SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems 1659
walterbyrd quotes: "'We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights.' SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003." Update: 08/05 18:24 GMT by M : After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!
Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
Promotional License Fee
with 1 CPU $699
with 2 CPUs $1,149
with 4 CPUs $2,499
with 8 CPUs $4,999
Additional single CPU $749
So this puts Lawrence Livermore National Labs at around $190,751 for a 256CPU system.. of which, they have a few.. heh..
<sarcasm> Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!! </sarcasm>
---
Stupidity is the great constant in this universe.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".
What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
There a many different definitions and conceptions of capitalism, but they usually involve things like investment in capital, competion, and freedom. Unless you consider investing in lawyers "capital," this is a pretty anti-capitalist, anti-free-market sort of manuever on SCO's part.
Using the courts (read: government) to try to extract money from people, rather than providing goods or services to be purchased on a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit model for comapnies if you want to maintain a healthy capitalist system.
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment. Skipping a few details this is about it. Funny how today every Government Hallucination is called Capitalism. NOT LIKELY to be Capitalism just called capitalism.
We see a lot of devices like the SCO team and many others today calling themselves "Capitalism" but bluntly they are thieft by device, the definition of fraud.
I sincerely doubt that the stock holders of SCO or whatever will even participate in the "benefits" if there are any. As such the company should be charged with violation of the "Blue Sky Laws" where they are selling the Blue sky and not any factual thing when they sell stock. They are inducing investors with the intend of never paying them their just return. Does anyone take note that Microsoft might just fit this category too?!
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.
Can't you really see the difference?
Re:What is capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.
Can't you really see the difference?
Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. In the Microsoft case, we use laws in a way which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist in the purest sense of the term in order to protect the foundation of our capitalism (the free market).
The difference is one of right and wrong. Caldera was right to sue Microsoft based on my research and much third-party documentation, but they were wrong to buy DR DOS for little other reason than to sue Microsoft. It should have been left to someone who wanted to do something with the product. Or at least have it contributed to the FreeDOS project, etc.
The real problem is that Caldera saw a legal opportunity and took it (suing Microsoft) and as a result they were too distracted to see that their business model (selling Linux as if it was proprietary software) was becoming irrelevant. So even now they are holding to it and trying to extort money from all Linux users.
I expect SCO to lose because they have no third-party backing (except perhaps Microsoft, but they can't say too much or they could be sued for the same things that RedHat is suing SCO for). Furthermore, in pursuing this, SCO is trying to break their own contracts witht heir customers (the GPL) which they knowingly entered into even AFTER they sued IBM. Even if they win some counts of the IBM suit, they will I think, lose to RedHat.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Informative)
Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.
SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I rather expect that rather than SCO as a whole, it's more their board of directors/president.
Regardless if they are eventually successful or not, the sudden stock leap after they started down the litigation path probably made all of the higher-ups in the company a big boatload of money. And they're gonna keep filling that boat as long as possible.
As soon as things starts to turn south, losing lawsuits, frustrated "customers" etc. - I'd imagine that most of the higher-ups in the company will cut the ropes and resign and the boat-o-cash will sail-off into the sunset.
Of course, this would leave the employees and investors of the company high and dry while the CEOs enjoy their money in the bahamas...
But that's how business is supposed to work these days, right?
N.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
What SCO is doing is called extortion/blackmail.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Since then, it has gone down to $0.20/share and did a 4x reverse split. Then merged with SCOX
Now at $12.80/share (divide by 4 = $3.20); I've lost..
Good thing I didn't buy too many.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not capitalism. This is corporate war, using an outdated legal system as a weapon.
This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
Linux is killing them in the server market, so they'll try the law (and their bought lawmakers).
This is just the beginning.
This is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.
Great quote but... (Score:5, Informative)
"Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty."
Winston S. Churchill
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.
> Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Amen to that. But it takes two (a buyer and a seller) to make a market.
Speaking of which, I hope the SEC is investigating the trades made by insiders in SCOX, particularly with regard to whether the lawsuits in question have any basis in fact whatsoever.
