Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software IBM Linux

SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort 557

Posted by simoniker
from the traditional-daily-roundup dept.
An anonymous reader writes "SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers running in their business. SCO: 'This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO. We anticipate this being the first of many licensees that will properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property.'" kanly writes "The full text of IBM's countersuit against SCO is now online at LWN." M : Our own Roblimo has a pretty good take on it. Keep in mind that SCO could sell a blanket license for $1, for the publicity value.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort

Comments Filter:
  • by Neophytus (642863) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:50PM (#6669768)
    SUCKERS. I really want to put some sort of useful comment in this post but that word just keeps repeating.
    • mythical suckers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by feed_me_cereal (452042) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:57PM (#6669887)
      Maybe they're suckers, or maybe they just don't exist.

      So an undisclosed company has bought thier license because SCO claims an undisclosed segment of the linux kernel source is their IP. This sounds like crap to me, for reasons I won't disclose.

      And did you read the article? Christ, it sounds liek an SCO commercial. I'm not sure how "The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday" when it seems all they do is tax them on free software.

      • by dJCL (183345) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:03PM (#6669957) Homepage
        SCO Exec's = Railians (HTF do you spell that name?)

        Think about all the paralells to the claim of cloning a human that was done... They never did show us the kid, and have disappeared off the face of the earth as far as the global conciousness is concerned...

        I suddenly have an idea for a parody site that I just don't have time to do, www.SCOlians.org! I now place this idea under a simple license, use of that domain or a similar domain is allowed by anyone as long as they actually use the site to mock SCO...

      • by IdleTime (561841) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:41PM (#6670350) Journal
        I have over the past few days spoken to all of the Fortune 500 companies and 499 of them told me they would not, not now nor ever buy a license from SCO. Of course I can't reveal the name of the last company since SCO would sue me for telling that the last company only laughed at me when I asked them the question!
        • Stupid Question... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Well, it may be a stupid question, but ... Isn't Microsoft a fortune 500 company? And wouldn't that also explain immediately why it is an undisclosed company that paid SCO?

        • I bet all fortune 500 companies have at least ONE linux box somewhere, by someone. Only 1 of them has actualyl decided to pay for it.

          Look at how those numbers speak.
    • by brejc8 (223089) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:59PM (#6669910) Homepage Journal
      I wonder if they really are suckers.
      SCO needed someone to admit paying up. So what if they got a company which has just the one or two linux servers to pay in exchange for SCO paying them back double.
      Company is happy, SCO looks more credible and lawyers get their share.
    • by bigjocker (113512) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:59PM (#6669918) Homepage
      The word that keeps comming to my mind is: Microsoft.

      They are a fortune 500 company, have had business with SCO this year regarding this UNIX licensing fiasco, and have opened the Open Source Test Lab. I'm pretty sure they would benefit a lot by licensing all the linux in their Test Lab with SCO, that way they support the case and fuel SCO's FUD machine.
      • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:28PM (#6670207) Homepage Journal
        If it was anybody else they wouldn't have a reason for keeping it a secret. SCO has a huge incentive for being able to publicize any big names besides Micro$oft who pony up. I would think they would be more than willing to cut a deal on the licensing fees just to be able to publicize whoever paid... but that assumes its a company who has a significant number of Linux boxes and who doesn't mind telling the world that they use Linux.

        "Undisclosed Fortune 500 company" my a$$.
        • While that does make sense, remember that the company itself (Microsoft or not) likely requested that SCO not publicise who they are. They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so :)

          Finkployd
      • by MuParadigm (687680) <jgabriel66@yahoo.com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:53PM (#6670484) Homepage Journal

        Actually, I think it's probably the Canopy Group that bought it. Or maybe one of their companies.

        Are any of the Canopy Group companies in the Fortune 500?

        Darl: Ralph, will you buy one of our licenses?

        Ralph Yarro: Why? I don't run any your crappy operating systems.

        Darl: No, Ralph, the Linux IP license.

        Ralph: I don't run that either. We're all MS here.

