SCO Targets US Government, TiVo 1539
An anonymous reader writes "According to SCO, if you have a TiVo set-top box, or those models of Sharp Zaurus which use Linux, someone now owes them $32, since the company wants money 'for each embedded system using Linux.' SCO also says government agencies must pay up to $699 for each copy of Linux that they use."
I own a TiVo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux routers (Score:5, Insightful)
*toggles off Caldera news*
The Government??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Quickly degenerating into the really bizarre ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm seriously thinking it's time to call in the men in the white suits and get Mc Bride strapped up and thrown into a padded room for his own good.
please create (Score:5, Insightful)
so much sco stuff has been happening lately and there's no sign of it going away anytime soon. The big shocking ones can make the main page, but I'm willing to bet there's so much sco stuff that you guys are turning away some of it.
You've recently done this with apple and games. I think a sco option would be useful.
Thanks!!!
sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cannonballs (Score:5, Insightful)
This could make them all wildly rich! Why not go for it, just in case somebody buys it?
An interersting panic run (Score:5, Insightful)
This is getting to be fucking annoying (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy out? Stock pump! (Score:5, Insightful)
The text of SCO's "Linux license" (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoy.
One of the LWN posters raise a very interesting question:
> > SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE
> > RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.
>
> Does this mean that SCO is definitely claiming
> to own some rights over the a GNU/Linux system,
> and that anyone who buys this license can sue
> them when they turn out not to have any such
> "intellectual property"?
Very interesting, indeed.
where do these people come up with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, wrong. If SCO proves their IP was misappropriated, it will be immediately removed from the kernel, and replaced with non-infringing code, and linux will go on. Regardless of who they sue for infringement, they'll have to reveal WHAT was infringed to pursue it legally, and if there's ANY merit to their claim, it will be instantly rectified. And let's be honest: SCO knows this. Otherwise they'd release the purported infringement. If it's floating around in the linux kernel, it's not like it can be "covered up" as SCO says. (I nominate the idea of a community of a million users sweeping millions upon millions of copies of kernel source code "under the rug" for completely absurd notion of the decode)
There's a lot of funny stuff that could happen here, but I don't see how in anyone's wildest dreams that the "end of linux" is part of it.
Can we please ignore SCO's posturing for attention (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't suggest a head-in-the-sand mentality, I'd strongly suggest we simply let the whole thing play out. It's going to be at a long time before anything actually happens in the lawsuits- and until something happens we are only helping SCO by publicizing who they are going after. The more the industry hears about SCO going after people, the more they will fear SCO.
So let's please just calm down, realize there's little any of US can do about it(unless SCO has claims to OUR intellectual property) except encourage linux IP holders to fight back and contribute to organizations like the FSF which, while they cannot directly act on the behalf of others, can help them fight the legal battle, but only if they actually decide to protect their intellectual property. Read the FSF's mission statement some time- they specifically say they can't fight a legal battle just because a piece of software has the GPL- they don't own the IP. However, if you ASK for help, THEN they can try and help.
In the meantime, it doesn't affect the vast majority of us, it's not news- it's just plain and simple bullying for press(attention), and we're giving them exactly what they want. Anyone remember the whole Raelean(sp?) thing with the 'vaporware' cloned baby? The "church" leaders openly admitted it was a publicity stunt and they did it only to increase membership. One of them was quoted as saying they had received hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising from one bogus claim.
Sharp Zaurus based on SCO's product (Score:3, Insightful)
McBride needs treatment (Score:3, Insightful)
What SCO is trying to do (extort money from practically everyone) is so completely transparent. Let's see, he panics big accounts who are using Linux so they freak and buy a license, then he's going to point to that in court and say, "See, any reasonable person can see that our IP has been infringed, else they would not be paying us for a license!"
I can't get over the pundits, either, saying that if SCO is right it's the "death of Linux" - What utter BS! The Open Source community will rewrite the offending sections and Linux will roll on (long after SCO breathes its last).
FWIW, I don't have any intention of sending SCO even one of my hard earned dollars. I hope most CEO's have enough sense to wait this thing out and see what happens before they give SCO anything.
Re:SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phone calls (Score:2, Insightful)
Selling fridges to dwellers of the polar circles (Score:2, Insightful)
If you find somebody who still has doubts, tell them that you also are willing to sell them a license stating that they will be protected from any lawsuit from you for any car accident with a third party. Cheap! Only $699! They'll be "protected" so they can save much more than $699 in car insurance premiums...
Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cannonballs (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's other option is to try and compete with Linux with OpenServer and UnixWare, both of which suck. This will be especially difficult considering the fact that SCO has almost no R&D personnel.
The fact of the matter is that SCO's tactics are actually working. Before the lawsuit SCOX stock hovered around $1.00/share, and now it's at $12.00/share. Canopy Group has already used SCO's high stock price to rid themselves of Vultus. SCO essentially paid top-dollar (then some) for Vultus in stock (mostly to Canopy Group) this stock was then cashed for more than $3 million dollars. The kicker, Canopy Group owns SCO as well. In essence the Canopy Group took $3 million of investor's money and bought out one of their other worthless companies, putting the proceeds in their own pocket. Not to mention all of the SCO executives that have been selling their personal shares while the stock is up.
SCO has years before the case even goes to trial. In the meantime they simply threaten the world and watch their stock price go up. Canopy Group and SCO executives can use the inflated stock price in a myriad of ways, and since the trial won't happen for years there is very little chance of SEC involvement. SCO management simply has to pretend like they believe they have a case.
Not to mention the fact that the government oftentimes loses court cases. Juries apparently don't mind picking the pockets of Uncle Sam. In the meantime, it's good press. Investors love the idea of some company dipping their hands in Uncle Sam's pockets.
Not on intel! (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO has no non-intel offerings.
NUMA and RCU in embedded system ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is crasy if there expect to charge for somthing that don't even exists!
Re:Oh they're fucked now (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, legitimizing SCO's case even further.
Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, dude in wife-beater t-shirt and cutoffs starts a loud confrontation, barricades and arms himself, gets armed representatives of The Authorities (tm) sucked in, and then threatens said representatives with his weapon. SWAT dude has to pull the trigger, and then it's goodbye cruel world.
Damn near foolproof way to off yourself once the hardcore tactical team is on scene, and it's technically not suicide!
So, We've got SCO (bad mullet, tank-top, and raggy jeans) waving his 9mm around at everyone, including some folks that just finished getting heavy-handed on some folks between the Euphrates and Tigris. Like I said, suicide-by-cop.
You all just don't seem to get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't beat it on performance.
They can't beat it on price.
They can't beat it on stability.
What else do they have?
There were people using SCO unix for low end systems in shops that couldn't afford "The Big Boys". SCO has no market left. There is no point to them doing anything but a last ditch effort to save some small niche market from people afraid of any possibility of license issues. They don't have the support of Open Source development to aid their commercial product (Like some BSD). They don't have any high dollar hardware to bundle with (IBM, Sun, SGI). The only thing they might have is some customer loyalty from those who they treated well with support (I have no idea, never dealt with them). There is nothing left. Either they show enough promise to dump some stock or they bully a few reluctant customers. Its sure that if their customers are happy with their product, they are surely looking towards the free stuff that can at the very least equal what they have been paying top dollar for.
Anyway, They are not long for this world. Even if they muddied the water with Linux, FreeBSD would welcome us with open arms. (Maybe not wide open, they are dying you know.
MS-SCO Conspiracy Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if (well more like when) SCO lose, Microsoft can now bring up this case when it comes to any kind of OSS competition with regards to government contracts they will just say:
"Hey remember that whole SCO thing? How do you know it won't happen again but next time with a valid claim?"
I love the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Today on slashdot, there was an article on the 20 year old left wing loudmouth who gets a year in jail for linking to a website with bombmaking instructions while the despotic bastard CEO of SCO can make claims and threats about a computer operating system while offering no evidence whatsoever and not only get away with it, but also make a fair amount of money at the same time.
Compare the above to an article in the Washington Post about gangland killings in Washington DC, where gang members, who are all armed and are all involved in criminal activities are hardly prosecuted and the case of Germany, where a legal injunction forced SCO to withdraw it's claims in that country, completely.
I personally think that whatever happens to Linux in the USA in terms of SCO being able to legally enforce payment of licences, those will have no effect outside the USA and I will personally piss in my pants laughing when SCO attempts to do some enforcing in the EU.
Re:Linux routers (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfectly Rational (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:5, Insightful)
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM [sco.com] and filed by Red Hat [redhat.com] are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's [sco.com] menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
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 [caltech.edu], was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC [ucsc.edu]. Many of my best friends used 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. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula [deth.com] at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - 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 [cruzio.com] 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.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Re:Cannonballs (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll "win" because there won't ever be a battle. In a world of billion dollar Microsoft contracts, I don't see why the government would have a problem with this. To paraphrase Rutherford B Hayes, this is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.
