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!
At least now we know what their business model is (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU (Score:5, Interesting)
Outlandish. (Score:2, Interesting)
Pure humor. WTF is going on here? I mean, it's just PR to pump stock we all get that, but doesn't requesting outlandish sums of money put SCO at risk with regards to "extortion"?
Proof of ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Windows! (Score:3, Interesting)
The next Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Only $699??? (Score:3, Interesting)
They likely will, to increase the FUD and fund SCO. But as a side benefit, we will find out about a lot more linux use in Microsoft than we now know of.
oh man (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux may be free if my time is worth nothing, but my time sure ain't worth *that* much!
No Linux Trademark recognition? (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
Competing with Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you /.! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:2, Interesting)
This cost structure doesn't make much sense. A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't additional 'licenses' be sold at a discount to the first?
Re:Too much crack! (Score:2, Interesting)
They are claiming for all commercial uses. Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.
However, SOME businesses do use Linux commercially, as desktops and workstations. In which case they'd also have to shell out that obscene amt of money.
Man, I though Microsoft was evil. Compared to these guys, Billy-G is a playground bully.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you purchased $699 of SCO stock on March 7th (day SCO vs. IBM on
George Soros and PAM... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:2, Interesting)
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Show's You how much Linux is worth (Score:4, Interesting)
Just goes to show you how much Linux is worth. SCO seems to have it valued about right. Of course, Linux is GPL and FREE! Were one to charge for Linux, based on it's high end features, the price is close.
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. (Score:4, Interesting)
Many of the Wall Street analysts hyping up the SCO stock to their clients have no idea about the ease with which the disputed code can be re-written by capable graduate students of computer science. The analysts are fools, and so are their clients.
Let us keep this secret to ourselves, the Slashdotters. We will make a bundle of money. Some of us need downpayments on a new house.
After October 15, the price will climb... (Score:1, Interesting)
Where do I sign up???
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Proof of ownership (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, possibly sooner--I'm seeing rumblings on the Yahoo SCOX message board about lawsuits against Darl's crew being prepared from many quarters.
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
> PS: SCO is going down, and everybody know it (including SCO). The question is: will they drag Linux too....
It's a kamakazi attack. Remember that these people don't have any interest in SCO as a software firm. They're ambulance chasers, jackals who bought a moribund enterprise in hopes of squeezing some cash out of it and discarding the husk. If they can get the most cash by hurling it at other companies as a bomb, then that's exactly what they'll do with it.
And it appears that that is the course they decided on.
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:1, Interesting)
If you think you can pick and choose stock so well, you wouldn't be saying "If...". You would have bought it and be saying how you made loads of money off the SCO scheme. Maybe even some comments are what a visionary or fortuitous you are.
What you're doing now is selectively going back and looking at stock increases. "Gee, I should have bought yahoo stock when it came out." Easy to say -after- the fact.
GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? (Score:1, Interesting)
GCC list: SCO systems and 'Target Deprecation' [gnu.org]
but (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally this may be untenable, I don't know - but it would probably pump up SCO stock prices and I think this is all they care about.
Re:This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The disputed code is under NDA, and SCO are being tightwads and not letting it escape. They know that the instant the disputed code escapes, it will be re-coded and re-integrated in a way that removes this aspect of their case.
2) SCO also claims that it has process-patents, which I think means that no matter how you rewrite the code, it still DOES the same thing, which makes it a violation of their IP.
In summary, I think that what SCO should really do is bottle up whatever drugs they're smoking, and start selling them for these licensing prices. At least there would be a demand for the drugs, they seem rather potent.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't SCO claim that its properties include only SMP and related technologies? If that's the case, then a single CPU license would not be required at all because SCO's technologies apply only to multiple-CPU boxes.
Mind you, their story has changed so often it's hard to know what they actually claim now. Today's claims are probably different than yesterdays. Oh, it's after noon? Then the claims are different than they were this morning.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 = $3.20); I've lost..
Good thing I didn't buy too many.
This can't be legal . . . can it? (Score:5, Interesting)
That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to.
