SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems 1659
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!
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
I ante your offer, and raise you... (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003.
Linux users world-wide will be offering ass-kickings to SCO officials free of charge, for a non-determined length of time.
Oh man, if this works (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
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 . .
Re:Investors ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
We Need Money! (Score:5, Insightful)
'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they showed where the alleged code was, then it would take approximately 30 minutes for the contributor(s) to remove the affected code, re-release kernel version(s), etc.
How, then, would SCO be able to charge $699 for a license?
Business Tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
SCO FUCK OFF!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck OFF and don't waste my time anymore!
This is irrelevant, period! (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever. Only accusations, NDAs, press releases.
Honestly, I'm not worried one bit and all my half a dozen servers are Linux. If you are worried about this for your business, then by all means, switch. But you've not been served any papers stating you're breaking some law, so screw it.
Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.
PUT A SHOE IN IT ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP license.
How in the hell can they say and do this when there hasn't been a case/judgement/ruling? They are truly pulling this right out of their asses, which brings me back to the Subject line of this post. :)
And they appear to only be attacking the commercial users so far.....
What a scam! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:3, Insightful)
Far more than $199 if it's a server, which is the typical Linux config today.
As for desktop use -- Windows desktops also require client access licenses to the Windows server, do they not?
Re:Investors ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I'll admit, SCO stock going up in the long run is about as likely as peace in the Middle East, but it COULD happen. You do have to be wary when shorting stocks.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".
Actually a smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
SCOX vs. RHAT (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, a note here before you loons all get too excited; if you take any two stocks, bring up the comparision chart, and start moving around the start date, you can pretty much make it look like what you want. In statistics this called "optional stopping" (or "optional starting" would be more appropriate here). There is a reason I picked a 5 day chart.
Remember this next time someone throws a bunch of graphs at you and tells you to invest in something.
Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me check this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Competing with Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting link in the other SCO/Caldera article today (i wish I could find the link) stated something along the lines of "whenever anything threatens their stock price, the SCO/Caldera execs release some more bit of news to pump it up." After being hit slightly by the RedHat announcement, well, here you go. Some traders probably will see the number, make a back of the envelope calculation "well, there are millions of Linux boxes, they're gonna get $699 or $1399 for every one, I want a piece of that" and pump up their stock. The more McBride pulls stuff out of his ass like this, the more obvious that it's just a stock ploy becomes.
I'd be interested to know what the percentage of machines out there running Linux are less than the $1400 price point. Granted, SCO/Caldera is (currently) only talking about commercial licenses so it's likely the machines are better than the overall average box, but still likely to be cheaper than the license. If this is the cost of a UnixWare license, no wonder they went into the toilet.
BTW: I call it SCO/Caldera because McBride's company is really just SCO in name and IP rights only. The real SCO people are at Tarantella, where they are soldiering on, doing real work.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, if you paid the fee, they'd have to give you their part of the Linux kernel, outlining what you're paying for right? Like on the receipt or something.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Investors ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is insane, but I guess given the media coverage SCO's getting, it's not completely unbelievable.
It's the media coverage that I find unbelievably insane.
What I find amazing is the whole tone of the coverage of each side of the issue: SCO's position comes across as quite reasonable, and you hardly ever see the words "alleged copyright violations." OTOH, there doesn't seem to be a coherent "Linux" side showing up in the media... there are lots of individual points being made, but they don't get reported consistently.
What's really needed is for someone (I'm not sure who, maybe IBM, maybe RedHat, maybe Linux, ??) to consistenly comment on every single event with the same points: the violation is only alleged (with very sketchy real data at this point), the issue would be with distributers, not end users, etc.
Pump-n-Dump (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember, this is Slashdot-- we're pro-capitalism when it suits us, we're anti-capitalism when it suits us.
Microsoft is evil, Linux is God, and BSD is dying. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength.
OSS under attack, not linux (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Securities Fraud??? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but I wonder if the SEC should start looking into this?
SCO will not show the code because... (Score:2, Insightful)
If it gets replaced, SCO has no revenue stream because they would have no IP in the kernel.
They will keep the code secret as long as possible for this simple reason.
To me, what they are doing sounds like extortion. Plain and simple. They give them no recourse (other than paying them) to use the linux kernel.
"We'll license you this technology for the low low price of $XXX. If you license it from us we promise not to sue you!
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.
Can't you really see the difference?