        Darl: For the suit, Ralph. Remember: The Suit?
        I need to tell other companies that someone has bought a license.

        Ralph: Oh. Oh, yeah. Right. OK, put me down for one. How much is it?

        Darl: $699

        Ralph: Corporate Discount?

        Darl: OK. 50%.

        Ralph: Done. Now get out of here. One of my wives is on the phone.

      • The deal is not with Microsoft Corp [infoworld.com]. or Sun Microsystems Inc., two prominent companies that have already signed other licensing agreements with SCO to cover their commercial products, Stowell said.


    • An undisclosed Fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount for an undisclosed number of licenses for undisclosed code in the Linux kernel.

      Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?

    • by fv (95460) * <fyodor@insecure.org> on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:25PM (#6670179) Homepage

      My favorite quote from the article is that after selling just one license, Sontag of SCOsource states that "we are very pleased with the licensing interest to date". Apparently, they didn't expect anyone to fall for it.

      However I do understand why the buyer wants to be anonymous. I would rather be caught buying penis enlargement pills from spammers than SCO licenses. Both prove that you are sucker, but at least with the pills you aren't the only one [slashdot.org].

      -Fyodor
      Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]

  • Though if it is true, I'd think though misc financial disclosures that one could find out which company supposedly paid SCO (for generating carbon dioxide, which plants need to live).

    Down with SCO. :)

    --
    +1 karma for low User ID and not being fond of SCO
  • by Mikey-San (582838) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:51PM (#6669782) Homepage Journal
    P.T. Barnum called. He wants his cliche back.
  • A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esconsult1 (203878) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:51PM (#6669785) Homepage Journal
    So finally some feckless lawyers caved in. On the one hand they might say it is prudent to hedge their bets, but in the larger scheme of things it just makes SCO's complaint look valid... exactly what they were looking for to bolster a court appearance.


    sigh...

    • Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fredistheking (464407) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:58PM (#6669906)
      I seriously doubt anyone caved in. At this point it would be silly to do so. IBM and Redhat are countersuing SCO. I think that any of the corporate types would realize that they can wait until these lawsuits progress before that have to pay anything. Most likely, the company got the licenses for next to nothing and it is in a position to benefit if SCO gets what it wants in the end.

      -
    • Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Angst Badger (8636) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:15PM (#6670076)
      in the larger scheme of things it just makes SCO's complaint look valid

      Hardly. Any random judge picked at random might be technically clueless, but I'm sure they all understand the logic behind hedging one's bets against litigation -- aside from seeing it every damn day of their working lives, they are all lawyers, after all.
    • Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msgmonkey (599753) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:16PM (#6670092)
      This wont mean anything in court because the act of selling something does n't mean you had the right to sell it in the first place.

      Look at it this way, lets say I claim to own the rights to Windows and sell 1,000,000 licenses, it does n't validate any claim. 1,000,000 may have believed what I said but it does n't make my claims any more right.

      In fact if anything this could be used by IBM as evidence of SCO strong-arm tactics.
    • Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AntiOrganic (650691) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:43PM (#6670377) Homepage
      It doesn't really matter if they paid for it or not.

      Should the IP claims [inevitably] turn out to be invalid, this company now has certifiable legal grounds to sue SCO for all their licensing money back. And more lawsuits over this sort of thing will just hurt SCO's stock values more in the long run.

      Just think of it as "insurance."
  • by sICE (92132) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:51PM (#6669793) Homepage
    The article is here [bbspot.com]...
  • Stock tanking (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DavidNWelton (142216)
    If you look at their stock chart for Monday:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p =s &t=1d&l=on&z=m&q=l

    You can see where it was really headed down the tubes, and then this announcement came along at 'just the right moment', and propped things up a bit.
  • by mopslik (688435) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:52PM (#6669802)

    ...an undisclosed Fortune 500 company...

    We can't name the company because they don't exi-- er, because of legal reasons.

  • undisclosed company? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by riotstarter (650328)
    Just like the infringing code...I bet both don't exist.
    • by innosent (618233)
      From the IBM response: 55. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 55, except admits that IBM and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc., which is not affiliated with SCO), entered into an agreement to develop a UNIX operating system for a 64-bit processing platform that was being developed by Intel and that the project was known as Project Monterey.