-Peter
SCO Germany (Score:2, Interesting)
"...die urheberrechtlichen Anspruche, die SCO geltend macht, hatten kaum Substanz..."
The copyright issues SCO is claiming don't have much substance.
In Europe SCO don't have the Right to force money (by several court decisions).
So, it's an american problem only.
Bring them to court! Everyone. Now!
thoughts on SCOX for the day (Score:2, Interesting)
-> he made use of the RIAA reference and the 'billions of dollars' in losses to the companies and artists. and how illegal copyright theft of internet music declined 30% once the RIAA layed the smack down on end users with individual lawsuits.
-> SCO is prepared to head down that path, but would prefer to remedy the situation without this. yadda yadda lip service. expect your subpoena soon
please send your 'special compliance synergy introductory value-added tiered schedule pricing' check to lindon, utah ASAP. failure to comply will result in you being hit by a meteor or slapped with a 6-7 figure lawsuit for 'hurting a faceless entity's feelings'.
SCOX - +0.78 so far today. this is disappointing.
please wsj, reuters, and other major news organizations make these evil men and women look like the corporate terrorists they are. but oh wait, darl mcbride is a CEO, he's SOMEONE!!! he's SPECIAL!!! don't hurt his or SCO's feelings, give them 700$ to go away...
for now.
SCO's SEC Filings (Score:2, Interesting)
FAQ (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of weird answers in the FAQ. One is a statement about not offering the license to Linux distro vendors, because that would conflict with the GPL. Also of note is that Caldera/SCO Linux users need to register for a license. It doesn't say if it's free for them or not. Embedded devices can be registered for $32, but it never says what constitutes and embedded device.
Open Letter to SCO geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
What SCO is doing is called extortion/blackmail.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
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%.
Here's what I've been wondering (Score:4, Interesting)
Once SCO has lost the battle, there will still be the Canopy Group and the SCO board members, McBride and the rest. I am willing to bet that once SCO dies miserably, Canopy Group will have made more than many times over enough money they extracted from the stock manipulations they put SCOX through to have made the whole exercise more than worthwhile.
Is there any way at all persons like Mr. Wolf- would have the ability to go after Canopy Group, as the majority shareholder and pretty clearly the one guiding SCOX through all this, for the damages he would be able to demand from SCOX had not Canopy Group and Mr. McBride driven SCOX into the ground?
Is there any way that, once the intellectual-property thing serves useless except as a stock scam, people who were originally shareholders of Caldera and wound up with their Caldera stock becoming worthless paper after Canopy Group drove SCOX into the ground with their new "strategy" (and absconded with the money) could sue Canopy Group?
I realize most of our corporate law seems to be designed to ensure stockholders are not responsible for the actions of the company. However, recently, in the wake of the Enron Witchhunt, CEOs and other corporates who engage in openly deceptive practices actually have been getting in trouble.
Surely there's some sort of laws on the books to prevent individuals like McBride and groups like Canopy from taking over a small company like Caldera and using it as a shell to perform illegal actions (like libel, and barratry, and deceptive trade practices) with no intent or purpose for the company except to allow themselves to perform illegal acts without being legally liable? Surely the fact that it will be possible to show the Canopy Group's sudden majority ownership coincided with the strategies that led to SCOX being wiped out in counterlawsuits from IBM and Redhat and people like Wolf-, and the fact it will be possible to show the Canopy Group benefited GREATLY from the stock actions they performed during these strategies, means that once SCOX has been wiped out Canopy Group will be in some way liable for whatever damages post-bankruptcy SCOX couldn't be made to pay?
Yes? No? Is there an investment lawyer in the house?
All According to Plan (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the whole idea. Why do you think $CO priced their bogus (and illegal) licenses the way they did, so soon after Micro$oft purchased that expensive, utterly unnecessary license in order to prop them up (and $un added to their kitty as well)?
This is about FUD and misinformation, with Microsoft as the primary beneficiary and Sun as ugly and despicable opportunist. Both had better exploit it well, because it won't last, SCO will almost certainly not survive any legal activities that actually take place within the court room, and anyone found to be in collaboration on this may well end up in prison or in debt as well.
