SCO Preparing Linux Licensing Program 508
akorvemaker writes "OSNews is reporting about an article at InfoWorld that SCO's new Linux licensing program 'will allow users of the open-source operating system to run Linux without fear of litigation.'" This seems to be either the best business decision ever, or a nail in their coffin. One would think they'd wait before charging a license fee over what some would call shaky ground,
Stock on the up again today... (Score:3, Interesting)
Up 15% as a result? Yahoo finances [yahoo.com]
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stock on the up again today... (Score:4, Informative)
--Joey
Self-fulfilling prediction... (Score:3, Informative)
If enough people short the stock and the short interest goes sky-high, that by itself will take the wind out of SCO's sails. At some point the herd effect kicks in, and nobody will buy at any price. After all, it's sheer insanity to buy a stock that everyone else is shorting, regardless of what you think of the company's future.
MANY people are looking to short SCO, but most are trying to figure out when the rest of the world realizes there will be no buyout.
If most of the potent
the good thing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:the good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't make any difference what the license is good for. I have to clean the cat's litterbox tomorrow, and I have a large, padded mailing envelope. Monday, my *license fees* will be on the way to Utah.
Re:Insurance Program (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Insurance Program (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Insurance Program (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry but you are way off base here and show a lack of understanding of IP law. It depends greatly on exactly what IP rights SCO is asserting were violated. Currently SCO is only asserting breach of contract and trade secret disclosure. The ONLY parties who are liable were the ones who signed the contracts involved.
Even if SCO was to claim copyright violation it would be difficult for them to go after everyone who distributed linux since the distributors and users acted on the assumption of good faith. Typically at worst they could demand that everyone stop distributing the infringing code.
The only scenario where SCO would have any possible legitimate claim against the users would be patent infringement. This is highly unlikely since SCO holds few or no current patents. (if anything SCO should be afraid of violating IBM's patents, indeed this is likely a key part of IBM's defense strategy.)
This case has little or nothing to do with the Internet and much to do with a contract dispute. If SCO was suing Microsoft for breach of contract and disclosure of trade secrets, Windows users would be in no more danger of being individually sued than linux users currently are.
(I do realize that SCO could file lawsuits against individual users if they really wanted to. However when it was discovered that the suits had no basis, SCO would get bitchslaped hard)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, if there's code in the Linux kernel which isn't properly licensed, then anyone running a c
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if you discover that something you downloaded from there is covered by copyright, and you then keep it, then and only then have you committed an illegal act.
A friend of mine put a 3.4 MB text file on Kazaa under the name of some Brittany Spears single, and tagged it as an MP3. Downloading that, even though it had the same name, was not illegal. Neither was uploading it.
Of course, he's doing this because he wants to be sued by a knee-jerk responding RIAA.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Funny)
I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, your honor."
"And you're being sued by SCO for 1.5 million dollars?"
"Yes, your honor."
"Did that software come with an EULA?"
"Yes, the GNU GPL."
"Does that agreement bind you pay money to SCO?"
"No, sir."
"Have you seen the news reports of SCO claiming they have code in Linux?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you know that seeing something on the news creates a binding agreement between you and the plaintiff to pay them whatever amount of money that they ask?"
"No, sir."
"Neither did I. Clerk, are there any cases on our agenda today with some merit?"
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Yes, the GNU GPL."
Not to be a stickler, but the GPL is not a EULA, it's a RDLA (Re-Distribution License Agreement). You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
Thanks.
Interesting .. (Score:3, Interesting)
You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
You are probably correct.
This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws..
You just can't redistribute it (from the USA and a few other contries).
Re:Interesting .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, as long as "whatever" means "software licensed under the GPL" then, yeah, I guess. But then your second sentence doesn't make any sense, so I guess I don't know what you are talking about.
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also a bit in the GPL about "disclaimer of warranty". That looks very EULA-like, just because a similar clause is found in many EULAs, and indeed virtually every software license, free and otherwise. Most people regard a warranty as something that applies to their use of a product, not its subsequent redistribution.
