Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software The Almighty Buck Linux

SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems 1659

Posted by michael
from the bargain-basement-pricing dept.
walterbyrd quotes: "'We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights.' SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003." Update: 08/05 18:24 GMT by M : After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems

Comments Filter:
  • by thrillbert (146343) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:08PM (#6617166) Homepage
    Well, it's finally happened.. they have smoked so much crack that now they've really started hallucinating...

    Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
    Promotional License Fee
    with 1 CPU $699
    with 2 CPUs $1,149
    with 4 CPUs $2,499
    with 8 CPUs $4,999
    Additional single CPU $749

    So this puts Lawrence Livermore National Labs at around $190,751 for a 256CPU system.. of which, they have a few.. heh..

    <sarcasm> Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!! </sarcasm>

    ---
    Stupidity is the great constant in this universe.
    • by Osrin (599427) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617188) Homepage
      if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

      Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by micromoog (206608) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:20PM (#6617424)
        Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

        I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".

        • by Phat_Tony (661117) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:29PM (#6617602)
          I don't think this sort of badgery and legal abuse falls under "Capitalism."

          There a many different definitions and conceptions of capitalism, but they usually involve things like investment in capital, competion, and freedom. Unless you consider investing in lawyers "capital," this is a pretty anti-capitalist, anti-free-market sort of manuever on SCO's part.

          Using the courts (read: government) to try to extract money from people, rather than providing goods or services to be purchased on a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit model for comapnies if you want to maintain a healthy capitalist system.
          • by cluckshot (658931) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:20PM (#6618300)

            Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment. Skipping a few details this is about it. Funny how today every Government Hallucination is called Capitalism. NOT LIKELY to be Capitalism just called capitalism.

            We see a lot of devices like the SCO team and many others today calling themselves "Capitalism" but bluntly they are thieft by device, the definition of fraud.

            I sincerely doubt that the stock holders of SCO or whatever will even participate in the "benefits" if there are any. As such the company should be charged with violation of the "Blue Sky Laws" where they are selling the Blue sky and not any factual thing when they sell stock. They are inducing investors with the intend of never paying them their just return. Does anyone take note that Microsoft might just fit this category too?!

            • by ADRA (37398) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @03:11PM (#6618950)
              This system is capitalism with baggage. In true capticalism, SCO would never sue anyone because there would be no laws copyrights, IP, etc.. for them to use. That is where the free market idea comes in. You can do whatever you like even if it monopolizes the markets. You would have a very few very powerful corporations, much like G8 countries of today. These countries control the world economic system to the extent that it maintains their perpetual leadership in the market.

        • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Informative)

          by ratamacue (593855) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:55PM (#6618004)
          This is NOT capitalism in action. Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily. Capitalism is the absence of force.

          Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.

          SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
          • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Nogami_Saeko (466595) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:26PM (#6618374)
            SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association.

            Well, I rather expect that rather than SCO as a whole, it's more their board of directors/president.

            Regardless if they are eventually successful or not, the sudden stock leap after they started down the litigation path probably made all of the higher-ups in the company a big boatload of money. And they're gonna keep filling that boat as long as possible.

            As soon as things starts to turn south, losing lawsuits, frustrated "customers" etc. - I'd imagine that most of the higher-ups in the company will cut the ropes and resign and the boat-o-cash will sail-off into the sunset.

            Of course, this would leave the employees and investors of the company high and dry while the CEOs enjoy their money in the bahamas...

            But that's how business is supposed to work these days, right?

            N.
        • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by luzrek (570886) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:00PM (#6618072) Journal
          This isn't even capitalism. I think that Copyright law, and anything else from the government that prevents anyone for selling anything they want for whatever they can get for it is Socialism. When the government is also the only distributor, it is called Communism.

          What SCO is doing is called extortion/blackmail.

      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DJStealth (103231) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:44PM (#6617847)
        I baught CALDera stock at their IPO for $27/share.