Which will be a delightful pleasure to watch, although if Enron is any indication, most of these rich fucks will walk away with their ill-gotten wealth, stepping over the corpses of those they defrauded on their way to the bank, laughing all the way.
So much for capitalism, or justice, in America.
I called (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is irrelevant, period! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, even if there is proof, this "license" is still worthless. If SCOX is finally found to have some proprietary IP (doubtful, but let's examine the possibility for the sake of the analysis) the GPL would forbid distribution of the combined result so your license would basically enable you to use only SCOX's pieces but it would effectively prevent you from legally using the rest of the kernel. You just paid for something that in the end has no use.
Companies buying this license are throwing away their money. If your company is thinking about purchasing one, it is your duty to warn the decision makers that the purchased item is unuseable.
Re:No Linux Trademark recognition? (Score:4, Interesting)
Think again. [slashdot.org]
Obvious things to do (Score:2, Interesting)
- Make a proper worldwide list of SCO resellers, and have people from each contry conntact each reseller. Just a few press releases saying "we are no longer a SCO reseller" would be worth it. (The SCO / Caldera site is not surprisingly broken for finding official resellers.)
- Check if The Canopy group is dumping SCO stock. The used to own 65% or so, if they're dumping stock it should be worth a FP on slashdot, if not news.com.. I'm not sure how you do this, you probably have to have a bit higher market access than most people.
- Check if Unixware contains any obvious code stolen from Linux. Later versions have ext2 support and such, and there is the linux compability layer. Is all that _really_ written from scratch? If someone can show that "SCO stole thousands of lines of code from Linux and here is the proof" it would take a LOT of the wind out of their sales. And then there is device drivers.. In 10 years I doubt that they haven't copied anything from Linux.
- What more? Oh.. Perhaps the people at www.thesmokinggun.com could dig something up on a SCO exec? Like this mugshot [thesmokinggun.com] (not safe for work or anywhere).
Oh, and I got the partner page to work on sco.com: For where I live the first listed is a privat person, then there is a huge dairy (i.e. milk and cheese producer).. I wonder if they know they sell SCO productsSCO icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
ed
Re:ehm, yes terribly sorry (Score:1, Interesting)
This is where they violate the GPL. If they want to sell licenses to code integrated into the linux kernel, those licenses can not be more restrictive than the GPL.
So they are telling you to only use pre-compiled versions of the linux kernel, that you bought from a vendor. Otherwise they claim you are violating their rights by using the SOURCE to which they don't sell a license.
The whole thing is a bit disingenious, of course. Outsource the compilation to where ? To which outsourcers have to sold a source license to, Darl ? Is SCO, by suggesting I buy a shrink wrapped box set, implying that RedHat has a source license from SCO ?
It's clear this hasn't been thought through very far; or if it has, they are unwilling to reveal the final extent of their planned control. I think it is most likely it is poorly thought through, there is no real infringing code, and this is all a scam to dump SCOX stock.
SCO code in Linux or Linux code in SCO??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:3, Interesting)
Call them up. 1-800-726-8649 I've left a message and they are supposed to call me back.
slashdot that phone!
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Well, Microsoft uses Linux in their test lab [slashdot.org]. I wonder how many licenses they'll be purchasing.
Indemnity (Score:2, Interesting)
An article like [forbes.com] this at forbes I think is enough to scare a CTO. We can't keep looking at this like an absurd joke, IBM needs to setup to the plate.
More interesting info... (Score:4, Interesting)
Limitations of Linux Before IBM's Involvement
82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
83. As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors, for at least two major reasons: (a) Linux quality was inadequate since it was not developed and tested in coordination for enterprise use and (b) enterprise customer acceptance was non-existent because Linux was viewed by enterprise customers as a "fringe" software product.
84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
86. It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM.
Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
On my system:
Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.
As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.
As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.
If the naughty code is for SMP... (Score:2, Interesting)
My analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
He is calling out RMS by name. This is a lot worse than "hey your product infringes on our product". This is a declaration that proprietary source and open source cannot co-exist in the same world.
In his closing remarks, McBride likens SCO's actions against Linux end users to the RIAA's actions against P2P copyright infringers.