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, if I ever got seriously into distributing software, like for money or as a buisness or anything, I'd spend the couple days to package it r
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:3, Informative)
As End User you are not required to agree with it! (And EULA is the end user license agreement)
Those programms that let you click-wrap through the GPL, like EULA do, show the programmers have not understood that the GPL is not an EULA, that does NOT needed to be agreed, until you want to redistribute or change the software.
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, even if the program were a Trojan horse type of deal, you'd probably have no legal recourse.
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:3, Informative)
You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
Repeat and write 100 times: The GPL is NOT an EULA!!!!
Repeat and write 100 times: You are not bound by the GPL if you CHANGE the software, only if you distribute it.
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the kits used to make installation packages for Windows software (like InstallShield, or Winzip installer) create the Accept/Decline license box automatically, and just ask the developer to paste in his license.
I think a keen trick would be to put the GPL in a click-to-agree box, but with multiple buttons: "Yes", "No", "Maybe", "I'll read it later", "I'm under 18, or am drunk, or am otherwise not allowed to enter a contract". Of course, any one of those buttons would proceed with the installation as normal...
Re:I can hear the court cases now.... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, thinking about how fair, sound and pristine the US legal system is...
No.
Well, I agree with you, but would a judge? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but as I understand it, if you feel there is a reasonable probability that you are going to be sued then you can seek a delcaratory judgement against the party likely to sue you. This aleviates the fear & anxiety of waiting to be sued, by the court giving a ruling as to who would win the case were you sued.
Surely it is in the interest of one, or a group of, companies to fund a preemptive suit for declaratory judgement agai
I prefer "holier than thou" (Score:2)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:Fear? (Score:2)
Re:Fear? (Score:3, Informative)
Wait.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel. Newer (and SCO IP free versions) of the kernel would be beyond their touch. In effect, they wouldn't be collecting licenses on the GPL'ed kernel, but on the ir IP that was included against their will.
No matter what happens, SCO will not own the Linux name, or the hearts and minds of the linux community.
It seems that while businesses are afraid of t
Re:Wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't charge a license fee. Period. There is only one way to distribute Linux with your own source code as SCO has done. And, that way is to license your code under the GPL. You cannot distribute Linux with your code under a different license because then you have no license for all the other code in Linux.
SCO has only two choices with regard to their code in Linux. License it under the GPL, and still get a settlement from IBM for including the code in Linux against contract. Or, get an injunction against all kernels with their code making those kernels at least undistributable, and probably unusable. Then, the kernel developers will have to write out the code to get a distributable new kernel.
Charging a license fee is NOT an option for SCO.
Dastardly
Re:Wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct! All it says, is, "Here is our code. You can use it if you want to, in any way you want to, so long as you allow the next person to do the same with the result"
In contrast, a MSEULA reads, "This is OUR software, you own nothing, you can use it only in the way WE say you can (subject to change at any time), if you modify it in any way we will sue you and your descendants back to the stone age"
Given the fact that a MSEULA leaves your ENTIRE ORG, and even YOUR HOME theoretic
Re:Wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO has removed the real source from many of the Linux distributions on their FTP site, but they still have it in two places that I know of. It is extremely difficult to understand how they can be unintentionally distributing the code under the terms of the GPL when it is still available on THEIR FTP site months after they claimed that it is tainted. If this was ever a case of unintentional distribution, it is certainly not now. At this point they have either released the entire kernel under the terms of the GPL (and thus have no ability to assert additional IP rights) or they are distributing the code without a license and violating the copyrights of thousands of Linux developers. The GPL is very clear about this. Either you agree to the terms of the GPL unconditionally, or you are subject to normal copyright laws which give you no right to redistribute. This may be an unconventional use of copyright, but if it is ever "tested" in court the judge will rule based on the same principles of copyright and contract law that apply to everything else. There is nothing special about the GPL in that regard that requires testing in a court.
Re:Wait.... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL does not say "someone somewhere combined the two, and so now my license applies to both". It can't, legally, since someone can't agree to something that he does not have a legal right to agree to. If you combine source code that you have the right to with source code that you don't, you don't have the right to apply any license at all to it (or indeed, even to do it at all). So it's completely irrelevant whether the first piece of code is GPL, BSD, public domain, community source, shared source, or whatnot, if you don't have a legal right (through license or possession of copyright) to the second piece of code, you can't legally combine the two. All of this is spelled out very clearly in section 7 (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt).