        Since then, it has gone down to $0.20/share and did a 4x reverse split. Then merged with SCOX

        Now at $12.80/share (divide by 4 = $3.20); I've lost..

        Good thing I didn't buy too many.
      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ccp (127147) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:47PM (#6617891)
        I know, you're trolling, but anyway:

        This is not capitalism. This is corporate war, using an outdated legal system as a weapon.
        This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
        Linux is killing them in the server market, so they'll try the law (and their bought lawmakers).
        This is just the beginning.

        This is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.
      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:53PM (#6617971)
        > If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

        And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.

        > Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

        Amen to that. But it takes two (a buyer and a seller) to make a market.

        Speaking of which, I hope the SEC is investigating the trades made by insiders in SCOX, particularly with regard to whether the lawsuits in question have any basis in fact whatsoever.

        If something untwoward is happening at SCOX, it wuldn't be the first time in the securities industry that individuals of questionable ethical standards have done something to artifically inflate their company's stock price in order to sell at the top. But the word for that is fraud, not capitalism.

        • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Thing 1 (178996) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:06PM (#6618129) Journal
          And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.

          As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) [cboe.com] there are no options of any type for SCO.

          This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.

    • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617193) Homepage Journal
      Bill Gates is laughing maniacly right now. Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199

      Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WEFUNK (471506) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:54PM (#6617991) Homepage
        I don't think this has anything to do with their lack of belief in Linux on the desktop. I think it's just further evidence that they have no interest in carrying on as a business entity and are entirely focused on litigation.

        This certainly isn't a business decision - if it was they would continue to encourage the price advantage of Linux and offer much more reasonable fees, say $10 per seat, and maybe offer some support packages. Enough large businesses that already have Linux deployments would probably consider such a fee relatively incidental as an effective insurance policy. It might even encourage adoption at some companies who don't believe you can get anything for free. At anywhere between $5 and $50 per seat I bet they could do very well for themselves.

        At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them. This is only being done for legal reasons so they can easily quantify the damages they are seeking in court. I think they'll use these numbers (along with some comparable MSRP's for Windows and Unix seats) when trying to establish their "lost revenues" due to Linux.

        Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA. Hopefully the judge will see right through this ploy and nail them for flagrant abuse of the legal the system.
        • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Darth Yoshi (91228) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:30PM (#6618423)
          At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats).

          Well, Microsoft uses Linux in their test lab [slashdot.org]. I wonder how many licenses they'll be purchasing.
        • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by zerocool^ (112121) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:47PM (#6618619) Homepage Journal
          The amount required to purchase a licence (at the discount rate) for every linux 2.4 machine on Netmar's (my employer) network would set us back about 18% of our yearly gross. At that rate, we'd end up going through and compiling 2.2 kernels for everyone.

          But, think about it large scale - think about people who have many many servers, a. la. RackShack.

          RackShack claims 14,000 servers online. Do the math.

          It would cost RackShack 9.8 Million Dollars ($9,800,000) to come into compliance w/ SCO.

          SCO, go fuck yourself.

          Sincerely
          ~Will
      • by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:10PM (#6618176) Homepage Journal

        In the unlikely chance that SCO wins before I win the lottery or am struck by lightning, I'll just be redeploying with a BSD instead of SCO.

        And if they go after BSD, I'll shift to Plan9 or QNX rather than giving one thin dime to the leeches running SCO.

        Should those get nailed, GNU should finally have a decent "Hurd" kernel running by then (15-20 years of lawsuits.)

      • Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Informative)

        by booch (4157) <slashdot2010@craigb u c h e k . c om> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:19PM (#6618293) Homepage
        Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199 Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
        Actually, SCO is charging $199 for desktop Linux clients. See their FAQ [sco.com], near the bottom.
      • by bahamat (187909) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:19PM (#6618294) Homepage
        The really funny thing about this, is that SCO claims the infringing code is for SMP, NUMA, and RCU, which are all multi-proccessor technologies.

