL vs UCal agreement, USL couldn't take legal action against anyone for whom UNIX code had become public knowledge, but reserved the right to still take legal action against licensees to hold them to contracts.

      So according to this agreement, anything public knowledge about UNIX can go into Linux if it wanted to. Filenames, headers, code, whatever. It's ancient and decrepit now, but the freedom was there.

      Now, they can only sue licensees hence the legal action against IBM, Autozone and DaimlerChrysler, all of whom are licensees of UNIX.

      Now if SCO sells licenses, they get more licensees.

      Licensees they are OK to sue.

      Buy an SCO license, open up a world of litigation upon yourself. Listening EV1?

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        My thoughts exactly. On top of that, since it is in binary only, and they will not identify the code they claim, you can now no longer use any source code in your kernel for fear of violating the license you just purchased. You certainly cannot compile a kernel with confidence. No gentoo for you there boys.

        When will they ever learn? When will they learn?

        A Nony Mouse

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

        by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:22AM (#10952189) Journal
        Now, they can only sue licensees hence the legal action against IBM, Autozone and DaimlerChrysler, all of whom are licensees of UNIX.

        Yes, but being an SCO Linux licensee doesn't necessarily make you a licensee of UNIX.

        From what I understand, the SCO Linux licenses are as vague in describing what exactly you are supposedly licensing as SCO is in describing what part of Linux is supposedly infringing.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 )
        "It's not worthless to SCO."

        Truer words, mon frere...

        "When it was launched in the UK, SCO said that by purchasing the licence, customers are "properly compensating SCO for the Unix source code, derivative Unix code and other Unix-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux"."

        Of course, I really wonder if this is actually on the license agreement, because they certainly haven't mentioned Linux taint in court for a looooong time, and statements like this
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • There are also people who sell land on the moon. It's wortless, and people pitty the ones who buy it.

      That's what many Native American tribes believed about the prospect of selling land to the Europeans. "Sure, I'll sell you some land! Want a piece of the sky, too?"

  • Sigh. (Score:4, Informative)

    by rylin ( 688457 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:20AM (#10951647)
    05 Aug 2004.
    Hmm
    Outdated News for Nerds, Stuff that nobody wants to hear anything about anymore.

  • " 20 to 30 organisations worldwide..." (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:22AM (#10951651)
    Ya they all happen to be Microsoft, Microsoft England, Microsoft Germany, Microsoft India, Microsoft Brazil, etc etc etc.
    • no no... remember the pirated Sound Forge software? Not even Microsoft pays for it's licenses...
    • Is it 20, is it 30, is it some number in between, or is it bullshit? "Oh, it's 30. GOOD 30!"
    • Remember that, with the exception of DV-1, I think that most of the companies who 'bought' an SCO license didn't even realize it. The way that they have things set up, people who buy other SCO software sometimes end up with a Linux License. Part of the reason why they're not identifying the companies who have purchased SCO Linux licenses may be that they don't want all of those companies to know what they've bought.

      Computerland, for example, ended up with a bunch of Linux licenses as a reault of a (supp

  • This proves ..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by afxgrin ( 208686 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:22AM (#10951652)
    ...that there is AT LEAST 20 to 30 morons around the world.

    Congrats SCO for convincing a bunch of PHBs that they need to pay you for nothing.

    • Re:This proves ..... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by qbzzt ( 11136 )
      Or that SCO offered some companies a $1 (or one pound) license so they'll be able to make the claim that some companies are jumping on the SCO bandwagon. SCO is all about PR these days.

      Paying $1 for this nonsense is a reasonable business decision.
      • Doing ANYTHING to support these scam artists is not a sound business decision. It's been obvious to anyone that has done a little digging that they're bluffing and they're holding a busted strait. They don't own anything, the stuff they claim is infringing belongs to other players- you get the picture.
    • These people are smart because once it is proven that SCO sold something that wasn't theirs, they can sue SCO for even more money (pain and suffering or something)...assuming SCO isn't backrupt by then.
      • Nope. Under English law they could only recover their actual financial loss. And if SCO has drafted the "licences" carefully then the victims might not even be able to do this.

