Slashdot Log In
SCO Sells First Linux Licenses in UK
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Nov 30, 2004 08:18 AM
from the this-is-still-going-on dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Sigh. (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm
Outdated News for Nerds, Stuff that nobody wants to hear anything about anymore.
" 20 to 30 organisations worldwide..." (Score:5, Funny)
Do They Know It's SCO At All? (Score:3, Informative)
Computerland, for example, ended up with a bunch of Linux licenses as a reault of a (supp
This proves ..... (Score:5, Funny)
Congrats SCO for convincing a bunch of PHBs that they need to pay you for nothing.
Re:This proves ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Paying $1 for this nonsense is a reasonable business decision.
In the immortal words of PT Barnum.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:In the immortal words of PT Barnum.... (Score:3, Funny)
If that were true then humanity would be getting smarter. The birth rate is much higher now than it was during Barnum's time.
Re:In the immortal words of PT Barnum.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that were true then humanity would be getting smarter. The birth rate is much higher now than it was during Barnum's time.
Well, just to be pedantic, the above statement only sets a minimum 'sucker birth rate'. It doesn't preclude more than one sucker being born each minute.
If IBM wins... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If IBM wins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:If IBM wins... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be Willing to Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:If IBM wins... (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow, this sinfest comic [sinfest.net] comes to mind when thinking about the licensing contract with SCO and the "your money back" concept...
*who* is important (Score:5, Insightful)
A 500 seat/licence company would be quite different.
Woo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woo (Score:3, Informative)
I await the day (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
What's the number for their CEO (Score:3, Funny)
Check the date (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Morning (Score:4, Funny)
Sincerely,
Sigma Celesti Omega Galaxy.
Is it legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are they? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Two licenses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how they never give out just who the purchasers are isn't it...
Not so stellar with the sales there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depressing.
consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Actually, SCO licenses do get you something. (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
You automagically get a license (Score:5, Informative)
Chris Sontag = Joe Isuzu (Score:5, Insightful)
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?"
Wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
It's a cold morning in Lindon... (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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)
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...
SCO licence (Score:5, Informative)
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.
SCO trying to divert attention from court deadline (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
> 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)
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)
SCO don't actually produce anything. They extort money from people. That is Darl's specialty. He's a corporate pirate. A scumbag.
blame the British tendency for queueing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:blame the British tendency for queueing (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and by the way British and English aren't interchangeable terms. For example, people from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands are British too.
Re:Mo parent down (Score:4, Funny)
It's "In Soviet Korea, elderly racists comment you!".
Parent