        I think instead I'll just send SCO 1 copy of a picture of my middle finger for every processor I have that Linux is running on and call it even.
    • by ejaw5 (570071) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:14PM (#6617289)
      Hope they send the bill with a "postage paid by addressee" envelope. Let them have their $699 in pennies.
    • by cyc (127520) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:16PM (#6617342)
      "My offer to you is this. Nothing."

    • by Vindicator9000 (672761) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:25PM (#6617525)
      From the article:

      "Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource ."

      I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!

    • by richie2000 (159732) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:47PM (#6617895) Homepage Journal
      Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution with 1 CPU: $699

      Legal fund to put Darl's ass in jail: $1,000,000

      Sending Darl an extra slippery soap: Priceless.

  • Investors ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arthaed (687979) <arthaed@hotmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:08PM (#6617169) Homepage
    What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic. Check out SCO's stock [yahoo.com]. And now with this announcement if the trend continues, investors may lean even more towards SCO (although, I am not sure why). Unbelievably insane.
    • Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tgd (2822) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617222)
      Keep in mind that while some people will get rich betting on SCO, most people will lose their shirts doing it -- and those people will result in class action lawsuits, and perhaps criminal charges when the fit hits the shan.

    • by dubbayu_d_40 (622643) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617257)
      Know how to short a stock?
      • Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sisukapalli1 (471175) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:24PM (#6617508)
        The SCO stock is so much shorted that is has become diffcult to borrow the stock to short. Datek (Ameritrade now) did not let me short SCO for a long time (it doesn't let me even now, but I stopped trying).

        Very funny coincedence -- when NOVL said they own the IP for UNIX, I sold SUN and tried to short SCO. Now, after the shit SUN pulled with SCO, I put that money yesterday into RHAT (small amount of money, so it is more like a fun story)

        S
    • Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Slashdolt (166321) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:20PM (#6617413)
      ...And the SCO execs are selling their stock as fast as they can, though trying to make it appear that they are simply "getting a good deal".

      http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=SC OX &tag=1

      Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.

      In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.

      As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.

      --
      Slashdolt
      • Pump-n-Dump (Score:5, Insightful)

        by siskbc (598067) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:41PM (#6617797) Homepage
        In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high.

        Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme. Let's see - an organization that owns a few companies (let's call it Canopy) buys a down-on-it's-luck company (let's call it Caldera) that has some worthless IP. They decide, wisely, to pay their executives (coincidently, themselves) in options.

        Then, they make obscene claims and sue a big-name target (let's call it IBM) for a ton of cash. Then, instead of filing court documents in a timely fashion to win their suit with minimum expenditure, they FUD like crazy. They get interviews wherever they can, especially in the mass media like CNBC, which moron daytraders watch to get "stock tips." This drives up share price, making their options worth a ton of cash. Then, they sell out, literally and figuratively.

        This is where we are now. The interesting part is, though, that after they sell out they may not even care about the result of the suit all that much.

        Bottom line is this needs to be investigated as the pump-n-dump scheme that it is. Why is it illegal for some morons on a chat board to do it, but perfectly legal for a management team to do it? It's a scheme/scam either way.

    • by MosesJones (55544) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:21PM (#6617443) Homepage

      George Soros (top investment guy who once made a billion in a day) has said that the markets represent wishes rather than reality. This is also why that "buy terrorist stock" thing from the DoD was complete rubbish.

      Look at SCO, if they were Antartica in PAM the DoD would be saying "BIG terrorist threat at the south pole"

      Markets != reality. Lets face it this is a place where analysts say Sun is in trouble and they have $5.5bn in the bank, I wish I was in that much trouble!
    • Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsheridan6 (600425) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:29PM (#6617604)
      At MSN money, SCOX gets a "D" for ownership, meaning that the insiders at SCO are selling their own stock. I'm sure they know things we don't know, and this would seem to indicate that they know they're full of shit (OK, so maybe we all knew that). I'm not exactly Warren Buffet, but this seems like a case of some sleazes hyping their worthless stock, finding some fools to buy it at an inflated price, and counting their money while those same fools find themselves with worthless stock.. A fool and his money are soon parted. BTW the stock is up about %1100 since this thing started so it's working admirably.
    • Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:33PM (#6617675)
      This was predicted yesterday...
      by dmaxwell (43234) on Monday August 04, @03:29PM (#6608641) As seen on Yahoo Finance. Time to buy? :) I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat
      I think this is right on.....this is likely a response to sagging stock prices after RedHat's decision to sue. What I want to know is: Is manipulating stock prices like this legal?
  • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617189) Homepage
    Go fuck yourselves!