      Anyone else notice this? Since the
  • by rot26 (240034) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:52PM (#6669808) Homepage Journal
    The SCO(R) Group (SCO) today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX Rights.

    How could Microsoft NOT be forced into buying these for its "new" Linux Lab (mentioned here several times in the past week.)?


    "We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag

    Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.

  • I'll take a guess (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trogre (513942) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:53PM (#6669821) Homepage
    With their new 'testing labs', what's the bet that it's Microsoft?

    I'm sure they'd love to further finance Caldera's extortion/FUD campaign.

    • by MalleusEBHC (597600) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:19PM (#6670123)
      If it were Microsoft, I would think that Redmond would have played this up in the press for all it is worth. Despite the fact that many geeks hate Microsoft, many people in the business world are influenced by MS. If Gates and Co. were to come out and say that they bought a license from SCO so they wouldn't be using some pirate Linux, I'm sure many a PHB would read that and be afraid of using Linux.

      Just a little food for thought.
      • by dmaxwell (43234)
        On one hand, MS wants this to continue damaging Linux as long as possible. On the other hand their lawyers are no dummies. I'm sure some IBM execs are still hacked off about OS/2 and would like some payback. IBM's countersuit is as devastating as it gets. I doubt MS want to be anywhere near SCO when their chickens come home to roost. This could be a way for MS to feed them more money under the table to keep the lawsuit/fud machine going. Basically, MS will keep feeding them money as long as McBride an
  • Heh, I wonder, does M$ own any other companies that might be a Fortune 500 company which they had purchase licenses? (Goes back to sleep in his tin-foil bed)

  • I am guessing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Soong (7225) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:53PM (#6669823) Homepage Journal
    that the "Undisclosed Fortune 500 Company" is none other than Microsoft.

    At least, it satisfies my sense of irony and suspicion. It would be convenient for Microsoft to lend credibility to SCO's claim on Microsoft's biggest thrat, Linux. Microsoft says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
    • Re:I am guessing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tshak (173364) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:59PM (#6669908) Homepage
      the "Undisclosed Fortune 500 Company" is none other than Microsoft

      I doubt it...

      A) It's already common knowledge that MS has purchased some sort of unix license from SCO.

      B) If it was MS they probably would have said "Fortune 100" or smaller in order to have an even larger PR impact.
    • Re:I am guessing (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrpuffypants (444598) *
      Well, this brings up an interesting point: for all that MS makes of software piracy and compansating uber-huge conglomerates what if they DON'T register all their new copies of Linux?

      Would it mean that they don't think SCO has a case or does it mean that they really don't give a flip about piracy?

      But they prolly did register it. That sucks.
    • by kardar (636122)
      Here is what I don't understand. How can SCO prove that a company is running Linux? I doubt that evidence from netcraft.com is going to hold very much weight in court.

      If you run Microsoft software, they may audit your organization to see if you are in full compliance. If you run Solaris, and only Solaris, Microsoft has no business auditing your systems. They will get a nice boot from the security guard and get charged with trespassing if they even try to get in the front door.

      Without an audit - an audit o
  • Word count (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brejc8 (223089) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:53PM (#6669826) Homepage Journal
    Article length: 184 words
    Sales pitch: 169 words
    Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch
  • by ChiefArcher (1753) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:53PM (#6669827) Homepage Journal
    What happens when we win?
    Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool? Do they get their money back?
    Do they sue for extortion?

    The company that did it is a fool. It's probably Microsoft... registering their 2 copies.

    ChiefArcher


  • IMO, "an anonymous Fortune 500 company" is exactly as convincing an argument as "lots of unidentified source code".

    I.e., a completely useless as a basis for argument, even if it happens to be true.

  • by PeteyG (203921) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:54PM (#6669837) Homepage Journal
    What if SCO paid your company $2 for every $1 of license that you bought from them? Would you be wrong to do that?