Re:This is irrelevant, period! (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was really a 100% airtight case for infringing code then it could not possibly hurt them to show the code. Even if it did risk the code being removed from a future kernel. The only reason to not publish the code is to make sure it stays in there to secure future extortion and FUD efforts by SCO.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Linux 2.4 (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll note that SCO still doesn't say that you need to buy the license for copyright reasons. They just say that they have procured the copyright registration, and let you make (an invalid) assumption that the "intellectual property rights" they are asserting mean copyright. "Intellectual Property" is a vague term with no legal meaning.
SCO is being coy with their language, because they know that they do not have a valid copyright infringement case.
It's also possible that they are trying not to piss people off *too* much, because this would only apply to future commercial distros, not current Linux distros. (Although their FAQ says that SCO/Caldera Linux users require a license, and I don't think they distribute 2.4.)
Re:I already bought a licence... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
SCO's still a prick (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Insightful)
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:A license to use Linux kernel binaries? (Score:2, Insightful)
GPL is about distribution because copyright law is about distribution. Copyright law doesn't place any restrictions on use -- once you have a copy, you can do whatever you want with it, unless you've entered into some sort of agreement beforehand (such as a Microsoft EULA).
Suppose that there really is SCO code in the kernel, and suppose that the GPL is found to not apply to it because whoever put it there didn't have the right to GPL it. In that case, if you've distributed Linux -- made copies -- then you could concievably be found in violation for that, but in no case do you infringe anyone's copyright by running Linux.
The fact that they're trying to sell licenses granting the right to run Linux without violating their copyrights means that either their lawyers are a bunch of idiots who only passed the bar exam by cheating, or (more likely) they're not really serious and this is just a tactic to see how much they can get before everything comes crashing down.
(Note that this only applies to copyrights; if SCO has a patent on something in the kernel then you could indeed be held responsible for running it. SCO has not filed any patent claims AFAIK, but they use the general term "intellectual property" -- which covers both copyright and patent -- in talking about their license. I imagine the ambiguity is intentional, because if I can recognize what I've just pointed out, I'm sure a judge can too.)
IANAL, but I pay attention to the people here who say they are.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:2, Insightful)
And you would mindlessly have done exactly what SCO wanted you to do: inflate their stock.
Re:My Experiences... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're really concerned for your job, install Free/Net/OpenBSD.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!
Cheering for attacks on Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong: I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy. I think their business practices are deplorable. But I don't think they had a Monopoly or qualified for anti-trust prosecution, even for their extremely obnoxious licensing agreements. Get linux. get a Mac. There were always alternatves, no one was ever forced against their will to support Microsoft. They had enough market share to leverage it in bad ways, but they never had a monopoly.
And I think the market was and is working towards sorting this out . Microsoft had huge market share and leveraged it in nasty ways to try to maintain it and to try to make people pay them more. They made a LOT of enemies in the process, and while many companies & individuals still grudginly paid Microsoft for their buggy products, I think that that huge reserve of ill-will they built up around the world is sooner or later going to come back to hurt them in a big way.
As alternatives to Microsoft become more viable, people won't just want to switch if the competiton is superior. There are hordes of people who are dying to switch as soon as the competiton appears usable to them. I think that as alternatives gain momentum and business decision makers don't feel the "nobody ever got fired fro buying IBM" pressure about Microsoft anymore, that Microsoft will lose market share very rapidly.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell your boss to watch the Fortune 500 companies that have already commited to Linux. These are companies that have full time legal staff who have -- I'm sure -- been watching these events unfold with a very careful eye.
Until the big boys flinch, I see nothing to worry about here.
thx,
eric
Re:Pump-n-Dump (Score:3, Insightful)
Quibble. I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy them out, and then exercise their stock options. This pump-n-dump scheme is probably Plan B.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:1, Insightful)
This is factually incorrect, and a common misconception of those who profess to the false ideology of libertarianism.
Capitalism can only exist by the threat of force. For example, you claim to own the things you sell, but in reality you don't. Lets take your car (literally)! The only reason I cannot drive away with your car without paying you for it is that you (or someone who is on your side), will use force to keep it from me. This force can take the form of simply gun-play to a social agreement whereby members of society agree to adhere to certain "laws" that define the concept of "property". In other words, GOVERNMENT. Capitalism, like communism and every other false ideology, relies on the use of force for its very existence. The concept of money is simply an abstraction of force that we developed in order to lessen the bloodiness of everyday life.