This is some lethal FUD here. There is a huge difference between music thieves and open source developers. Music thieves are in fact making using other people's work without their consent, whereas open source developers create their own independent content and distibute it on their own chosen terms. We are indies. We are not warez d00dz.
Back to SCO
Classical company: make products and services, sell them to customers for money, profit.
F/OSS community: make products and services, give them away, self-generating funding, community rewards (but not much profit).
SCO: generate FUD, sell "ScoSource licenses" to Microsoft and Sun, profit.
Classical companies took some time to adjust to the radically different approach of the F/OSS Community. We don't breath the same oxygen that they do, so strategies that worked against, say, Netscape, do not work against, say, Apache.
Similarly, SCO has a radically different model. SCO throws shit like a mad monkey at the Bronx zoo. For a classical corporation, there is huge backlash to this, because customers tend to avoid the products and services of the shit-thrower. But SCO doesn't care, because they don't make their profit from selling products and services
How to fight something like this?
Well, Linuxtag did something effective. Red Hat's lawsuit may or may not be effective, but it sure is good for morale. I asked RMS to boycott SCO -- remove support for SCO operating systems from GNU products -- but he replied that he didn't think it would be effective (because SCO can just maintain their own branch). I disagree with that and I urge more developers to follow Fyodor's lead and remove OpenServer and UnixWare as configuration options in their software.
SCO makes money by throwing shit at Linux -- not indirectly by increasing sales of their products (which does not work very well), but directly, in the form of checks from Microsoft and Sun.
SCO has essentially two assets and is fighting on two levels. They have legal claims and are pursuing those in court. But they also have PR assets. It is deadly for us to reply to their PR attacks with legal defenses. We have to attack SCO's PR assets.
Some ideas for an attack:
. SCO claims they spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and purchasing the rights to Unix. Well, actually, they probably spent a lot less than that. Check how much they raised in their IPO and how much revenue they've made since then and how much they've actually spent on engineering.
. SCO even bought their name! The SCO Group didn't build a reputation on that name. They used to be Caldera International, but when that didn't work, they bought the name from the Santa Cruz Operation.
. SCO isn't a product and service company. Their revenues are tiny and declining. Their VP of Engineering sold all his stock (and I've heard a rumor that he left the company, haven't tracked it down yet). It's not enough to point out that they are litigious. Point out that they have nil legitimate technology to bring to the table.
Sorry this rambles a bit, I should write an essay instead of just rambling in a comment box.
Re:Too much crack! (Mac OS X) (Score:1, Interesting)
Mac OS X: $129
Mac OS X Server v10.2 (10-User Lic.) $499.00
Mac OS X Server v10.2 (Unlimited) $999.00
And SCO wants what for what?! $1399 for a SINGLE processor after October 15th?!
Pass the popcorn, this is getting amusing.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:v2.6 is safe! (Score:2, Interesting)
You bring up an interesting point that isn't being well addressed. SCO has stated in the conference call that their intentions are to release a binary only run time license. Since the code is covered under the GPL, they are then required to provide you the source code free of charge except for reasonable media expenses. If they fail to do so, they are in violation and their license can be revoked, and if I remember correctly, this would mean they are infringing on all of the linux kernel developers copyright.
Once they cross the threshold of denying you the source and your ability to freely modify and distribute the source normal developers can turn on the hot water. I think what is needed is a Linux Legal "Offense" fund, to help developers go after companies that violate the GPL.
SCO needs to be reminded of which end is up. Distributing binaries, without releasing the code under the GPL is in direct violation of the GPL. Apparently they are going to directly test the very thing that needs to be tested in the courts with regards to the GPL.
Stallman wasn't awarded the title of Genius for creating the GPL for nothing. Stallman designed it so that if the GPL ends up not holding water, then basic Copyright laws take effect (which includes the often feared DMCA). Red Hat and others are not actually selling you a license, they are just charging you for the cost of putting the source code onto the media, documentation, and a nice pretty box if you would like.
SCO intends to take the work of others (which is currently protected by copyright) and sell it. At that point, at the very least they are infringing on copyright of linux developers, and they will have to reap the whirlwind of _all_ of the IP they are violating.