  • Ha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by waldoj (8229) * <waldoNO@SPAMjaquith.org> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617191) Homepage Journal
    Haaaahhhaaaaah haha ha ha ha!

    *snort*

    HAAAAAhaahahahahaaa!

    *tear*

    Aahhh...

    *wipes eyes*

    Gosh, that's funny.

    No, seriously, how much do they want?

    -Waldo Jaquith
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617194)
    Well, luckily for me I am running Kernel v2.6 so I am free from the chains of SCO! What I plan to do instead is start charging everyone the fee of $6.99/license so that you can all run Linux v2.6 (binary only so that you can be in compliance with the GPL!)

    I have 2 lines of code which are completely indentical to 2 lines of code in 2.6. I showed it to a few people and they see that what I am saying is true! Just because they are reporters and not programmers is irrelevant.

    I would love to have the ability to show these in court but I am too busy with watching the stock tickers.

    If you have any questions, feel free to send a check or money order to the P.O. box below (located in a UPS Store).

    Remember, complete use of Linux for only $6.99, and no, I will not cover you if SCO sues you.
  • by kalidasa (577403) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617198) Journal
    Are they only talking about Linux 2.4? If so, is there a reason for that?
  • And asked for

    $666

    which would have made everything so clear? I mean it's only $33 difference. I hope when you buy these licenses you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.

    SCO needs to put up or shut up. If they think they have IP in Linux then show us. Dammit if the code is already in Linux it's already public so point to the code.

    John.
  • Get Ready (Score:4, Funny)

    by Skevin (16048) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:10PM (#6617205) Journal
    I'm sure glad my girlfriend made me stock up on extra KY....

    Solomon
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617206)
    We had Red Hat enter the game yesterday. With SCO requiring money for a Linux license, I think it is time for GNU to enter the game and sue SCO for violating terms of the GPL.
  • by MongooseCN (139203) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617210) Homepage
    I'll give you the finger and you can give me my Linux Kernel.
    • by BRock97 (17460) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:45PM (#6617864) Homepage
      Your quote was close:

      SCO--We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known IP rights violator to justice.

      Linux Users--Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about I give you the finger [gives SCO the finger] and you give me my kernel.

      Shamelessly ripped from the Matrix. Thank you.
  • by Broadcatch (100226) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617212) Homepage
    ...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO
  • Proof of ownership (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617231) Journal
    SCO wants money. I want code, and I want proof that they can legally do this. No code? No proof? No money.

    It's that simple.

    I strongly suspect some major holders of Linux copyrights are about to jump in with Red Hat, demanding that SCO prove it can do this.
  • Truly amusing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Badgerman (19207) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:11PM (#6617238)
    I've seen Linux running on boxes that cost less than the liscence they want to sell.

    I think this proves that A) either SCO is not serious and is just jacking around their stock or B) They're really, truly, clueless. Or possibly both.

    How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . . .
  • by Ummagumma (137757) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617242) Journal
    I was talking to my boss about putting a linux file server in here, and was making decent headway recently. Now, somehow he heard of this SCO BS, and hes got cold(er) feet. My angle was the cost savings, but now thats gone, so no linux here for a while...
    • by 1s44c (552956) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:17PM (#6617345)

      There is always FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
    • by wolf- (54587) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:27PM (#6617559) Homepage
      As a contractor and an consultant, I'm documenting all lost sales and damages. Should SCO lose, and it be shown in court that this was truly BS/FUD, I'll have legal recourse.