  • In the immortal words of PT Barnum.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:22AM (#10951655)
    ...There is a sucker born every minute.

    At the very least, holding out until it is legally decided would seem to be the prudent way to go (unless you somehow *know* that SCO is going to win).

    InnerWeb

  • If IBM wins... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by icejai ( 214906 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:22AM (#10951656)
    ... will all those who bought licenses get their money back?

    • Re:If IBM wins... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MoonFog ( 586818 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:32AM (#10951729)
      Wouldn't that depend on the contract? If these companies acknowledge that it really is SCO's code, SCO might have a strong case. Then again, they might be able to sue SCO for misleading them and getting their money back in that way. IANAL, so I don't know what rights these companies have, but unless they can prove that SCO deliberately mislead them into the deal it's not sure they'll get their money back.
    • Perhaps, but the mental image you are looking for is one of hyenas circling a carcass waiting for all of the serious predators to leave. Hopefully there will be a little gristle left for them when the lions are done....

    • I'd be Willing to Bet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:17AM (#10952139) Homepage Journal
      The contract says "Nope!"

      The bluff by SCO is that you can buy a license now and pay not so much, or you can wait until after the lawsuit and if they win you'll be paying a lot more. If you fold now, you don't get your chips back if SCO loses. At this point we're pretty sure that IBM holds all the aces, but I bet that most of these sales are politically motivated or the people buying them aren't very good at poker either.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the comapnies in question are associates of the companies in the US that purchased licenses. It'd be just like SCO to count the Microsoft or Sun UK branch offices as new licenscees.

      Besides which, if SCO loses the next legal action you will see out of them will be a bankruptcy filing.

    • Re:If IBM wins... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SoTuA ( 683507 )
      Your money back? From dealing with SCO?

      Somehow, this sinfest comic [sinfest.net] comes to mind when thinking about the licensing contract with SCO and the "your money back" concept...

    • These are most likely being bought as insurance just in case IBM doesn't win. If you buy fire insurance and your house doesn't burn down, you don't get your money back.

  • *who* is important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:23AM (#10951660) Homepage
    I should imagine that it would not be too difficult to pursuade a couple of one man bands to buy SCO licences - especially if, quite coincidentally, SCO happened to buy some consultancy ...

    A 500 seat/licence company would be quite different.

  • Woo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ggeezz ( 100957 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:23AM (#10951661)
    You must be in bad shape if selling your first license in a country garners a headline. And 20 to 30 organisations worldwide? Is that supposed to lend merit to SCO's case. This just shows that there are still idiots out there, even at the corporate level.

  • I await the day (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:24AM (#10951671)
    I anxiously await the day when criminal charges are filed against SCO executives for all this deliberate deception and fraudulently mafioso style collection of extortion fees.

    For my own sanity I hope the day comes quickly, I can only stay entertained for so long.

  • What are these people's recourse? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zakkie ( 170306 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:24AM (#10951675) Homepage
    Just wondering what options these organisations will have once SCO's case is dismissed? At what point is public deception so severe that criminal cases can be opened against executives who knowingly lie to the public?

  • What's the number for their CEO (Score:3, Funny)

    by LucidBeast ( 601749 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:25AM (#10951678)
    I have this great bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.

  • Check the date (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Canyon Rat ( 103953 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:25AM (#10951681)
    According to the date on the linked article, this is from last August.

  • Honestly... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SavedLinuXgeeK ( 769306 )
    People can't be that moronic. Sco isn't even near close to winning, or so atleast the educated folks at slashdot know. I have a feeling it might be M$ pushing anti-linux proganda through 'Liscenses' in which its more publicity than fear of having an almost bankrupt dellusional company 'sue' you for illegally using 'their' product.