SCO's public claims are vague and confusing (IMHO intentionally so), but the most far-reaching claims seem to be that all modern operating systems embody concepts from UNIX, and that they are therefore all derivatives of UNIX, and therefore SCO owns all of them. If that were to be taken literally on its face, it would imply that everything that Linus, Alan, Microsoft, et al. have written is actually copyright SCO, which is sheer nonsense. For one, "derivative" is being used in a confusing way here. From a copyright perspective, "derivative" has a very specific meaning, and since concepts aren't subject to copyright (only expression is), the use of "concepts" from System V doesn't mean that anything was actually copied in a copyright sense. Secondly, copyright violation in the form of distribution of a derived work doesn't mean that the copyright automatically belongs to the author of the first work. The copyrights to various parts of Linux still belong to whoever wrote them, including (hypothetically) SCO. If multiple people own the copyrights to a work, then they all have to agree in order for it to be legally distributed.
Presumably, what SCO wants to convince people of is that they are going to sue the creators of Linux, and for damages insist that the copyrights to the entire source to Linux be turned over to them. Whether this is something they would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in is something a copyright lawyer would have to answer, but from what I've read a copyright holder has a duty to warn someone of an inadvertent violation so that they can correct it. SCO has done nothing of the sort.
SCO further weakens their position by continuing to distribute Linux from their web site. Whatever they may or may not hope to win in court, they incontrovertibly do not hold the copyrights to all of Linux, so they only have a right to distribute it under the terms of its license (the GPL). So at the very least, they're implicitly warranting that they can legally distribute whatever that is under the terms of the GPL, and if they went for the nuclear option they would surely be countersued for copyright violation by Linus and other major copyright holders. The only way I can see they would have out of *that* would be to represent that everything they were distributing from their web site as Linux was in fact legal, and so someone could start freely from there (and incidentally more or less destroy their own case). So they're in a bit of a catch-22 (of their own making) -- admit that what they're distributing is legal, and that therefore they have no case, or admit that it's illegal, in which case they're wide open to copyright violation themselves.
I've yet to see anything t
Maybe this is good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fee for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fee for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are charging you for the luxury of not having to worry about being sued by them. Software has nothing to do with it, this is simple extortion.
Re:Fee for what? (Score:3, Funny)
Extortion?? Come on my good man that's such an heavy word. And lets face it, no one knows what it means, lets break it down, ex (as in not yours anymore) and tortion (as in pressure), so this is just a pressure reliever.
Let's call a spade a spade here and call it what it is, it's simply insurance that you're with us. I mean you are with us right? The court room is such a cold heartless place, when you're with us you're part of the family, and you know that family is warm and th
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who would pay for this.... (Score:3)
Also for sale.. (Score:5, Funny)
Deed to the Eiffel tower
Herbalife
Property on the moon, nicely situated near the Sea of Tranquility
London Bridge
Viagra pills
These REVOLUTIONARY PRODUCTS are to be sold through the REVOLUTION of multi-level-marketing, please contact SCO if you wish to make THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from YOUR OWN HOME.
What percent? (Score:3, Funny)
99 percent? I think that percentage is a bit low.
Listen In (Score:5, Informative)
Where: US: 800-406-5356
Toll Call: 913-981-5572
Password: 464644
When: Monday, July 21, 2003
Noon EDT
Trademark Infringement? (Score:2)
You sir, suck. (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Bride et al. Some day I hope the SEC [sec.gov] catches up with you. We all know you're mouthing off in the news to pump the stock so that you can sell and get richer. That's no secret, we can all see it in your trade statements. Your mouth says one thing (all lies), your actions another (the whole truth and nothing but the truth). You use battary and deception to work your shady stockmarket magics, and it will catch up with you. I have a video-capture of the Adelphia directors being led off in hand-cuffs. They thought they'd get away with it too, just like you guys.
Mark my words, in a week we'll see seven more consecutive SELL filings in the database. They're greedy, and greedy people run the constant risk of taking it that one last step too far...
That said, I think this SCO news is great for humor. I can't wait till monday!
Or, as it should be called... (Score:2)
...the "SCO protection racket."
Doesn't this sound exactly like a mob racket?