If something untwoward is happening at SCOX, it wuldn't be the first time in the securities industry that individuals of questionable ethical standards have done something to artifically inflate their company's stock price in order to sell at the top. But the word for that is fraud, not capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) [cboe.com] there are no options of any type for SCO.
This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
This certainly isn't a business decision - if it was they would continue to encourage the price advantage of Linux and offer much more reasonable fees, say $10 per seat, and maybe offer some support packages. Enough large businesses that already have Linux deployments would probably consider such a fee relatively incidental as an effective insurance policy. It might even encourage adoption at some companies who don't believe you can get anything for free. At anywhere between $5 and $50 per seat I bet they could do very well for themselves.
At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them. This is only being done for legal reasons so they can easily quantify the damages they are seeking in court. I think they'll use these numbers (along with some comparable MSRP's for Windows and Unix seats) when trying to establish their "lost revenues" due to Linux.
Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA. Hopefully the judge will see right through this ploy and nail them for flagrant abuse of the legal the system.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Microsoft uses Linux in their test lab [slashdot.org]. I wonder how many licenses they'll be purchasing.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
But, think about it large scale - think about people who have many many servers, a. la. RackShack.
RackShack claims 14,000 servers online. Do the math.
It would cost RackShack 9.8 Million Dollars ($9,800,000) to come into compliance w/ SCO.
SCO, go fuck yourself.
Sincerely
~Will
Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD (Score:5, Funny)
In the unlikely chance that SCO wins before I win the lottery or am struck by lightning, I'll just be redeploying with a BSD instead of SCO.
And if they go after BSD, I'll shift to Plan9 or QNX rather than giving one thin dime to the leeches running SCO.
Should those get nailed, GNU should finally have a decent "Hurd" kernel running by then (15-20 years of lawsuits.)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
I think instead I'll just send SCO 1 copy of a picture of my middle finger for every processor I have that Linux is running on and call it even.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
Michael Corleone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Michael Corleone (Score:5, Funny)
No! (Score:5, Funny)
And several fresh dead fish, right around his crotch region.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
"Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource ."
I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
Linux Customer: "I would, very much, like to pay in buckets of poop."
SCO Rep: "Buckets of what?"
Linux Customer: "Buckets of poop, Sir. I would be delighted to top off your 'full of Shit' meter. It will, of course, be the poop of the highest standard. Eat it with a silver spoon, you can."
fin
I called (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's my Monopoly money.... (Score:5, Funny)
What they heck do they think they own... Boardwalk? That's just crazy.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Funny)
Legal fund to put Darl's ass in jail: $1,000,000
Sending Darl an extra slippery soap: Priceless.
Re:Too much crack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't SCO claim that its properties include only SMP and related technologies? If that's the case, then a single CPU license would not be required at all because SCO's technologies apply only to multiple-CPU boxes.
Mind you, their story has changed so often it's hard to know what they actually claim now. Today's claims are probably different than yesterdays. Oh, it's after noon? Then the claims are different than they were this morning.
Investors ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
> PS: SCO is going down, and everybody know it (including SCO). The question is: will they drag Linux too....
It's a kamakazi attack. Remember that these people don't have any interest in SCO as a software firm. They're ambulance chasers, jackals who bought a moribund enterprise in hopes of squeezing some cash out of it and discarding the husk. If they can get the most cash by hurling it at other companies as a bomb, then that's exactly what they'll do with it.
And it appears that that is the course they decided on.
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Very funny coincedence -- when NOVL said they own the IP for UNIX, I sold SUN and tried to short SCO. Now, after the shit SUN pulled with SCO, I put that money yesterday into RHAT (small amount of money, so it is more like a fun story)
S
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=S
Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.
In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.
As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.
--
Slashdolt
Pump-n-Dump (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme. Let's see - an organization that owns a few companies (let's call it Canopy) buys a down-on-it's-luck company (let's call it Caldera) that has some worthless IP. They decide, wisely, to pay their executives (coincidently, themselves) in options.