  • Good Morning (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hinhule ( 811436 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:28AM (#10951700)
    Good morning inhabitors of planet earth, our scientists tell us that oxygen was licensed in our galaxy far far away a long long time ago. Please pay us one animal or spare bodypart, for us to experiment on, for each and every one of you who want to breathe.

    Sincerely,
    Sigma Celesti Omega Galaxy.

  • Ex-license (Score:2, Funny)

    by quamaretto ( 666270 )
    This is in fact an ex-license!
    It is no more!
    It has ceased to be!

    (Or, maybe:)
    Customer: Aah, how about Unix?

    Wenslydale: Well, we don't get much call for it around here, sir.

    Customer: Not much ca--It's the single most popular operating system in the world!

    Wenslydale: Not 'round here, sir.

    Customer: and what IS the most popular cheese 'round hyah?

    Wenslydale: Linux, sir.

    Customer: IS it.

    Wenslydale: Oh, yes, it's staggeringly popular in this manor, squi
  • At least some people in UK believed that they had to send them money. :-)

  • Is it legal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pented_rage ( 556061 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:31AM (#10951726)
    Am I legally aloud to go around selling 'licenses to use' something that isn't currently and 'officially' mine? Say I deem SCO's products to have IP derived from me, can I go around selling my "SCO License" or can SCO sue me for such? (if so.. Linux should sue SCO for tainting their products/image)
    • I can sell you a deed to a piece of land I don't own, so long as it states that I make no claim to the land in the deed, and you get whatever I have, which may or may not be anything at all. (There actually is a purpose for such things, btw.)

      If I sell you some land that I don't own, and don't state otherwise, you can sue me when you find out that someone else owns it instead.
    • Linux should sue SCO for tainting their products/image

      I believe that RedHat did and one of IBM's counterclaims does just that, under the Lanham Act.

  • Makes sense (Score:2, Funny)

    by archevis ( 634851 )
    Let's assume that there are 2-300 million complete idiots in the world.

    Newsflash: Only 1 in 10 million complete idiots would buy a SCO license.

    This whole "case" turned boring quite a while ago.

  • Being a Brit I have to say that I have experienced the most ineptitude from the UK IT community, for one I have had more frustrations with UK websites from that country than any other so far.

    So, I am not surprised some idiots in the UK have purchased licenses from SCO, bet they thought they got a great deal especially as the exchange rate is favourable to them.

    StarTux

  • Who are they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tclark ( 140640 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:33AM (#10951752) Homepage
    It would be interesting to know who these org are organizations because:

    1. We might want to avoid them like the plague;
    2. We might want to help the poor bastards out - they clearly need help;
    3. We might all want to hit them up to buy our own "IP licenses". If they will buy this crap from SCO, they will buy it from anybody.

    • I patented breathing air consisting of (but not exclusively limited to) oxygen and nitrogen and I will be licensing this technology to others for a meagre $1 for life.

      If you are already using this technology, then you are in violation of my patent and need a license to continue breathing. If you refuse to stop breathing without a license, we will be forced to use the courts.

      I hear Texas likes to stop bad people from breathing.

  • Two licenses? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:34AM (#10951758)
    that'll be Microsoft UK and Microsoft Ireland then... so the total number of licenses sold will only be as many as there are Microsoft Offices overseas...

    Funny how they never give out just who the purchasers are isn't it...

  • Two licenses could even be "friends of SCO". Does Microsoft UK have an SCO UNIX license?

    It's even possible that licenses arise from internal politics; if a manager wants to hold his IT department in check, and stay with the conservative and familiar, buying licenses is an excellent way to prevent the IT department from making strategic decisions by stealth, since further penetration of Linux requires a purchasing decision!

  • Not so stellar with the sales there... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nijika ( 525558 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:37AM (#10951779) Homepage Journal
    Is it me or is selling to 20 or 30 of anything in a year or so really, really lackluster? How much are these licenses that they can proudly announce having 20 or 30 customers? I mean even if they cost as much as a Mercedes CLK each I wouldn't get too hyped about it considering this is a publicly traded company.