Mobster: Gee, I wouldn't want anything to happen to your Linux server, would you? (waves his club near the rack)
Customer: I swear, Tony, I'll get you the money! Don't sue me!
price (Score:2)
I think I'll mail them a turd. (Score:2)
Someone buy a license! (Score:2)
Then all the code in question will be intentionally and unambigously GPLed by SCO. Unless they intened to impinge on the copyrights of the hundreds (?) of copyright holders who have GPLed their kernel code.
As if any of this matters, since they (presumably) distributed that same code under the GPL as part of their GNU/Linux distribution . .
Yawn.
-Peter
Haha. (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO is still a partner of UnitedLinux... (Score:2)
Does the new SCO Linux licensing program imply that UnitedLinux customers are not immune to litigation? I would gather that the other partners are not so happy with such a prospect.
Re:SCO is still a partner of UnitedLinux... (Score:2)
You may freely do an ftp-install of SuSE Linux, and use the YAST to update your system at any time. In fact, in contrast to RedHat, you don't even have to register in order to use the update system. What you don't get from ftp-install is some propertary software, like a three month trial license of WM-Ware.
extortion is legal? (Score:3)
Excuse me, but isn't extortion illegal in the US?
Re:extortion is legal? (Score:2)
You clearly are bit confused about the term "extortion", so please bear with me for a moment. Only a private citizen may be charged with extortion. When a corporation is doing the same, it's an example proving that competition in a free market is working for the good of us all.
Re:extortion is legal? (Score:2)
Given a large enough corporation,
s/extortion/theft/
s/extortion/manslaughter/
s
s/extortion/fraud/
s/exto rtion/bribery/
s/extortion/conspiracy/
s/extorti on/endangerment/
s/extortion/racketeering/
s/ext ortion/tax evasion/
Or, as the luminaries of the New World Order say, May God Bless Corporate Democracy.
S
I wonder ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, if SCO are trying to extort money from Linux customers by making them think they have to pay SCO as well as Linux and Linux service vendors (including, of course, IBM) then that's cutting directly into those vendors' business. It goes beyond FUD into a direct financial attack. Seems to me -- just guessing here -- that given how much IBM makes from the Linux aspects of its biz, they might get very upset.
Of course, Red Hat, SuSE, et al would also have reason to get upset, and at this point they could probably wipe SCO out themselves if they put their minds to it; but it's always nice to have IBM on your side
Re:I wonder ... (Score:3, Insightful)
But The IBM counter suit I beleave will really hurt SCO.
IBM already did go after them with guns blazing (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, SCO's claims are bunk as this entry shows [weblogs.com], for what SCO is complaining about is the inclusions of pieces of code in IBM's distro, such as JFS. But a Caldera employee at the time was contributing to this process and they didn't complain at the time!
SCO is sunk.
Shaky ground (Score:2)
Is SCO GPL'ing their code? (Score:5, Informative)
Impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Impossible (Score:3, Insightful)
I never thought.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I never thought.. (Score:2)
IBM tried to own the PC architecture, if it weren't for hackers at compaq (very terrible company now, but they had there place then) reverse engineering the PC BIOS we would all be paying taxes to IBM for all of the hardware. IBM tried to do the exact same thing that Microsoft does now, with the hardware, so don't say they've never done anything evil
Sounds like "protection" money to me... (Score:2)
Too bad the U.S. government lacks the balls to apply organized crime laws against companies like SCO.
Karma, the new business model (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone have as much code in Linux as SCO? (Score:2)
Of course, SCO should be glad that congress didn't end up passing a law allowing copyright holders to destroy pirates' systems...
Pierce the corporate Veil (Score:2)
The more I look at this the more I realize Heinlein was right. Civil penalties need to be accompanied by corporal punishment, and at least minimal jail time.
Its very obvious that the laws in place have be
You don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about risk management. If a company has a sizeable investment in Linux, and that investment is threatened, then competent management will take necessary steps to protect it. For any company, managment has to determine which option will cost less:
1. Not take any action and await the outcome of IBM vs SCO. Taking this path, one would have to calculate the chance that IBM wins, therefore no new cost, versus SCO wins, and how much would they then have to pay out and/or possibly migrate to another OS.
