SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort 557
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.
A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
sigh...
I am guessing (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
If SCO paid YOU...? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:A cave in... (Score:1, Insightful)
mythical suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Re:I am guessing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand them wanting to protect their own code with an NDA, but why won't they just tell us which lines of the kernel contain their code?
They don't have to reveal anything that hasn't somehow already made public. We just need to know which parts to rewrite...
Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Patently illegal, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Insightful)
No... they are Microsoft.
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let's count the facts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll take a guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a little food for thought.
Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 for SCO.
Kjella
Re:So what happens when we win? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because they're anonymous.
Oddly enough, this story hit at exactly three minutes past two, just as SCO stock was tanking heavily. No mention of the company's name
Microsoft made plenty of noise about opening a Linux test laboratory. Obviously they need to acquire whatever licenses may be required to make those Linux installations legal. We're supposed to make the connection. It just gives them "plausible deniability" when the SCO ship finally goes down. Because when it does, MS won't want to be the last rat off, looking, as you say, like a complete fool. All those sneery articles in the trade press - no thanks.
Come on. It's a scam and we all know it. And so does this enigmatic "Fortune 500" company. Think that they employ idiots?
I must switch to a thicker grade of tinfoil.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
catch me if you can (Score:3, Insightful)
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 of the source code that was used to compile the kernel - SCO has no case against any of these Fortune 500 companies. All any company has to do is create their own "custom" kernel, compile it, declare there is no IP violations in their own custom kernel, and they are off the hook. The best part is that the Fortune 500 company doesn't have to prove anything. It would become SCO's responsibility to prove that the kernel that is being used to run Linux within that Fortune 500 company was compiled with source code that infringes their IP.
If a company's legal department makes sure there is no offending code in their own custom kernel that they compiled for themselves, I really don't see how SCO, or anyone, can prove in court that their IP is being violated without some sort of criminal trespass.
So if you sign that SCO license, then they can audit you for the rest of forever - DON'T sign anything with SCO. They can't "bust" you anyway.
It would take an insider, an employee "turning in" their employer to get the evidence, if that would even work, because that person would have to have access to the source code that those custom kernels were compiled from. So with a security measure that locks up that kernel source, and prevents employees from getting at that source unless they actually are compiling a kernel, combined with a 24 hour security guard and a strict policy that all hardware and software representatives must have appointments, and even perhaps have someone come to the door to meet them.
SCO is not going to get anywhere without an audit, if you sign the contract with them they will audit you until kingdom come. If you don't sign with them, they can't really catch you anyway. With Kazaa, for instance, when someone is sharing copyrighted material against the wishes of the organization that protects that copyright, there is evidence that can be presented in court that this infringement took place. Nothing of the sort can happen in the SCO-Linux situation unless SCO can get their hands on the actual source code that was used to compile the kernel that is running.
Sure, SCO lawyers can say 2.4 kernel or 2.5 kernel is this or that, but the nice thing about Linux is that an organization can have its IT staff go in there and change the source code - that's the nice thing about Linux - you can change the source - and then compile. Now the responsibility shifts to SCO's side to prove that your kernel violates their IP. Maybe a "stock" 2.4 kernel does violate, but it doesn't matter, the Fortune 500 company is under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. SCO has to prove that the Fortune 500 company violated the IP, and there is no way of doing that short of auditing every hard drive and hunting down every bit of source code that organization has in its possession, and how do they propose to do that? It's called trespassing -- they can't. Or unauthorized access to the Fortune 500 company's network, which could mean criminal consequences for any individual who wants to attempt that.
Maybe the best way to look at this is that there is no way in hell that SCO can "bust" you for using Linux if you run a tight ship. If any employee can browse your source code that you use for your Linux deployment, you may be having some problems. If hardware and software vendors come and go freely, and your staff don't have a clue as to who these people are, what vendor they are from, and what they are doing, you will have problems anyway, sooner or later.
Re:Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this tri (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lawsuit "doesn't make sense", I'm just concerned that the "harsh and cold" technicalities of a court ruling will overshadow GPL's "social obligations" in the future.
Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP? (Score:2, Insightful)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Seems clear enough to me. Exactly why do SCO feel they are allowed to distribute a GPL-d work with these onerous licensing conditions, that do not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program, slapped on top? They should be refraining entirely.
Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Word for the wise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, many people have commented on the timing of SCO's press releases, and how they always seem to happen at just the right moments to send the stock ticking back upward. It's pretty clear this is a pump-and-dump operation.
So, the question is, how many more stock-boosting announcements does SCO have lined up? And how many more do they need to give the rest of their management team time to unload their otherwise-worthless stock?
TheFrood
Specific GPL violation counterclaim (Score:2, Insightful)
76. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL 5), both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions.
78. SCO has breached the GPL by, among other things, (1) claiming ownership rights over Linux code, including IBM contributions; (2) seeking to collect and collecting license fees with respect to Linux code, including IBM contributions; (3) copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing Linux, including IBM contributions, on terms other than those set out in the GPL and after its rights under the GPL terminated; and (4) seeking to impose additional restrictions on the recipients of Linux code, including IBM contributions, distributed by SCO.
If this goes all the way through court, there is no way to avoid a judicial test of the GPL.
So many violations to catch SCO on... you'd think IBM read slashdot....
Open violation of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
funnier still (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at how those numbers speak.
Re:which Fortune 500? I want to short it (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe they're waiting for the courts to find that SCO damn well knew they were talking out of their asses. Then, said Fortune 500 company sues the CRAP out of them for lying about ownership, extortion, blah blah blah.