    Depressing.

  • How can I get in contact with these companies?

    I have some magic beans they might be interested in purchasing.

  • consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John_Sauter ( 595980 ) <John_Sauter@systemeyescomputerstore.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:38AM (#10951786) Homepage
    The SCO Group has such a poor reputation for telling the truth that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both sales claims are pure fabrication.
    John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

  • Actually, SCO licenses do get you something. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:38AM (#10951792) Journal
    As has been pointed out over on Groklaw, under the terms of the USL-BSDI agreement, USL basically couldn't go suing anyone for doing stuff with UNIX unkless the party being sued had licensed UNIX from them.

    Sooooo... by buying a SCO license, and thus establishing a contractual relationship with SCO, you basically put your name on the list of parties SCO could potentially file a lawsuit against.

    Splendid, isn't it? :)

  • FUD Apparent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:42AM (#10951814) Homepage Journal
    "SCO's intellectual property that is apparently present"

    No, the SCO IP is only reportedly present. They'd have to present actual evidence for it to be apparent. Ironic, considering that all of the Linux source is apparent - it's the secret SCO diff's that aren't so visible.
  • If Sontag were using higher numbers, I could understand his using a range. But SCO has only sold a maximum of 30 licenses in the whole damn world. I think Chris should be able to remember an exact number.

    You'd think he would wake up each morning with that number in his head. It would be something like "Jesus, the Feds are coming after us for 23 counts of racketeering."

    Maybe he could use a computer to help he remember a more exact number! I heard once upon a time SCO was a software company, they just might
  • in the guise of a license is still extortion. These purchases should be contrasted with the number of companies that have bought insurance via OSRM [slashdot.org] to see which form of FUD drums up the most business among the cowards and ignorant who only have one principle: CYA

  • You automagically get a license (Score:5, Informative)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:52AM (#10951894) Homepage
    If you buy any SCO *nix product a _linux_ binary license is automatically included. This was a recent licensing change to make it look like SCO Source actually had a heartbeat. Someone probably bought Open Server and this is how SCO is playing it. For once, nothing to see here (presumably)

  • Chris Sontag = Joe Isuzu (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @09:55AM (#10951918) Homepage
    Remember the old Isuzu commercials? The spokesman would come out and make some outrageous claim ("Zero to sixty in one second."), but the caption underneath would say, "He's lying." Keep that little caption in mind whenever SCO issues a press release.

    Most of the time in the past when SCO announced that someone had "bought" a Linux license it turned out to be a deception. The most common ploy was to tack a Linux license onto a court settlement or a purchase of a Unixware license. The article quotes only SCO sources and the customers are not named, so don't expect this time to be different. Wait a few days and see if any customer names come up, then see what the customers have to say.

    I'd guess they'll say something like, "Linux license? What Linux license?"

  • That's pretty stupid, a license with SCO. I read about the BSDi settelment at Groklaw, and it seems that SCO only has the right to sue their own licensees about Unix copyrights/IP/whatever.

  • Wonder (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:08AM (#10952053) Homepage


    1) If SCO includes the licensed material with the license. If I'm gonna buy a license, I want to be sure I'm running the code I licensed and not some miscreants cobbled hack that delivers the same functionality.

    2) How to merge this binary with my linux once I've got the linux compiled? If I'm gonna buy it, I want to use it. That way if my linux fscks up there is someone I can sue. SCO warrants the stuff, right?

    3) The market has any faith. Baystar appears to be cutting it's losses. I heard at the bar that baystar was finessed into keeping quiet through margin advantage on another investors bailout. IIRC Baystar was questioning SCO's claims on linux back in the summer (northern hemisphere).

  • "Richard Perkins, regional director for UK and Ireland at the company, told vnunet.com that two companies had signed up for licences in the past quarter, but would not give further details."