2. Buy the SCO license as a hedge against an SCO victory. Furthermore, this may also bring other benefits, such as imdemmifing the company from any future claims against Linux from yet another company.
This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but with the bottom line.
Re:You don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's what's wrong.
Sign and you then have a contract with SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
You want your peace of mind, so you cough up and give SCO $500 -- what else do you give them ? Well, the copy of the contract that they gave you to sign; what do we think that will contain ? Let me guess
A clever way of making money out of someone else's GPLed software.
Use free software, for a fee !!! (Score:2)
Can they do this? Have they crossed the Line yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to me that this is probably either barratry, racketeering, or libel. Mostly the third.
Going around saying "linux has stolen code" is a simple allegation relating to a lawsuit you've made. However, if you're going around sending letters to redhat customers saying they owe you money because they use redhat.. I can't imagine that being legal. They are stating in a public, commercial context that they own what is rightfully RedHat's. That seems to be deceptive trade practices, at the least, and most likely like I said some sort of libel against Redhat.
Is this the case? Does this "linux licensing" thing mean that SCO has FINALLY stepped over the line from discussing their lawsuit in public into clear-cut slander, and the FSF/redhat/SUSE/mandrake can jump on them now?
Nope. Won't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Clause 4 in the GPL invalidates your license the moment you knowingly distribute intermixed code of your own or someone else's that isn't also GPLed.
SCO continued to sell OpenLinux for 2-3 months after they allegedly found there was allegedly a problem and has continued to distribute the kernel sources now for SEVEN months. This is combined with a public statement from them saying that it was all "okay" for them to do so since the infringing IP wa
Ooh! Ooh! Gimme gimme! (Score:2)
I think I'll add a "P.S. Show me the code, you asshats. I'm not paying unless you show me why I should." to the FAX.
Warning! OT, -1 Humorous (Score:3, Funny)
Then, I realized that it was a Scottish flag next to the sticker, along with a simultaneous thought of "wow, I've been reading far too much
Business Proposition (Score:5, Funny)
You see, me and the boys here, we'd hate to see something... unfortunate... happen to your business. After all, running Linux is attractive, but... risky... if you catch my drift.
Now, for a small, shall we say, licensing fee, we can guarantee that we won't burn down, er, um, (cough) I mean, litigate your business into bankruptcy.
After all, we're legitimate businessmen.
SCO made no copyright claim (Score:3, Insightful)
If you listened to their last conference call, you noticed that they explicitly said they weren't making any copyright claims; they just had a contract dispute with IBM. That's something strictly between them and IBM; it can't affect anyone who isn't involved with IBM or their product.
Instructions for payment (Score:2)
Drop the mony in the brown paper bag you find
behind the big oak in the east side of the park.
Checking up on Microsoft copyright infringement (Score:3, Funny)
That licence should be illegal in Germany... (Score:2, Interesting)
Financially, I'd calll this an unwise maneuver...
False Insurance (Score:2)
What freaking idiots. They are simply selling fake insurance. Think about it. "We may or not have code in linux, but if we do, you might be sued by us. So pay us a little money now to avoid the possibility of paying more later." It's almost blackmail. It's disgusting.
pay the fee or what? (Score:3, Insightful)
To paraphrase the NRA (a highly successful, if not a bit misguided group):
They can have my slackware disks when they pull them out of my incarcerated hand.
Make them press charges for not paying. The legal costs of attacking end-users would be fucking staggering. Bullies always prey on the small guy to mask their own insecurity. The only way to stop the schoolyard bully is to not be scared of him. To paraphrase another misguided soul "Bring 'em on". Fuck SCO.
I would also like to announce that (Score:4, Funny)
Please send payment to:
Happy Dude
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield
The GPL is worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO's attempts to impose additional restrictions on the Linux kernel could not be a more blatent violation of the copyrights of the many kernel developers who have released legitimately GPL'd code into the kernel. There is exactly one way for this idodicy to stop: kernel developers must sue SCO for copyright infringement.
Even under the rosiest scenario for SCO, the fact that SCO has a contract dispute with IBM, and that perhaps IBM infringed their code does not given them any right to flout the GPL and usurp the work of the kernel developers.