I believe there is more than enough kernel developers over the course of linux, to warrant a class action lawsuit against SCO for copyright infringement.
If SCO collects one penny for any binary distribution sans offering GPL'd source code, they are in direct violation and damages and other remedies can be sought under copyright law and the DMCA.
How about Gentoo and LFS? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the keyword here is binary - those who compiled Linux from scratch may relax and safe money. Perhaps that's b/c the "secret IP" code of SCO is only in binary format. I wonder, do they petent x86 instruction code set? If so, how about Linux users on PPCs and SPARCs? If not then what makes the binary deployment to be so special comparing to the source-code based ones?
Re:Too much crack! (Score:3, Interesting)
From the FAQ:
Re:Too much crack! (Score:3, Interesting)
You may want to be a little more careful with your use of the words 'anything' and 'anyone'. From a strict interpretation of your post, if I can't sell your CD collection on the street for $50, we're living in a socialist society. (How'd I get your CDs? I bought them from this guy whose name and description I have suddenly forgotten.) That would mean that capitalism is actually a kleptocracy, which is probably not what you had in mind.
nobody69
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU (Score:3, Interesting)
However, depending on wether any developers have or have not signed over their copyrights the FSF may or may not be able to file a lawsuit.
However, again, the severity of SCO's violation falls well within the range of criminal copyright violation which means our good friends the feds will have the privilidge of dragging Dear Darl in chains to prison where he gets to be some nice big guys McBride. Civil lawsuits for damages would be easier to file after criminal charges have gone through.
Put it in escrow! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually a fairly well-used method of payment in cases of dispute.
If I live in California and dispute my phone bill, I can put the full payment on deposit with the Public Utilities Commission pending resolution of the dispute. This way my local telephone service provider can't file a negative credit report on me for not paying my bill, but they don't get any of my money until the dispute is resolved. Once it's resolved, the PUC gives the phone company the amount to which they're entitled, and if I've successfully argued my case, I get the disputed portion back.
If SCO is so sure of their claims, they should have no problem with this solution. Your only loss is getting passbook-style interest on the money rather than the interest you could get from more aggressive investments.
- Greg
Interesting comments from Linuxtoday (Score:3, Interesting)
Reporting SCO to the BBB (Score:2, Interesting)
http://complaints.bbb.org/Welcome.asp [bbb.org]
I am going to file a complaint.
They do take these things seriously, and I firmly beleive that these announcements amount to nothing more than misleading business practices.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, capitalism is a system where individuals are personally free (as opposed to feudalism) and can own means of productions, e.g. factories (as opposed to socialism/communism).
Investors were putting money into ventures and expecting a return long time before capitalism.
Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Trying to purchase licenses from SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the requests we made:
Hello,
We would like to purchase Linux licenses for our servers.
We couldn't find a link on your home page. Is online payment possible?
Can we keep using our RedHat linux installations in the meanwhile?
Thank you.
We are now waiting for a quick answer from them (their form [sco.com] said You will be hearing from us soon), and very very curious about their answer.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its like socialsm: Europens have a vastly different view on what socialism is than Americans. Americans predominantly see Socialsm as a central governement thing (where all is arranged in favour of some social belief), but Europeans belief it just means governing with a social face, and in fact the "less regulation" wing is the more dominant right now. So simply put Americans think "Ethics first" then money == Capitalism, whereas Europeans think "Money first" then maybe some law (but not ethics) == Capitalism.
Well from my European POV it seems anyway...
Buy SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
Whats the worth of SCO? $200 mill.?
Let's put in $20 for each Linux we have, then:
- buy SCO
- license all their IP/code to GNU
- and if we are in a real evil mood: dissolve the company.
Let me see, I have 3 Linuxes running = $60SCO wants $699 per Linux = $2097
I save $2037 and probably will get an even better Linux
Perhaps it's time for the world to meet Open Capitalism
Re:Give em a call! (Score:3, Interesting)
C++ Code = Licence Agreement?? (Score:1, Interesting)
1) Random Developer puts SCO code into Linux. Not me or anyone else I know who uses Linux. But a developer.