    Because they know that confidence in any company that bought these sea shells would go through the floor. If they're *that* dumb, how good is their product/service?
  • i imagine the license fee is a miniscule amount and probably is cheaper than paying a solicitor's reatiner just in case IBM vs. SCO doesnt result in a clear victory for IBM.

    Maybe its just some people , to use that delightful washington DC acronym , CYA.

  • Could we all be missing a good deal here? What happens when SCO is shown in court that they do not own the license to Linux? Can those that did buy licenses get their lawyers to extract double or triple the cost of the license plus court costs from SCO? This could actually be a shrewed investment. If SCO by some twist in the fabric of the universe actually wins they are covered already. If SCO looses those companies sue and double or triple their money. hmmmmmm........
  • Sontag: These 20-30 licensees means we've covered the cost of the paper to print the licenses and there was enough left over for this cool Chia Pet!
  • Didn't these dorks read the USLvBSDi settlement terms? The release of these is HUGE and a death blow to the SCOSource license program especially section 3c:

    "c. USL agrees that it shall take no action against any person who utilizes any methods and concepts in the Restricted Files which as of this date have become available to the general public by acts not attributable to the University, its employees or students. Nothing in this provision shall limit USL's rights against a third party arising out of a br

  • It's a cold morning in Lindon... (Score:4, Funny)

    by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:57AM (#10952539)
    My company recently outgrew our office in Orem, Utah, and we moved to one in Lindon. Right next to SCO's headquarters, in fact (we're not affiliated with SCO or the Canopy Group).

    Anyhow, it's a very cold morning. Want to know how cold? Well, I just saw Darl McBride walk into his office, and he had his hands in his own pockets.

  • Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Linuxathome ( 242573 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @11:00AM (#10952562) Homepage Journal
    When you're dealing with companies with million dollar accounts and expenditures, it's an executive decision that's required for these expenses. I personally think that the executives are doing it to save their asses (no, not assets, asses): they all are covering their butts on the slim, slim chance that SCO might win. That way, the board won't fire them if SCO wins.

    But the downside is the the legions of Linux lovers will cry "foul" and "traitor" if they do. Hmmm...losing your job versus some people calling you l0s3r? What would you choose?

  • Confidential list of SCO licensees... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kbnielsen ( 835429 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @11:01AM (#10952565)
    Finally it has been revealed... Heres a list of the licensees of all 20 licences sold by SCO.

    Microsoft Redmond
    Microsoft Cincinatti
    Microsoft Atlanta
    Microsoft Austin
    Microsoft Memphis
    Microsoft Phoenix
    Microsoft Pittsburg
    Microsoft UK
    Microsoft Australia
    Microsoft Latin America
    Microsoft Russia
    Microsoft Hong Kong
    Microsoft Latvia
    Microsoft Korea
    Microsoft China
    Microsoft Egypt
    Microsoft South Africa
    Microsoft Saudi Arabia
    Microsoft Chile
    Microsoft Canada

    Truly SCO has a worldwide spreading...

  • Because it seems to me that SCO might be willing to pay people to take their farcical licenses, just to generate this kind of pitiful press release. Given that SCO don't crow about how big these 'purchasers' are, it seems reasonable that they're small, and small companies don't in general buy (in the sense of paying money to a vendor) for licenses that they don't need.

    Hmm, I wonder if the 'purchasers' insisted on anonymity as a condition of 'sale'? You know, I'm half tempted to give them a call myself a

  • SCO licence (Score:5, Informative)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @12:31PM (#10953415)
    Since SCO never purchased the copyright on UNIX, which remained with Novell;
    And Novell own SUSE, who have released a version of Linux under the GPL;
    then Novell {being the UNIX copyright holder} have given their blessing to Linux being GPL'ed.

    Since SCO do not hold the copyright on any UNIX code that may be present in Linux,
    and Novell have not authorised SCO to act on their behalf,
    then SCO are acting under false pretences.