It's just to pump the stock price (Score:5, Informative)
Last December, scox said they were "planing" a linux licensing programing. Then, about a month ago, scox said they would announce such a plan in July. July is more than half-way over, everybody is wondering what is going on. Now scox is saying they will have a plan "within a month or so." Or so?
Could it be that scox knows they can not legally implement such a plan? In two months will scox call another such teleconference to anounce their big plan, only to say once again: "we're working on some details to try and create some kind of a licensing program for Linux users to be able to run Linux legally."
Some details? Haven't they been working on "some details" since December? How complicated could it be.
Yet another SCOX bluff? Remember scox said they would stop ibm from selling AIX, they haven't. Scox said they would audit AIX users, they haven't. They said they were going sue Linus Torvald, they haven't.
But it did drive the stock price up another 15% in one day. And you better believe, insiders are selling like mad.
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
An Ode to SCO (Score:4, Funny)
SCO [sco.com] tries to bill me [infoworld.com] so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord [crosswalk.com], thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think [iwethey.org] about the O from SC [sco.com]"
It feels good
When you know you're right [findlaw.com]
A superdope winner [fsf.org] in a court fight [com.com]
And SCO knows as much [slashdot.org]
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us
I told you homeboys [lug-nut.com]
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' [internetweek.com] and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL [gnu.org], man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code [sourceforge.net]
U can't touch us
Stop! RICO [cornell.edu] time!
(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)
Re:Lemme get this straight . . . (Score:2)
Only people who re-distrubute the product have to agree to anything and what they are agreeing to is the terms under which they are granted the right to distribute it.
All that running the programs requires is that you can have no expectation of it working as it is not gauranteed to be fit for any purpose.
Re:David Boies role in all of this (Score:2)
It's called barratry (Re:I wonder...) (Score:3, Informative)
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See {Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
The above is from the 1913 Webster's dictionary. It's normal use today descibes use of the legal system to slander or malign someone.
After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is likely) they will be called on the carpet for this, I'm sure.
GJC
Re:Why SCO won't release the "infringing" code. (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider:
June 13th: scox share price goes through the roof on *huge* volume because scox swears it can, and will, cancle IBM's UNIX license.
June 16th: scox could have gone to court and filed for an immediate tempory injunction to stop ibm from selling aix. Scox did nothing of the sort. Instead scox announced that *they* consider ibm's license cancled, and that scox would be "seeking" a permenate injunction - which will take years. But that didn't stop the tech-pop-media from pumping out dozens of headlines about ibm's unix license being cancled.
Scox doesn't want to go court ever. Scox doesn't want to show "evidence" ever.
In Germany, scox was told to put up or shut up. Scox had to show *some* evidence or stop making their claims. Scox immidiately shut down their German web-sites, and signed a document stating they would make no further claims. Germany is scox's second largest market. And scox gave up the German market rather show any evidence.
The entire German incident was ignored by the USA tech-pop-media.
Scox
Re:The Sword of FUD, +5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, IBM is quite sure of its footing, and you can see a lot of what IBM's tactics will be in Eric Raymond's position paper for OSI [opensource.org]. What should have set off huge warning bells for SCO was IBM's 3 paragraph press release, which included the sentence "This will be resolved in the normal legal process.". For comparison, 2 days later another IBM press release about IBM donating WiFi support to 600 Boys & Girls Clubs ran to 12 paragraphs. Now think about that - they're certain enough of the outcome of a $3B lawsuit that they're spending 4 times as much effort talking about a donation of 6,000 PCs.
IBM is by nature a slow-moving and cautious company, and at the current time there's no reason for them to hurry. Remember - they took 17 years to resolve their anti-trust case a few decades ago, and will spend as many months as they feel needed to get their cased lined up. Also, note that delay may be in IBM's interest - the longer SCO persists in acting foolish, the better the chances that SCO will give IBM more things to use against them.
But rest assured - IBM is pissed, and is readying the corporate equivalent of a "shock and awe" retaliation. They fully intend to leave SCO headquarters looking like Dresden after the firestorms.
Why Dresden rather than Hiroshima? Well, Dresden was a firestorm rather than an explosion - almost all the damage was fueled by the city itself burning rather than externally provided. Similarly, most of the damage to be done to SCO will be fuled by SCO, not IBM...