    SCO buys publicity, your company gets money.

    Even though you know SCO is wrong... you couldn't feel bad about taking their money! They're going down in flames anyways, why not save some of their cash before it burns up?

    (i guess wildly on the nature of the business deal)
  • Agent Cowboy Neal: Tell me McBride, what good are your licenses if your servers can't even speak [caldera.com]?
  • by ttyp0 (33384) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:54PM (#6669842) Homepage
    company #500

    Anti SCO T-Shirt [anti-tshirts.com] $1 donated to OSI Fund on each shirt.

  • by MerlynEmrys67 (583469) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:54PM (#6669848)
    Microsoft (MSFT) announces that they are fully compliant with the Licencing for their one Linux server on there network.

    News at 11

  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:55PM (#6669850)
    did the deed to the brooklyn bridge come with the license as well?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Look at the place I work. A financial firm in downtown New York. A few months ago, we started to shift all the NT servers to Linux.

    However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.

    I have been an avid Linux user since '99, and while all this means nothing to me, big companies get worried at all this talk and all these lawsuits. Understandably so. They don't care about the politics. From their view, Linux has some illegal code which SCO is claiming is theirs. The IT Managers don't w
  • Could it be... (Score:2, Interesting)

    Microsoft? They opened a linux test lab recently, right? They have the money to pay the fee, they are in the fortune 500, and they are willing to pay the fee even though they don't have to. Not to mention SCO did not say which company it is.
  • GPL goes to court (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k-hell (458178) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:56PM (#6669871)
    I read this interesting article over at The Register [theregister.co.uk] by Andrew Orlowski about taking GPL to court. My favorite quote:

    The greatest strength of the GPL is that it's a social contract, one that makes the most powerful, who can buy the legal system, think twice before going to law. And that's pretty powerful.

    But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply. As if he's supposed to know the difference.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:13PM (#6670065) Homepage
      But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply.

      If that's the case, maybe the social contract needs work. You certainly see the same in the legal system, people find new loopholes, legislators try to close them. Do you really expect every company under the sun to have a social integrity and uphold those social obligations on their own accord? They won't. And when they break them, the GPL had better have the necessary legal force to rein them in, because that is just about the only real countermeasure available. Any holes they manage to poke will only serve to be the foundation for a GPL 3.0

      Kjella
      • Well, I may live in a bubble where I value integrity maybe most, and where I believe many companies indeed have and display social and ethical obligations that goes beyond our current laws and regulations.

        But as Andrew wrote, this might just be one of the differences between Europe and USA. At least where I come from there's still room for civil disobedience, and I prefer that to the vast amount of American lawsuits that doesn't make sense (like spilling hot coffee on yourself). Now, I'm not saying the GPL
  • by Maimun (631984) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:57PM (#6669880)
    I posted this link [yahoo.com] under Linux Gaining Ground in India [slashdot.org] but it is worth repeating.
  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Monday August 11, 2003 @05:59PM (#6669915) Homepage Journal
    Please copy my article "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" to your own website. I released it under a Creative Commons license. I designed the page to be very easy to copy, with only very simple, valid markup, and no external dependencies like images or stylesheets. It even looks good in lynx!

    Here's the introduction:

    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.

    Also from the article:

    Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's
    Investor Complaint Form [sec.gov] to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.
    This page [goingware.com] provides the article in the UBB code that some message boards use, with plain text coming soon. I'm also starting to post examples of letters that others have sent to their Attorney's General.

    Thanks for your help.

  • Word for the wise... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stephenry (648792) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:00PM (#6669924)
    Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.

    Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.

    Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!
  • by Corporate Drone (316880) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:01PM (#6669931)
    that license undisclosed IP?

  • by 26199 (577806) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:01PM (#6669934) Homepage

    No idea what most of this means, but it sounds very impressive :-)

    First Defense

    The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

    Second Defense

    SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged,performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.

    Third Defense

    SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.

    Fourth Defense

    SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.

    Fifth Defense

    SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the dependent-duty doctrine.

    Sixth Defense

    SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.

    Seventh Defense

    SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.