    Doing something you weren't asked to do to somebody else's property is called trespass in this country, and is a civil offence for which legal aid is not available. It's a defence to trespass that you had good faith that the rightful owner would have wanted you to do what you did; however, there is no way SCO could have good faith that Novell wants them to collect licence money {which would belong to Novell, as the copyright holder, not SCO. Misappropriation of funds is a criminal offence}. Finally, since the GPL does not permit what SCO is doing, SCO are guilty of copyright violation to some extent or other. While there is next to no point in Novell pursuing for damages in the civil courts {they wouldn't have made any money so they can't have lost any money} Novell could still testify against SCO in any criminal copyright violation case.

    Did I mention that in the British civil courts, the loser almost always pays all costs; and a successful prosecution for a criminal offence doesn't bar you from instigating separate civil proceedings to recover damages?

    Bye-bye, SCO. Thanks for collecting so much evidence againstg yourselves.
  • I mean the name, isn't it registered? Can anyone make something called Linux? Like Linux License?

    So can SCO call thier licenses "Linux" or just 'use of derivative unix components that we believe we bought licenses to, then lost them, then sold them, then found them, then shredded them, then imagined them, and are now trying to sell them, even though, buggered if we can remember where we put them, so we will take something similar' licenses.

    I'd buy one if they called them that.
  • Buying a Linux license from SCO is pretty high on the list of useless/worthless things to buy so perhaps there's some other stuff they might buy.
  • In the UK and happily running 2 x Whitebox and 1 x RH9 servers sans licences!

  • SCO trying to divert attention from court deadline (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @01:51PM (#10954243) Homepage
    Today, Nov. 30th, is the deadline [uscourts.gov] for SCO to file their response to IBM's counterclaim that SCO is infringing IBM's copyrights. The one where they have to explain violating the GPL on Linux code, infringing IBM's copyrights in IBM's contributions to Linux. If SCO loses on that one (and it's a fast-tracked summary judgement motion), they are out of the Linux business and owe money to IBM. We're all looking forward to reading SCO's reply on that one.

    In other news, SCO just had a setback in their DaimlerChrysler case. SCO wants that case stayed until SCO vs IBM is decided. This is wierd, because SCO is the plaintiff in the DaimlerChrysler case - they started it. But they were losing, so they want it stayed. The judge just denied the stay, and the case will be heard in January. That's the case where SCO claims that because DaimlierCrysler used some UNIX-based product in the distant past, they can't use Linux now without paying SCO. This very weak claim is on its way to being laughed out of court.

    That's the real SCO news today.

  • No Such Thing Is "Apparent" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @01:57PM (#10954307) Homepage
    > ..SCO's intellectual property that is apparently
    > present in Linux distributions...

    It most certainly is not. Despite two court orders requiring them to do so The SCO Group (which is _not_ the Santa Cruz Operation) has failed to produce a single line of infringing code.

  • In the UK..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mormop ( 415983 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @02:25PM (#10954613)
    There's a crime of "obtaining funds by deception" aimed at nailing fraudsters who use false information e.g. claiming property as theirs to extract money from people. Given that SCO have no proof of ownership over the disputed code I can't see how they can sell anyone anything.

    Should the case fall through I look forward to the arrest of the head of the UK arm of SCO and, should McBride, Sontag etc., ever land in the UK their arrests also. After all, conmen are among the lowest forms of scum.

  • SCO "Sells" Licenses? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rinkjustice ( 24156 ) <rinkjustice&NO_SPAMrocketmail,com> on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @07:52PM (#10958428) Homepage Journal
    No, no. They threaten companies with weak leadership into buying Linux licences. You know, SCO sends a stern letter in legalspeak warning they'll start a long drawn-out legal battle if they don't cough up the money pronto.

    SCO don't actually produce anything. They extort money from people. That is Darl's specialty. He's a corporate pirate. A scumbag.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close