Don't Cave In (Score:2, Insightful)
Rage against the Machine
Re:this is illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you tell me that I'm breaking the law by not buying your Internet licence, then that's fraud and that's illegal.
TWW
Re:Pump-n-Dump (Score:3, Insightful)
No quibble at all. You say that they wanted IBM to buy them out - yes, and how do buyouts work? On a per-share basis. So the more they pump this stock, the more the IBM buyout would have been worth. Didn't matter if they sell the stock (or, indeed, all the stock) to IBM or the world at large, except that they would have gotten a slightly higher price from IBM and sold it all at once. Either way, the share price is critical, and had to be driven up.
So the pump part of the pump-n-dump would have been critical from the outset.
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
You know, that thing where MS went to the OEM's and said 'You are nothing without our product. If you ship THAT, you don't get a deal on our product.' Now, if MS was not a monopoly, the OEM's would have laughed their asses off and said 'Fuck you, we'll just go with your competition!'
Except that this was the early 90's and there was no fucking competition in the clone market. I will say it again. NO alternatives. Linux was infant. BeOS was still on the PPC. Do not confuse other markets for competion. Apple exists in another market. The OEM's couldn't call up Apple and say 'hey can we license an OS from you?'. Apple was never a part of Microsoft's OS market. Hell, they sell software for Apple's platform.
Anyway, the whole 'bundling' issue that Slashdotters seem to get stuck on never bothered me. It's the coercion of businesses that did. Once you can tell me that coercion through monopoly status is fair in a healthy capitalist market, I'll drop my argument.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Separation from Government (Score:2, Insightful)
But I'm not sure I see your point. They're all still government, and SCO's still trying to use government (or at least a vague threat of government action) to coerce their profits retroactively from users of Linux. Who cares which branch of government they're using?
If the Judicial branch does end up ruling in their favor on weak evidence, then maybe the legislative branch could get involved with reformed laws regarding copyright and patents on software. This should be done anyway (read: "one-click").
I just removed the violating code from my system. (Score:3, Insightful)
We all should just "remove" the "offending code" and "recompile" our kernels...
Re:What is the proof either way? (Score:2, Insightful)
What SCO is doing, in common terms, is this: Suppose I own an art store, and have paintings in the window for display. Some of these paintings are my own original work; most aren't. I claim that you have a painting in your store, purchased from your supplier, that is a copy of one of my originals. I won't say which painting it is, or even demonstrate that it was one of my originals and not a public-domain copy of a classical work, but I'm suing you for a grand for having the alleged copy all the same. I've offered to show art experts the painting in question, but they had to sign a document promising not to ID the painting in question. I believe that IDing the painting would reveal some kind of secret that would damage me if it became known, despite the fact that my paintings are mounted in a window on a public street for all to see, and hold that only by removing all paintings from your store and leaving the art business or else paying me for a license to sell my art (that I won't say what it is) can you protect yourself. I'm offering to let you settle right now for $500, and intend to use this offer as proof that you do indeed have a copy of whatever painting it is that I won't say.
And now, the art buying public is nervous, and don't want to buy art from you until this is settled, lest I sue them too, which I have already threatened to do. Of course you could pay the settlement, but remember: if you pay me the $500, you cede that I own the rights to potentially all the paintings in your store (I never said which one!), and that I have the right to unilaterally set and collect fees from you for the privelege of selling art. If you don't, you'll spend much more on lawyers and continue to lose income in the meantime.
Clear now?
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
Back when Netscape was sucking hard, and it was all we had for Linux, IE-only sites were fairly common. The problem with this is that Microsoft only ported to platforms that did not pose a threat to their monopoly. For example, did you know Microsoft already ported IE to Unix (IE 4 was it?)? You could run IE under Solaris and HPUX(WTF?!?!?), but they didn't recompile it for LInux. I would have gladly used it back in those days, and I wouldn't mind using it today because some goons still choose to ignore W3 standards and to test their sites against standards-compliant browsers. Anyway, the point is they could have easily ported to Linux to allow Linux users to view sites that were specifically written for IE (of which there were plenty), but Microsoft did not and would never do this because it hurts them. This is of course bad for society (at least society who wants to be able to choose an alternative to Windows on x86) and it shows that people don't really have a choice.
The fact that they could do this shows why their position is a dangerous one. They have the source to the browser that 95% of the world is expected to use, and they refuse to port to any up-and-comping x86 OS.