Then, they make obscene claims and sue a big-name target (let's call it IBM) for a ton of cash. Then, instead of filing court documents in a timely fashion to win their suit with minimum expenditure, they FUD like crazy. They get interviews wherever they can, especially in the mass media like CNBC, which moron daytraders watch to get "stock tips." This drives up share price, making their options worth a ton of cash. Then, they sell out, literally and figuratively.
This is where we are now. The interesting part is, though, that after they sell out they may not even care about the result of the suit all that much.
Bottom line is this needs to be investigated as the pump-n-dump scheme that it is. Why is it illegal for some morons on a chat board to do it, but perfectly legal for a management team to do it? It's a scheme/scam either way.
George Soros and PAM... (Score:5, Interesting)
George Soros (top investment guy who once made a billion in a day) has said that the markets represent wishes rather than reality. This is also why that "buy terrorist stock" thing from the DoD was complete rubbish.
Look at SCO, if they were Antartica in PAM the DoD would be saying "BIG terrorist threat at the south pole"
Markets != reality. Lets face it this is a place where analysts say Sun is in trouble and they have $5.5bn in the bank, I wish I was in that much trouble!
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Investors ... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO: ***Read Carefully*** (Score:4, Funny)
Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
*snort*
HAAAAAhaahahahahaaa!
*tear*
Aahhh...
*wipes eyes*
Gosh, that's funny.
No, seriously, how much do they want?
-Waldo Jaquith
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
*snort*
At first I thought this was a description of what SCO was doing when they started this.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
v2.6 is safe! (Score:5, Funny)
I have 2 lines of code which are completely indentical to 2 lines of code in 2.6. I showed it to a few people and they see that what I am saying is true! Just because they are reporters and not programmers is irrelevant.
I would love to have the ability to show these in court but I am too busy with watching the stock tickers.
If you have any questions, feel free to send a check or money order to the P.O. box below (located in a UPS Store).
Remember, complete use of Linux for only $6.99, and no, I will not cover you if SCO sues you.
At least now we know what their business model is (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:At least now we know what their business model (Score:5, Informative)
Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:5, Funny)
$666
which would have made everything so clear? I mean it's only $33 difference. I hope when you buy these licenses you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.
SCO needs to put up or shut up. If they think they have IP in Linux then show us. Dammit if the code is already in Linux it's already public so point to the code.
John.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they showed where the alleged code was, then it would take approximately 30 minutes for the contributor(s) to remove the affected code, re-release kernel version(s), etc.
How, then, would SCO be able to charge $699 for a license?
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, if you paid the fee, they'd have to give you their part of the Linux kernel, outlining what you're paying for right? Like on the receipt or something.
Get Ready (Score:4, Funny)
Solomon
SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell you what SCO. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tell you what SCO. (Score:5, Funny)
SCO--We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known IP rights violator to justice.
Linux Users--Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about I give you the finger [gives SCO the finger] and you give me my kernel.
Shamelessly ripped from the Matrix. Thank you.
I've already paid... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've already paid... (Score:5, Funny)
For that matter, my company has already paid by my reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO on company time...
Proof of ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
It's that simple.
I strongly suspect some major holders of Linux copyrights are about to jump in with Red Hat, demanding that SCO prove it can do this.
Truly amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this proves that A) either SCO is not serious and is just jacking around their stock or B) They're really, truly, clueless. Or possibly both.
How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . .
*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Informative)
There is always FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Interesting)
The SCO folks are making such GENERAL statements against Linux, Linux Users, and Linux consultants, that it should NOT be hard to prove their negligence/libel/slander in court.
But by the end of the SCO/IBM lawsuit, the SCO bigwhigs will have unloaded all their stock anyway, and there won't be much to collect on.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, at least Red Hat has taken action. Better late than never. Still, other stakeholders must take actions. SCO does not have the bandwidth to fight even the existing lawsuits (they've already non-responded in Germany).