      The SCO folks are making such GENERAL statements against Linux, Linux Users, and Linux consultants, that it should NOT be hard to prove their negligence/libel/slander in court.

      But by the end of the SCO/IBM lawsuit, the SCO bigwhigs will have unloaded all their stock anyway, and there won't be much to collect on.
      • by DavidinAla (639952) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:34PM (#6617691)
        Assuming that SCO loses this battle, I doubt there will be much left of the company to go after. Of course, it might be interesting for you to file suit NOW, even if you don't expect to win any substantial monetary damages. (And if you were to win, your subsequent damages could continue to be added to the total later.) The PR for your company would be worth something all by itself, because the news coverage in your local area could let companies see you as something as a leader among Linux consultants.
    • by bwt (68845) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:46PM (#6617872) Homepage
      Your post makes me sick. But not at SCO. SCO is achieving what it set out to achieve. I'm disgusted by the lack of fight on the pro-Linux side. We have plenty of whining, but what is needed here is aggressive counter litigation. Several weeks ago I posted that unless kernel contributors (companies and/or individuals) sue SCO for violating their copyrights (which they are in about as blatent a way as possible), unfair competition, patent infringement, and anything and everything else that they can, that Linux would suffer serious damage.

      Finally, at least Red Hat has taken action. Better late than never. Still, other stakeholders must take actions. SCO does not have the bandwidth to fight even the existing lawsuits (they've already non-responded in Germany).

      At the end of this, SCO is going to get bitch-slapped by the courts. However, it's likely that MS and/or Sun (or other parties) are using SCO to slow down Linux and are happy to sacrifice the company to that end.

      It is critical that this be recognized for what it is. We are hard core into step 3.
      1. First they ignore you
      2. Then they laugh at you
      3. Then they fight you
      4. Then you win.

  • by sheddd (592499) <jmeadlock.perdidobeachresort@com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617246)
    bitemedarl.com

    darlmcbridesucks.com

    I haven't got enough time but I'll be happy to paypal someone $50 to set up a nice site with a messageboard... c'mon.
  • by Hangtime (19526) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617250) Homepage
    I own some IP inside the Linux Kernel, but won't disclose what it is either. I am lot more generous then SCO though and will only charge you $500 for a enterprise wide license for Linux. See that wasn't so hard now was it. Please forward your payments to Hangtime.

  • by mhotas (680248) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617254)
    That's the last straw.
  • Dear SCO. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617258)
    Dear SCO,

    Thank you for the good laugh this afternoon. Our network administrator actually wet his pants, while the rest of us were in such hysterics and tears that work became all but unmanageable. I don't get all the bad press about you guys... I think you've got a great sense of humor.

    Sincerely,
    LinuxCorp.
  • Ok (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617264)
    extort (v) - to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
  • We Need Money! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foofoobar (318279) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:12PM (#6617265)
    In other words:

    'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.
  • Business Tactics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dr. Transparent (77005) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:13PM (#6617278) Homepage Journal

    This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.

    Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.

  • by afniv (10789) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:14PM (#6617287) Homepage
    I notice how they list the trademarks at the bottom of the press release, except for Linux.
  • WTF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperHighImpact (463360) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:15PM (#6617308)
    an someone explain the logic behind this quote from the article?


    Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.

    • Simple (Score:5, Interesting)

      by booch (4157) <slashdot2010@craigb u c h e k . c om> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @03:56PM (#6619697) Homepage
      The GPL explicitly states that agreeing to the GPL license is not required to use the software. It is only required to modify or distribute the code (in binary or source). The SCO license only applies to running the software, not distributing or modifying it. So the 2 licenses are for completely separate things -- they can't conflict. From section 0 of the GPL:
      Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
      Of course, there are a few problems with SCO's attempt to steer clear of a conflict with the GPL. Section 6 of the GPL states:
      You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
      and section 7 says:
      If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
      The question is whether "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in section 0 is considered to be one of "the rights granted herein". Technically, it is not, since the right to use a software program is not one of the rights granted to a copyright holder. The GPL relies on the fact that the right to run a program is not restricted by Copyright law. But if somehow that turns out not to be the case, SCO may have found a loophole in the GPL.