2) Companies distribute Linux not knowing about SCO code (well, I assume they didn't know...)
3) Members of the Public use Linux without a f*cking clue that they are using SCO's code. Not because they ignore licence agreements (a la many Win2K copies...), but because they don't know and can't read code.
4) SCO sues users because it's their fault they're using unlicenced software. Of course it is, everyone can read code and pick out the juicy copyrighted bits!
--- start stupidity here ---
Yeah, I'm really gonna check 000's of lines of C++ code just to find the line "/* Copyright of SCO. SCO ownz j00 */" every time I buy obtain a new OS.
Maybe Microsoft should learn from this and start embedding licence agreements in source code, after all no-one reads the damned things when they HAVE access to them
--- end stupidity ---
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same goes with democracy, do recall a famous quote
"The greatest tyranny of all is that of the ignorant majority."-Author Unknown
-Khyeron
My experience calling SCO just now... (Score:3, Interesting)
I just called their toll-free number 1-800-726-8649, hit option 5 to speak to a representative. I explained that I may be interested in purchasing license(s) but needed clarification on their policy. Note that I don't currently own or operate any Linux systems that their license would apply to, but that I'm calling for some clarification of their policy.
Anyways, they wanted my company name, my name, and a return phone number. A sales rep will call me back. When I asked how long it would take, I was told it probably would not be this week since they've been backlogged with so many calls. Their sales director wasn't prepared for this large of a response. So either sales are going to be great for SCO this quarter, or their staff is going to be talking to a lot of time-wasters, money-wasters, and tire-kickers.
are we being taken for a ride? (Score:1, Interesting)
Consider what has happened up till this point:
- SCO is bought up by some investors
- SCO makes some nebulous claim regarding intellectual property in linux
- SCO opens up a lawsuit against IBM, a rather large and powerful company, demanding a ridiculous amount of money.
- Upen receiving challenges from the public to show the offending code, they offer it only under an incredibly restrictive NDA, and even those who agree to it don't see any relevant infringement.
- SCO begins hinting at licensing fees for linux users
- Redhat sues SCO
- SCO immediately countersues Redhat
- SCO unveils an incredibly high priced license scheme with a time limit.
From these events, a few things stand out:
First, IMB's non-response to SCO. SCO is obviously looking for a fight, and yet IBM is completely ignoring them. Why?
Second, SCO is playing hide-and-seek with the evidence, and playing NDA games which almost appear to be designed just to piss people off.
Third, their ridiculous countersuit against RedHat.
In my opinion, this countersuit was originally designed to be filed against IBM when they countersued SCO. IBM must have smelled a rat and so did not respond to their challenge. After their first volley failed, SCO then continued to heap on the insults to get SOMEBODY pissed off enough to sue them. In this case it happened to be Redhat.
It would seem that somebody in a position of influence wants to get as many legal actions involving SCO as possible.
We all know there's a scam afoot, but can you see past the sleight-of-hand?
The magician performs his trick by controlling the viewer's eye.
The SCO Group (Formerly known as Caldera) (Score:4, Interesting)
Last year Caldera Inc. changed its Company name into a new Company name called "The SCO Group Inc." In 2000 Caldera Inc. publicly announced to donate their UNIX stuff into the Linux 2.4 kernel. That was just after Caldera Inc. had bought the orginal SCO Inc. company.
bottom line : "The SCO Group Inc." today has no rights whatsoever to charge $699,= for a Linux License
Robert
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry but Microsoft including their recent "Dividend" still fits this category probably better than any other company in history. They have "Made the most money" and paid literally NOTHING until this year in dividends. The largest company in America pays a dividend of 0.25% return on investment. Come on! Wake up this is stock fraud to the limit.
So they make 8 Billion in profit but they don't pay it to their stockholders do they? This is prima facia evidence of what I am talking about but as usual people are not looking closely. They are just ignorantly going about squalking with all the intelligence of three rocks and one large brick.