Re:In United States Of America... (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux represents what most of the "old guard" see as "hippy" and "communist". So of course this current administration does not love Linux, but I doubt they really hate it either.
Then along comes a company full of lawyers and IP stuff and asks it for money. Now, to appear to be the business friendly people this administration wants to be, I wouldn't be the least bit supprised to see them a) give in to show that IP laws a serious to them or b) switch EVERYTHING to MS products. Either way Linux looses, and that would make all the big companies such as MS very happy. And we all know that MS and this administration just love each other (see outcome of antitrust case).
Hitler made that mistake. (Score:1, Insightful)
SCO had to try and make their claim seem worthwhile by even going after the "government". As we _sure_ Microsoft isn't behind this SCO thing? Are we going to tune in to Jay Leno some nite and see Bill Gates with a "SCO Mask" in some sort of twisted (sorry, Jay) skit?
hahah (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, that's not funny at all...
Death Rattle (Score:5, Insightful)
SCOX net earings 2003 -4 million
SCOX net earings 2002 -25 million
SCOX net earings 2001 -131 million
SCOX net earings 2000 -27 million
SCOX net earings 1999 -9 million
Right there that's 196 million dollars of debt that SCO has accumulted in the past 5 years. So when you realize that your business model just ain't working, hey, why not just sue everyone.
$699 = trying to kill Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason they are trying to kill linux. The point isn't to ransom money, but to keep users from using Linux. The government is not going to ante up $699 per copy of linux until there is proof that it MUST. HOWEVER, no government purchaser watching this linux/SCO soap opera should approve new linux boxes to be bought (and for that manner, any big business IT department). This happening at a time when linux was just starting to get on a roll and look to be a real force.
The exorbinate fee sure seems to make that agreement with Microsoft seem even more sleezy...
Re:Holy Fucking Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO *really* thinks they are right or *really* thinks they have nothing to lose. The indication is the rapidity of their announcements--it's gone schoolyard--nah nah, nah nah, nah.
One PR to counter another announcement. The Red Hat announcement got them, SCO responds, SCO throws in some ridiculous licensing terms, SuSE came back with RH support, SCO annouces expanded targets including TiVO.
Look, these people are idiots and still look like idiots even if they manage to win--but they're employing hostile business tactics that work--they're boosting their own stock so their wealth on paper goes up. If they reach settlement with IBM, the stock skyrockets and they're richer. If they don't reach settlement with IBM or anyone else, it goes to court. During the court case, it will become very clear whether they are going to win or lose, and they'll be on the front lines with their cell phones to their brokers telling them whether to short the stock or hold.
If they lose the court case, they lose very little on paper--their initial stock purchases were worth shit to begin with. It's a PR move (which
Damn, SCO's actions are distasteful at best...and I really dislike the GPL and most people involved with it.
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:3, Insightful)
The company also turned a profit of $3.7 million in the recent period compared to a $17.6 million net loss for the year-ago period.
How do you think SCO pulled this off? By selling a single license to MS.
Kernel Source Tree? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do SCO copyrights look like? Do they say SCO? Or do they go back to ATT or Bell Labs?
Developer names? Function or variable naming conventions?
Without this stuff, how the fsck can SCO id the code? I can't believe that somone who works on the Kernel regularly hasn't posted what some of the code is. My guess is that it's because there's no way to ID it. And if this is true, SCO's got no case. IANAL, but if they can't definitively define 'stolen' code, then how to prove it's stolen?
wbs.
good metaphor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is not. The way that theis scam is running, I'd expect that the first time they actually got a cheque from this (at least from a fortune-1000 company) they'd be pushing that out all of the news services. 'cause it would give their claims more credibility.
They already overstepped their bounds (Score:3, Insightful)
If this contiunes, they can go on trying to extort licensing fees from every user of an embedded Linux device, including Linksys routers. I think that they can't go on much longer with this because they simply have gone too far. First it was licensing/IP problem with IBM, then its threaten every commercial Linux user, then every device that is equipped with any version of Linux (even though their claims don't even extend that far into 2.2 and earlier, which is what many of these embedded devices use).
Their case is like building a skyscraper on sand without a foundation. Very soon, it will topple.
Re:And in a recent announcement... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
That was about the most disturbing comment I've read in a while. Is it any wonder she dates a non-geek?
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO stockholders and Linux will have been the losers.