At the end of this, SCO is going to get bitch-slapped by the courts. However, it's likely that MS and/or Sun (or other parties) are using SCO to slow down Linux and are happy to sacrifice the company to that end.
It is critical that this be recognized for what it is. We are hard core into step 3.
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you
4. Then you win.
Domain names still available (Score:5, Funny)
darlmcbridesucks.com
I haven't got enough time but I'll be happy to paypal someone $50 to set up a nice site with a messageboard... c'mon.
Re:Domain names still available (Score:5, Funny)
I'll have a forum set up on it later tonight or tomorrow.
I got it for a year, hopefully in a year's time this will all be ancient history
I have a deal for you too (Score:5, Funny)
Well, OK, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Dear SCO. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for the good laugh this afternoon. Our network administrator actually wet his pants, while the rest of us were in such hysterics and tears that work became all but unmanageable. I don't get all the bad press about you guys... I think you've got a great sense of humor.
Sincerely,
LinuxCorp.
Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
We Need Money! (Score:5, Insightful)
'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.
Business Tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.
Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.
No Linux Trademark recognition? (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is not distributing any Linux code (source or binary) with this license. They are assuming you've already purchased "infringing" software. So they're not distributing anything. Of course, they've already modified and distributed the Linux code, so they've already agreed to the GPL on that code.
Since the right to use a software program is not specified as a restriction in the Copyright Act, there's really no reason you need to buy a license from SCO to use the Linux code in question. And I'd suspect that their license will put restrictions on your modification and distribution of Linux. Which of course would conflict with the GPL. And they'd probably turn around and sue you for breaching their license. Sounds more risky to accept their license offer than to risk being sued for violating their copyright, for which their case is very weak.
But there is some logic in what SCO is doing, trying to weave their way around the GPL.
Give em a call! (Score:5, Informative)
Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site
I don't have to pay.... (Score:5, Funny)
"Exactly which lines did I comment out?" you ask. That's *my* trade secret.
But I did manage to get all of the infringing lines SCO disclosed."
Actually a smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the fact that IBM has been relatively silent if a judge looks at a future SCO case they have 600 people licensing software from them, that judge is simply going to have a harder time "giving it away for free" to the linux guys.
Now I hope to GOD people read these licenses with a very fine tooth comb. Their is an adge that you NEVER want to sign a contract with a company like SCO, because a contract gives them real power to make your life miserable. Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts. Be careful!
My Experiences... (Score:5, Informative)
Me: But SCO has shown no proof that any code exists within the linux kernel
CTO: After talking to the CEO, we would like you to put up any money that may be required if SCO were to win the case and name us in a lawsuit, are you willing to do this?
Me: um, no...
CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.
at least they didn't decide to just purchase an SCO license. Which is better?
I got my license for free (Score:5, Informative)
This is Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Dual 2ghz g5, $2999 w/ OS X
A dual ghz machine will cost the linux guys $2800 in the OS alone after October 15th!
*cackles manically* Ahhh revenge for the Mac community!
p.s. -- Yes this is a joke... don't flame me.
OSS under attack, not linux (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that this is the model for attacked OSS now. Refuse to disclose the "stolen" IP , and claim that IP has been stolen. Wait years for the case to be cleared up in the courts, and by then, the next batch of proprietary software will have FUDded the OSS alternative into oblivion.
People are saying "hey -- just go to BSD". Guess what? That will come under attack, too, as it is developed. A different process for controlling what code goes into OSS and where it comes from may be needed, but that is what SCO and the proprietary software business wants -- they want it to be more difficult to develop software outside of the traditional code it and hide methods.
This suit has nothing to do with the linux kernel. It has everything to do with the entire OSS model. McBride as much as said that community developed software is the target here, referring to RMS in the same breath as the "OSS wants don't ask, don't tell when it comes to the source of code". Again, this is about OSS, not linux.
GF.
SCO increasing fees (Score:5, Funny)
After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399.
After October 20, SCO says they'll want $49999.
After October 25, SCO says they'll want three billion.
SCO will release October and November prices after they contract a mathematician to construct new super exponential and trans-finite numbering systems.