    Eighth Defense

    SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.

    Ninth Defense

    SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.

    Tenth Defense

    SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.

    Take that, SCO! ;-)

    • by NecroPuppy (222648) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:42PM (#6670363) Homepage
      Pretty simple, but if I mess something up too badly, someone who is a lawyer can correct me.

      1) None of what they (SCO) said we (IBM) did is against the law.

      2) No really, none of it was against the law, and here are the contracts we had that prove we didn't do anything wrong.

      3) Piss off, you don't have any real reason to file this suit. (No, really, that's what a lack of standing defense means.)

      4) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't file in time to actually do anything about it.

      5) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't lose any money from it (mostly because their business sucked before any of this started).

      6) When they 'found' what they say we (IBM) did (and, no we _really_ didn't do it) they waited too long after they found out about it to tell us there was an issue. [Not the same as #4.]

      7) We (IBM) bought the stuff from the Original SCO (now Tarrentula), and the new SCO (dirtbags) can't sue us for stuff we legally liscenced from them.

      8) Talk to the Feds. We (IBM) still didn't do anything wrong, and even if we did, Federal law says it wasn't wrong, it was legit.

      9) They (SCO) are playing the ball in the wrong court. Come play in our backyard, and this arguement goes away.

      10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers.
      • by anesq. (676312) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:52PM (#6670474)
        Excellent interpretation, except for the last one.

        "10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers."

        Should be more like:

        10) Even if we did something wrong (which we didn't) SCO isn't allowing anyone to remove its supposed code, so any damages they suffer they have brought upon themselves.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:02PM (#6669941) Journal
    I am thinking that I will buy one if they guarentee that it is required. I would like some legal letter from their CEO (and Ray Noorda) that will guarentee that this is necessary and that this is not a fraud to simply sell stock.
    I am thinking of 3 little words
    corporate veil piercing.

    I wonder if I start calling on their 800 number How high I can go with this.
    • I am thinking that I will buy one if they guarentee that it is required. I would like some legal letter from their CEO (and Ray Noorda) that will guarentee that this is necessary and that this is not a fraud to simply sell stock.

      I'm sure they'll be happy to provide it. Because when SCO is bankrupt, and the SCO execs are convicted of fraud, your little paper won't matter at all. They'd be doing that as official reps of SCO, so you'd have nothing to claim. And if they don't get convicted, well free money fo
    • "I'll buy it. Where do I send the check? OK, and when can I expect the CD with the source in question? Oh, okay - well, can you tell me where exactly on my machine the source is? No? What am I paying for?"
  • by dacarr (562277) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:08PM (#6670008) Homepage Journal
    Roblimo's text follows from newsforge.

    Yes, they found someone gullible enough to bite. At least that's what they're claiming in a press release that's being spread all over the place, including on money.cnn.com. Naturally, SCO can't tell you who it is because of "confidentiality provisions," but the truth will certainly come out sooner or later.

    Of course, if this anonymous Fortune 500 company later finds that SCO had no legitimate right to sell Linux licenses in the first place, they are going to be a bit upset, and since one characteristic shared by all Fortune 500 companies is the availability of nearly infinite numbers of inhouse lawyers and outside law firm attorneys, SCO is going to be in a world of hurt if it turns out, as IBM claims, that SCO released all the disputed Linux code under GPL.

    Not that we care, since we don't own any SCO stock, and we don't use any SCO (proprietary) software products that are likely to become unsupported orphans if SCO gets trampled by the combined legal might of the growing number of companies their license blackmail scheme has offended.

    Linux is worth big money!

    We should look at this latest episode in the SCO soap opera as heartening news. Somewhere out there, one of the world's largest corporations has decided Linux is worth paying plenty of money to use, even if that money is going to the least-deserving party possible. This certainly gives the lie to any statement about how Linux has only gained corporate acceptance because it's free.