Another example: I want to remain 'compatible' with my company, who distributes forms in MS Word, I am screwed again. I can't buy Word for Linux, and we all know that Word is the (unfortunate) defacto standard for most companies. If my company chooses MS Office, and OpenOffice isn't able to support all the features MS Office uses (or if they haven't fully reverse-engineered MS's proprietary file formats), then I don't have a choice - I have to run Windows.
Our choice, if you want to call it one, has always been: "Choose free software or compatibility with the rest of the world who uses Microsoft (available for Windows only) products." This really isn't a choice since most people want to be compatible with the rest of the world.
This would all be a non-issue if Microsoft wasn't in the OS business while at the same time being in the application business.
Re:How about Gentoo and LFS? (Score:1, Insightful)
They are claiming their code in the source, but they are not selling the source code license. As it vaguely says in their FAQ, you simply cannot compile and use your own kernel -- they tell you to outsource the compilation of the kernel or buy a "shrink wrapped boxed set" from somewhere, but they don't explain how those outsourcers or the sellers of the boxed set got a valid source license.
The truth is that they can't distribute binaries themselves, because then Torvalds can sue them under the GPL. So they can't distribute themselves, but they are going to try to "license" your use of it from other parties.
who infringes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.
Can't you really see the difference?
Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. In the Microsoft case, we use laws in a way which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist in the purest sense of the term in order to protect the foundation of our capitalism (the free market).
The difference is one of right and wrong. Caldera was right to sue Microsoft based on my research and much third-party documentation, but they were wrong to buy DR DOS for little other reason than to sue Microsoft. It should have been left to someone who wanted to do something with the product. Or at least have it contributed to the FreeDOS project, etc.
The real problem is that Caldera saw a legal opportunity and took it (suing Microsoft) and as a result they were too distracted to see that their business model (selling Linux as if it was proprietary software) was becoming irrelevant. So even now they are holding to it and trying to extort money from all Linux users.
I expect SCO to lose because they have no third-party backing (except perhaps Microsoft, but they can't say too much or they could be sued for the same things that RedHat is suing SCO for). Furthermore, in pursuing this, SCO is trying to break their own contracts witht heir customers (the GPL) which they knowingly entered into even AFTER they sued IBM. Even if they win some counts of the IBM suit, they will I think, lose to RedHat.
SCO's suit (Score:1, Insightful)
What does the law say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I am being a bit slow, but surely, when you stand up in court at the start of a prosecution case you have to begin by identifying a law passed by Congress which you claim that the other side has broken. The fact that the other side did something which you didn't like isn't sufficient, is it? Surely Congress has to have agreed at some point that that action should be illegal. Having identified the law you then go on to try to prove that the defence broke it. Or am I missing something about US law here?
Re:No! (Score:2, Insightful)
Single CPU Systems? (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought SCO's beef was with infected SMP code? Therefore, if you do not use multiple processors, you don't use SMP code, therefore there is no need to license a run-time license. Right?
9.8 mill for R-shack (Score:2, Insightful)
You know....come to think of it...I would think there's like a statute of limitations for this kind of thing.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:3, Insightful)
To me this is a symptom of something else: People who pursue technical careers do not gain positions of authority in corporations.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me the GPL was designed to prevent exactly what SCO is attempting.
Clearly, Caldera was aware of what was in the kernel. They contributed to it. They CONTINUED to release Linux distros after acquiring SCO. They even continued to sell a Linux distro AFTER making their claims and suing IBM! And they STILL make the kernel available for download, with GPL license attatched.
SCaldera is basically attempting to TAKE BACK what they contributed, and oh by the way, grab ownership of the 99.9% they don't have any claim to at all...
Re:Tactical error by SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Being reasonable is not their goal. Sure, they could charge, say, $50 per CPU for their "license" and probably get tens of thousands of people who'd do it just to avoid the possibility of a suit.
But they don't want to do that. They want to OWN that which they don't own. And charge $1,000 for it.
For a company that is paranoid about losing their "trade secrets" and their intellectual property, they aren't acting like it. Their failure to disclose what is infringing means that the infringement isn't able to be ceased... Their charging of an exorbitant license fee makes it more likely that people will laugh at them, and snarl in defiance, rather than suck it up, and send in $50 to not worry about a lawsuit...
Re:Solution: SIMPLE! (Score:1, Insightful)
Pay the danegeld once, and guess what happens ?
I'm not removing anything from MY kernel. You can delete what you want from your copy.