      SCO is not distributing any Linux code (source or binary) with this license. They are assuming you've already purchased "infringing" software. So they're not distributing anything. Of course, they've already modified and distributed the Linux code, so they've already agreed to the GPL on that code.

      Since the right to use a software program is not specified as a restriction in the Copyright Act, there's really no reason you need to buy a license from SCO to use the Linux code in question. And I'd suspect that their license will put restrictions on your modification and distribution of Linux. Which of course would conflict with the GPL. And they'd probably turn around and sue you for breaching their license. Sounds more risky to accept their license offer than to risk being sued for violating their copyright, for which their case is very weak.

      But there is some logic in what SCO is doing, trying to weave their way around the GPL.

  • Give em a call! (Score:5, Informative)

    by SoCalChris (573049) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:15PM (#6617313) Journal
    From the press release...

    Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site
  • by Fapestniegd (34586) <{james} {at} {jameswhite.org}> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:19PM (#6617394) Homepage
    Because I commented the infringing lines out, and recompiled.
    "Exactly which lines did I comment out?" you ask. That's *my* trade secret.
    But I did manage to get all of the infringing lines SCO disclosed."
  • by augustz (18082) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:22PM (#6617464) Homepage
    What they are doing is setting up an enviroment where things look like a done deal. Folks shouldn't underestimate this.

    Given the fact that IBM has been relatively silent if a judge looks at a future SCO case they have 600 people licensing software from them, that judge is simply going to have a harder time "giving it away for free" to the linux guys.

    Now I hope to GOD people read these licenses with a very fine tooth comb. Their is an adge that you NEVER want to sign a contract with a company like SCO, because a contract gives them real power to make your life miserable. Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts. Be careful!
  • My Experiences... (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Slashdolt (518657) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:24PM (#6617511) Homepage
    CTO: We would like to remove all linux machines from our corporate network, please do this now.
    Me: But SCO has shown no proof that any code exists within the linux kernel
    CTO: After talking to the CEO, we would like you to put up any money that may be required if SCO were to win the case and name us in a lawsuit, are you willing to do this?
    Me: um, no...
    CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.

    at least they didn't decide to just purchase an SCO license. Which is better?

  • by yamla (136560) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:25PM (#6617523)
    SCO licensed me all their IPs for free. Sure, they are willing to license them to you for $699 but why not just accept their free offer? Go here [sco.com] and download the linux kernel and rest easy. It's not like SCO is unaware they are still willing to license the kernel under the GPL, I told them a couple of weeks back.
  • by alernon (91859) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:41PM (#6617808) Homepage
    I finally get to go over to the linux guys where I work and talk about how affordable my dual processor mac actually is!!!


    Dual 2ghz g5, $2999 w/ OS X


    A dual ghz machine will cost the linux guys $2800 in the OS alone after October 15th!


    *cackles manically* Ahhh revenge for the Mac community!


    p.s. -- Yes this is a joke... don't flame me. ;)

  • by guacamolefoo (577448) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:43PM (#6617837) Homepage Journal
    Ok. Let's all go back to RH 6.2 and rewrite. Guh.

    The problem here is that this is the model for attacked OSS now. Refuse to disclose the "stolen" IP , and claim that IP has been stolen. Wait years for the case to be cleared up in the courts, and by then, the next batch of proprietary software will have FUDded the OSS alternative into oblivion.

    People are saying "hey -- just go to BSD". Guess what? That will come under attack, too, as it is developed. A different process for controlling what code goes into OSS and where it comes from may be needed, but that is what SCO and the proprietary software business wants -- they want it to be more difficult to develop software outside of the traditional code it and hide methods.