    SCO's antics may cause a few potential (corporate) Linux converts to hold off deployment for a bit, but in the long run this may be the most positive PR boost Linux has ever gotten.
  • Call Now! (Score:5, Informative)

    by blunte (183182) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:09PM (#6670025)
    Chuckle...
    For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO by calling (800) 726-8649

    I wonder what a million phone calls and requests for written information would do for SCO? :) Perhaps all Linux users should at least request written (paper) documentation on all information from SCO.

    • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Monday August 11, 2003 @07:20PM (#6670704) Homepage Journal
      I called just now. They said at first that they wanted my name and number so someone could call me back, and I gave it to them. Then they asked if I already had a license that I wanted to renew, so I said no.

      I explained that I had several linux systems, and that I understood there were some intellectual property issues, so I wanted to be sure to be covered.

      The helpful and polite lady on the phone told me that the license program had been "suspended until further notice". She said she was pretty sure it had to do with the lawsuit.

      May you should call too (800 726 8649) just to be sure.

      • Interestiiing. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by eddy (18759) on Monday August 11, 2003 @08:26PM (#6671247) Homepage Journal

        Soon we'll have McBride swearing there never were any kind of linux license(s) sold... That PR was just... an accident. Yes. Some secretary released it by mistake. Oh, yes.

        Oh well, it's interesting to follow, I'll give you that. I've learned a lot about the stockmarket the last few days.

  • by tekrat (242117) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:10PM (#6670034) Homepage Journal
    I am not a lawyer, but -- not that someone *has* indeed paid their extortion money, SCO is now officially guilty of fraud, no?

    I mean, can't every single developer of Linux who has contributed code now sue SCO for a portion of that "extortion money" / and/or sue them for illegally charging for something that is supposed to be free?

    In other words, now that there has been an exchange of money, isn't the "john" as guilty now as the "prostitute"?

    Sale of stolen goods and all that nonsense? I mean, lets say for a minute that it is Microsoft that just paid to license linux.

    By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable. If you buy an illegal DVD on the street in Chinatown, can't you also be busted by the cops just as much as the seller?

    So, this could be a double edged sword, even for those that want to appease their PHB's by forking over the money for the license, no?

  • by Mikey-San (582838) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:12PM (#6670055) Homepage Journal
    SLASHDOT (to SCO)
    When have you ever sold a license?

    SCO
    I've sold, lotsa times!

    SLASHDOT
    Name one!

    SCO
    The company lives in Canada, met it at
    Niagara Falls. You wouldn't know
    it.
  • by kevin lyda (4803) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:13PM (#6670060) Homepage
    people should be fair to sco.

    this page [sco.com] gives a phone number to call to discuss the linux license. people should ring up 1-800 726-8649 and hear sco out. and *please* remember to write down the details on all linux systems you have. it would be terribly annoying if you forgot a detail like the version of linux or the details for another machine and had to call back.
  • Prayer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by spoonist (32012) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:15PM (#6670081) Journal

    So I was skimming along when all of a sudden, they got all preachy on me:

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, counterclaim-plaintiff IBM prays that this Court enter judgment on-the counterclaims in favor of IBM and against SCO:

    Huh?? Pray for relief?? Well, okay. Here it goes:

    IBM is my shepherd; I shall not want.

    IBM maketh me to lie down in green tinted monitors: IBM leadeth me beside the still line printers.

    IBM restoreth my deleted files: IBM leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for the heck of it.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of SCO, I will fear no eavil: for IBM art with me; their rod and their staff and their lawyers, they comfort me.

    Thou preparest a legal brief before me in the presence of mine enemies: though anointest my code with gdb; my buffer does not runneth over.

    Surely goodess and mercy shall follow me all the days I code: and I will dwell in the house of Stallman forever.

  • by notyou2 (202944) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:16PM (#6670087) Homepage
    Okay, so SCO just licensed a product containing (according to them) their proprietary source code combined with GPL'd source code. By the very act of bundling the two, doesn't this now give the licensee the right to modify and/or redistribute said work?

    In other words... SCO can claim (*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*) that they had no idea their IP was in linux when they distributed it previously, but now that they have SPECIFICALLY given someone rights to their particular IP, in a product bundled with GPL'd code, aren't they now EXPLICITLY releasing their IP as GPL?
  • Ok, let me get this straight...

