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.
Stock tanking (Score:2, Interesting)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&
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.
undisclosed company? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll take a guess (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure they'd love to further finance Caldera's extortion/FUD campaign.
Word count (Score:5, Interesting)
Sales pitch: 169 words
Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch
So what happens when we win? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
It's nothing for Linux users, but for IT Managers. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 want to get fired or blamed, if the worst case comes to be that we indeed do have to pay license fees, when all this is resolved.
Such a shame....
Could it be... (Score:2, Interesting)
GPL goes to court (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP? (Score:1, Interesting)
Now if SCO licenses it's "Proprietary IP", but gives free rights to the SCO-branded version, then they are covered, I think.
Either way, it's a fine test of the GPL, if the courts don't summarily dismiss the case or IBM and RedHat don't pummel them into the ground.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for your help.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Word for the wise... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:I am guessing (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why is the news media not checking out (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this trial (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Isn't this distribution under the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Mirror the UNIX Source Code (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
"Undisclosed Fortune 500 company" my a$$.
I know who bought it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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..
Re:The best bits from IBM... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:It's not microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the company Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
Answer: Could be...
Reason: Well, how many LINUX computers are being used to run MICROSOFT, or at least how many do they publically state that they are using to run the business.
Lets face it, if they pay $6000 for a server license, and the publicity convinces 50 people to buy Windows Server 2003 licenses, they have a fantastic return on investment...
Additional Question: Was it the full organisation, or one part of it?
Comment: Well, most of these organisations are large, so just imagine if one division spent $50,000 on licenses and only for that division. Would this press release still be true... probably
Re:are they? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying.
Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't hold anyway in the case of non-distribution. Therefore, the purchasers of the license are not under any legal liability from the GPL. Sure it's an abrogation of the spirit of the GPL, but not the lettter.
Of course, why anyone would *pay* to limit their rights to use the software, I have no idea. I know there are people who pay to have things reamed up their asses once in a while, but they seem to enjoy it. But I don't see how a corporation could find this licensing extortion fun at all.
Oh well, maybe I'm just naive. I mean, you should have seen the expression on my face the first time I heard about a Prince Albert.
An odd thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
How to shoot yourself in 500 other feet... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:1, Interesting)
License program "suspended until further notice" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
MS has to walk a line. (Score:3, Interesting)
But didnt they BSD their "IP"??? (Score:1, Interesting)
the link: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
Re:Word for the wise... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's precisely what the GPL prohibits. I cannot take proprietary code, link it with GPL code, and sell the resulting binary unless I put the entire thing under the GPL.
By their own admission, SCO is apparently now distributing a "properly licensed" version of linux containing their IP alongside the GPL'd "portions" of linux (according to them).
If you distribute anything that's linked with GPL stuff, you MUST provide source and allow modification/redistribution... that's the single-sentence summary of the entire GPL.
Interestiiing. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Stupid Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Dell? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, buy a license and breach the GPL contract. (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is an except from his Open Source "State of the Union Address (from newsforge)
SCO has recently announced a so-called "license" for Linux. The absurdity of this should be obvious, but let's touch upon a legal aspect. Every party who enters into this license will be in violation of the GPL, and in infringement of the collective copyrights of the Linux and GNU system authors. As a customer, if you purchase the SCO license, you can be sued by every copyright holder who has contributed to the Linux kernel and other components of the system. You can be sued by IBM, by Red Hat, by me, by tens of thousands of people and companies. Of course, nobody's going to buy an license for software that SCO doesn't own anyway, so it's just hollow posturing.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be Disney. They have a lot of their own intellectual property to protect. Rumors of IP infringement spreading among non-technical folk would be much more damaging to them, even though the rumors would be false, than news of their foolishness (if it was them) spreading among the rest of us.
Re:undisclosed company? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone else notice this? Since the majority of SCO's case (aside from the Sequent stuff) centered on things developed for Monterey, isn't it important that it's not the same company? Same name (sort of), sure, but it's not the same corporation. Old SCO != New SCO, therefore New SCO can't sue based on something that may or may not have been done to Old SCO.
IBM unviels it's powerful collection of patents... (Score:2, Interesting)
So IBM want to sue SCO for compress. Of course SCO have a license from Unisys. Of course the patent should never have been issued to Unisys, 'cos IBM patented the same thing first.
This case is opening up some of the real horrors of the whole "IP" mess.
Why the secrecy ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SCO: Preparing Invoices (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that SCO have trumpeted their fraud to the world at large in a very public and high profile way, I think this harms rather than helps their cause. Profiting from copyright infringement is a far more serious offense than merely distributing material free of charge or obligation. I think Darl is digging himself and SCO into one hell of a deep dark hole, how long can he maintain the charade of legitimacy? You can be damn sure that IBM have taken careful note of the half-baked drivel that he has been spewing recently, those statements will came back to haunt him with a vengence during the trial.