    This suit has nothing to do with the linux kernel. It has everything to do with the entire OSS model. McBride as much as said that community developed software is the target here, referring to RMS in the same breath as the "OSS wants don't ask, don't tell when it comes to the source of code". Again, this is about OSS, not linux.

    GF.
  • by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:43PM (#6617841) Homepage
    $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th
    After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399.
    After October 20, SCO says they'll want $49999.
    After October 25, SCO says they'll want three billion.
    SCO will release October and November prices after they contract a mathematician to construct new super exponential and trans-finite numbering systems.

    -
  • by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:44PM (#6617853) Homepage Journal
    Could I claim I hold copyrights to code in, say, Photoshop or Windows, refuse to substantiate those claims, then extort money from users of those programs? People I don't even have a business relationship with? People who aren't even infringing on my (supposed) copyrights, but are merely using the software under license from a third party.

    That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to.

    -Peter
  • by iceT (68610) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:49PM (#6617910)
    I would be willing to wager money that almost anyone working on the kernel from the 'net honestly doesn't want to infringe on code from anyone else. I know I would want a project I work on to be 100% my teams work.

    There have been NUMEROUS cases of license violations against the GPL by other groups/companies, and the Linux communities approach is typcially "remove it and we're cool".

    This SCO CRAP not at all about protecting their business, it's not about them having a strong product, and someone else threating the uniqueness of some product.

    Instead, it's about SCO blackmailing, bulling, and threatening innocent bystanders and keeping them innocent bystanders by not allowing a code violation to be corrected. Instead they are attempting to profit from that 'mistake'.

    The one thing this does tell me is that, if there was EVER a justification for the philosophies behind the FSF and the GPL, this is the perfect one.

    Companies treat code as if it's the holy-grail of their business, when, in reality, it's the people who came UP with that IDEA, and implemented that are actually the real 'asset'.

    At the pace of this industry, as soon as code is released, it's almost obsolete. But the ability to generate the ideas, or further develop them is what's important. If you're 'looking over your shoulder' all the time, then you've already behind.

  • by marienf (140573) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:55PM (#6618001) Homepage
    Dear fellow geek,

    Consider your future as laughing-stock at your next employer. The shame in working for SCO is fast approaching that of working for Microsoft.

    Consider that you will need a job after SCO Enrons (hey, any noun can be verbed), and that I, for one, would be suspicious about taking you on, if I knew you had stayed throughout this outrage.

    So for your own good, WALK OUT NOW and make it a public walk-out! Do it while your options are still worth money, at least. Hurry!

    WKR,
    A concerned fellow geek.
  • SCO icon? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ed.han (444783) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @02:20PM (#6618305) Journal
    aren't we overdue for a new, less sympathetic SCO icon? i mean, if we borgify M$ surely something similar is way past warranted for these guys?

    ed
  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @03:55PM (#6619676) Homepage Journal
    NSA: NSA We don't exist. How my I direct your call.


    SCO:We here you have been adding code to Linux and have even used it in house. We have a large bill for you that you have to pay or we will sue you.


    NSA:That is very interesting we will give you our answer in about an hour. CLICK


    Mountain Home AFB: Mountian Home Air Force Base how can I help you?


    NSA: This is the NSA we have a terrorist take over in Utah.


    Mountian Home AFB: Is it SCO?


    NSA: Yes have you already heard?


    Mountian Home AFB: Yea they have already called the Army to try and bill them. They even called some of the Oil Companies and that got the White House involved.


    NSA: So you have already tasked a strike mission?


    Mountian Home AFB: No need. They also sent a bill to Disney! They will never know what hit them. Have a nice day.

  • who infringes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrismg2003 (687481) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @04:33PM (#6620170) Homepage
    those who purchased redhat were not the ones infringing on copyright laws, redhat was infringing on copyright laws, thus SCO is simply undermining its credibility when it chooses to go after the users rather than those who actualy violated copyright laws.

    Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.

    my guess is that either SCO will be subpoena'd and unable to reveal the code or they will be taken to court on charges of extortion...and lose.

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...