But that is just my opinion, and I'm in no position to know.
Re:sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. It's called a "golden parachute". They don't give a shit about the company - it's owned by shareholders. They're driving the stock up and dumping it before the shit hits the fan. Self-preservation at its best.
Or as it's known in some circles, a felony.
-j
Now SCO's guilty of fraud! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets assume that they are. And lets assume they loose the lawsuit, and are proven not to own any Linux code.
What then? Do those people get their money back?
Well...no. It's a pretty safe guess that SCO isn't dumb. They'll be setting you up with a license (note: one may want to be fucking careful signing into licensing agreements with SCO, considering IBM's situation) that says that they won't press charges against you for any claims they have on Linux, or something along those lines. You aren't *buying* anything.
What happens to the SCO execs?
My guess was that originally, they'd just walk way from this, as a pump-n-dump. If so, it's going to happen soon. You don't go after the US government and expect them to just sit there and not examine the legal issues. They'll probably be dumping within a month.
They may have taken this too far, though. They're in so many newspapers that they may get hung out to dry for fraud. Kinda like Enron. You can only screw N people with M media attention before you start getting into hot water.
Re:show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont think this is a game or a contest that should be fought with pron and defaced websites.
Re:show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were thinking about buying SCO Openserver for a secure server at *my* business and went to their website, and their website had been broken into, it sure shouldn't strengthen my convictions.
Re:Kernel Source Tree? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM added NUMA, JFS et al. to AIX.
AIX is a derivative of SysV, and covered by our contract.
IBM put NUMA, JFS et al. into Linux 2.4.x
Since NUMA, JFS is in AIX, it makes them also derivatives of SysV. We don't have any copyright claim to them, but since they are derivatives of SysV, it's our IP anyway.
Therefore, since NUMA, JFS et al. are now in Linux 2.4.x, Linux 2.4.x and newer are SysV derivatives.
Therefore we can charge a licensing fee for Linux since it is now a SysV derivative (even though we wrote none of the code, or even hold the copyrights to the alleged infringing components).
My bets are if you sign the NDA with SCO, they'll send you parts of the NUMA or JFS implementation in Linux, and the equivalent parts from AIX. You will be told AIX is a derivative of SysV, so therefore, here's the line-for-line identical infringing code in Linux.
SCO's argument can be summed up as follows:
Our cat has four legs.
IBM's dog has four legs.
Therefore IBM's dog is a cat.
Now Microsoft go on about the viral nature of the GPL. If they think that's viral, they should take heed of what's now happening to IBM - I think NUMA and JFS was developed for other operating systems first and then added to AIX as it seemed a good idea. Now these pre-existing pieces of IP are tainted by the viral nature of SysV, and become derivatives, even though they previously existed outside of SysV and were never contributed to by SCO.
Read then think! (Score:5, Insightful)
In a less well-publicized part of the company's licensing terms, announced Tuesday (August 5), SCO said it will charge OEMs $32 per unit for each embedded Linux device they own.
The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or some models of the Sharp Zaurus which also use that kernel.
My conclusion: SCO want's to get OEMs for embedded devices to pay $32. It was the EE Times that made up the example of Tivo as an embedded Linux device. I don't see any evidence that SCO is either going to target Tivo specifically, or chase end-users rather than manufacturers.
Re:They basically admit it all in their risk facto (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly what we should do. Give them real questions. SCO spends time and money answering. I asked them (stuff in parentheses was not sent to them):
1. You define 'server' as a machine providing services to other machines. Does running CVS, ... ,X, ... or SSH server make my PC a 'server'?
Note that our department has plenty of machines, all running different services, so I really need a detailed answer on this.
(Do you know what you are talking about?
Maybe I'm stupid, but I am a 'potential customer'. And if running an X server makes it 'server', who has a workstation?)
2. Do you provide patches, driver updates, security advisories or security e-mail alerts? (Are you serious about selling software? Selling software with no intention of supporting it should be a federal felony.)
3. If you do not provide patches, am I allowed to use 3rd party patches? (If you are not serious about selling software, am I allowed to be serious about using it? Am I allowed to patch the kernel, as you don't tell me what part you own?)
4. If you do not patch and I'm not allowed to use 3rd party patches, do you accept any liabilities?
Answering yes to 3 or 4 would open a can of worms. They do not have the resources to give an honest yes to 2. (maintain the kernel?) If they answer no to numbers 2-3-4, as I assume, they look like the mafia they are.