    An undisclosed company buys a lincence to undisclosed IP for an undisclosed sum of money...

    Hey guys, I have an undisclosed bridge in an undisclosed city I'd be happy to sell you! You know, you want to make sure you secure your water-crossing rights!


    Blockwars [blockwars.com]: a realtime multiplayer game. Go play!

  • by armypuke (172430) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:24PM (#6670171) Homepage
    As mentioned on GROKLAW [weblogs.com], SCO seems to have forgotten that Caldera released [tribug.org] the old UNIX source code under a BSD-style license. The source code that was released is still available [tuhs.org]. When SCO finds out that their "intellectual property" is freely available on the internet, I don't think they are going to be too happy. We all need to start making copies of the old UNIX source code before SCO tries to do something about it.

  • by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:35PM (#6670273) Homepage Journal
    I know who bought the license..

    Straight from yahoo.com

    http://biz.yahoo.com/t/47/4393.html

    Oemga Protein Corp..

    Wilson, M Senior Vice President of SCO Group is also
    Vice President of Omega Protein Corp..

  • math (Score:4, Funny)

    by theMightyE (579317) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:37PM (#6670310)
    "SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers..."

    So... SCO has been making noise about this for weeks and as of today one single Fortune 500 company has bought a license? And SCO thinks this is positive news that a whopping 0.2% of the major industrial powers of the world drank their Kool Aid? Funny, when I saw this it immediately leaped to mind that despite the threats of legal action, making major parts of IT departments effectively illegal, etc., 499 of 500 (i.e. 99.8%) bigtime companies decided that SCO was full of crap. Yeah, that's something I would tout to the media...

  • by chiph (523845) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:45PM (#6670399)
    SCO announces a record profit for the year!
  • Heh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MoobY (207480) <anthonyNO@SPAMliekens.net> on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:48PM (#6670426) Homepage
    ... that's like buying the enlargment pills you learned about in a spam mail. They'll quickly figure out that money went into /dev/null.

    But it's all maybe part of a bigger scheme. (Conspiracy theorists wanted here!)
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:57PM (#6670520)
    SCOX was tanking hard today. Down over 24%. Then out of blue this PR was issued, and sco partially recovered to close down about 14%.

    Still, miraculous timing.
  • So this unnamed Fortune 500 company now has a license from SCO to use Linux. However, that doesn't mean they can legally use Linux; on the contrary, it means they can't legally use Linux, at least not on any machine on which it is not already loaded.

    Why not?

    SCO are clearly in breach of the GPL since they have imposed ...further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights... contrary to paragraph 6; and clearly they may not distribute Linux (or anything linked to any part of Linux) at all. But in accepting SCO's claim to have the right to charge these fees, in paying these fees, the unnamed company is effectively in breach of paragraph 6, and may not redistribute to itself...

    In other words, the poor schmucks have got themselves in some very tortuous legal soup, and they end up losing out no matter who wins.

  • SCO Stock Price (Score:3, Informative)

    by (eternal_software) (233207) on Monday August 11, 2003 @07:59PM (#6671049)
    All of this is doing wonders for SCO's stock price [yahoo.com].

    Quite unfortunate that my broker didn't have any shares available for me to short.
  • by Usagi_yo (648836) on Monday August 11, 2003 @08:27PM (#6671255)
    I dont' know why SCO is bragging about violating the GPL license, they've just lost their license to redistribute Linux.
  • Fortune 500 idiots (Score:3, Informative)

    by ReelOddeeo (115880) on Monday August 11, 2003 @09:44PM (#6671709)
    Only an idiot buys "blue sky". Something they can't see, feel or touch; is intangible, and very likely does not even exist, or at least has not been prooven to exist.
  • by Picass0 (147474) on Monday August 11, 2003 @11:34PM (#6672221) Homepage Journal
    CFO Robert K Bench sold [sec.gov] 7000 shares this morning. Fortunately because of the big press release that SCO sold a license nobody noticed :)

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...