There is practically no company in America of any size which in any way resembles capitalism. At this time, most big companies are sucking down massive tax exemptions. Their facilities as with MS are paid for and built by the Taxpayers who they intend to defy at every turn. They will refuse any request that they pay this back. Just to set you streight, what I am talking about is called "Jobs" by your Congress critters and is called "Industrial Development" by your city or town or state and is nothing of the sort. It is Faschism or National Socialism Pure and simple. Doubt me? Try financing an operation with real investment money with you at risk. The bank will say NO!
In the Case of MS everyone forgets a company set in business essentially by the US Department of Defense with massive help and "Deep Black" support who now ships all this tech off to our sworn enemy China in return for our generous support and assistance. China is openly planning Nuclear War with the USA and this is not an accusation, it is their word.
No MS is the worst of the lot. They took the most and have paid back such a small amount that it is a bad joke. The fraud at MS is MILES DEEP. But the "Capitalists" at the stock market are all believers who are awaiting even bigger suckers to follow their bad investment with more money.
In the case of MS those who chose "Appreciation" over Dividends will find that the "Profits" of $8 Billion are easy to report but when they have to be shelled out in cash, they will evaporate like Verga. It will never hit the ground. This is why Linux is a threat to MS. The top heavy structure is hollow to the core riddled with mechanisms where the big guys can take it all leaving the stockholders in the shorts. The organization is like a great oak fully hollowed out by termintes. When the wind blows it falls to splinters. It is already happening just watch.
If MS is your idea of capitalism, hold tight it is going to be a bumpy night. (Just a Hint: I am a true capitalist who has run businesses for may years with my own money until they were essentially crushed by these "Tax Advantaged" companies given advantages under Industrial Development Boards)
What a Coincidence ! (Score:2, Interesting)
So the price is going to go up in October. And it just so happens that the restrictions on the common stock that was given to the SCO directors expire on October 31. (Once the restrictions expire, they can sell it.) Here is the relevant paragraph from SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC:
During the six months ended April 30, 2003, the Company issued 218,000 shares of restricted stock to certain key employees and 150,000 shares of restricted common stock to members of the Company's board of directors. The restricted common stock issued to the board of directors was in lieu of cash compensation for their services to the Company during the 2003 fiscal year and the restrictions lapse at October 31, 2003. The restrictions on the restricted stock awards granted to key employees lapse over a period of 24 months. The fair value of the restricted stock awards granted of $549,000 was recorded as a component of deferred compensation and is amortized to stock-based compensation as the restrictions lapse or as the services are performed.
Isn't it odd how these strange coincidences occur?
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:3, Interesting)
If we all work together, we can put the executives [sco.com] of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General [naag.org]. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends use to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time.
Before I ever used Linux, I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 [slashdot.org] for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release [sco.com] announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Rather than paying their fee, my response will be to write a letter to the Maine State Attorney General to ask that they prosecute SCO. I'm going to include substantive documentation, like a hardcopy of SCO's claim that I must pay them this fee, as well as IBM's and RedHat's responses to SCO.
I'm also going to write to the Federal Trade Commission to ask that SCO be investigated for illegal trade practices.
If you live in the United States, I ask you to write a similar letter to your state Attorney General, as well as to the Federal Trade Commission. If you live in a state where a Linux distro vendor is located, or a company that has a lot of Linux installations - doesn't Amazon use it? - write to your elected representatives to ask that they work with the state and fede
Well *BSD is safe (Score:2, Interesting)
So what does this have to do with the price of ice in Alaska? Glad you asked..... BSD development got very slow and many good developers that I know went over to doing Linux development durring the years of the suit, thus giving Linux a much needed boost. These folks did this because they did not want to lose their code to AT&T if BSDI lost the case. Since then the BSD family has not had the popular or press following that Linux has, but it has still grown to become the robust system it is today and the great thing is that SCO/Caldera can not move against the BSDs because the court already ruled against them (they bought what AT&T had). So while the new owners of Unix, like many recent Linux converts, have not learned from history and are doomed to repeat it the BSD groups do not have to go through it all over again!
I sure hope that discovery in these trials shows that SCO is in violation of the GPL. Sure would love to see the FSF or some one get some damages on that one!
-bsdguy
--
DRM is theft! We are the stakeholders! - http://www.nyfairuse.org/