-
This can't be legal . . . can it? (Score:5, Interesting)
That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to.
-Peter
SCO's still a prick (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been NUMEROUS cases of license violations against the GPL by other groups/companies, and the Linux communities approach is typcially "remove it and we're cool".
This SCO CRAP not at all about protecting their business, it's not about them having a strong product, and someone else threating the uniqueness of some product.
Instead, it's about SCO blackmailing, bulling, and threatening innocent bystanders and keeping them innocent bystanders by not allowing a code violation to be corrected. Instead they are attempting to profit from that 'mistake'.
The one thing this does tell me is that, if there was EVER a justification for the philosophies behind the FSF and the GPL, this is the perfect one.
Companies treat code as if it's the holy-grail of their business, when, in reality, it's the people who came UP with that IDEA, and implemented that are actually the real 'asset'.
At the pace of this industry, as soon as code is released, it's almost obsolete. But the ability to generate the ideas, or further develop them is what's important. If you're 'looking over your shoulder' all the time, then you've already behind.
Open Letter to SCO geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider your future as laughing-stock at your next employer. The shame in working for SCO is fast approaching that of working for Microsoft.
Consider that you will need a job after SCO Enrons (hey, any noun can be verbed), and that I, for one, would be suspicious about taking you on, if I knew you had stayed throughout this outrage.
So for your own good, WALK OUT NOW and make it a public walk-out! Do it while your options are still worth money, at least. Hurry!
WKR,
A concerned fellow geek.
SCO icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
ed
Hello Mountian Home AFB? (Score:5, Funny)
SCO:We here you have been adding code to Linux and have even used it in house. We have a large bill for you that you have to pay or we will sue you.
NSA:That is very interesting we will give you our answer in about an hour. CLICK
Mountain Home AFB: Mountian Home Air Force Base how can I help you?
NSA: This is the NSA we have a terrorist take over in Utah.
Mountian Home AFB: Is it SCO?
NSA: Yes have you already heard?
Mountian Home AFB: Yea they have already called the Army to try and bill them. They even called some of the Oil Companies and that got the White House involved.
NSA: So you have already tasked a strike mission?
Mountian Home AFB: No need. They also sent a bill to Disney! They will never know what hit them. Have a nice day.
who infringes (Score:5, Insightful)
Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.
my guess is that either SCO will be subpoena'd and unable to reveal the code or they will be taken to court on charges of extortion...and lose.
This is irrelevant, period! (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever. Only accusations, NDAs, press releases.
Honestly, I'm not worried one bit and all my half a dozen servers are Linux. If you are worried about this for your business, then by all means, switch. But you've not been served any papers stating you're breaking some law, so screw it.
Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.
Re:Competing with Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting link in the other SCO/Caldera article today (i wish I could find the link) stated something along the lines of "whenever anything threatens their stock price, the SCO/Caldera execs release some more bit of news to pump it up." After being hit slightly by the RedHat announcement, well, here you go. Some traders probably will see the number, make a back of the envelope calculation "well, there are millions of Linux boxes, they're gonna get $699 or $1399 for every one, I want a piece of that" and pump up their stock. The more McBride pulls stuff out of his ass like this, the more obvious that it's just a stock ploy becomes.
I'd be interested to know what the percentage of machines out there running Linux are less than the $1400 price point. Granted, SCO/Caldera is (currently) only talking about commercial licenses so it's likely the machines are better than the overall average box, but still likely to be cheaper than the license. If this is the cost of a UnixWare license, no wonder they went into the toilet.
BTW: I call it SCO/Caldera because McBride's company is really just SCO in name and IP rights only. The real SCO people are at Tarantella, where they are soldiering on, doing real work.
Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
On my system:
Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.
As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.
As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.
My analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
He is calling out RMS by name. This is a lot worse than "hey your product infringes on our product". This is a declaration that proprietary source and open source cannot co-exist in the same world.
In his closing remarks, McBride likens SCO's actions against Linux end users to the RIAA's actions against P2P copyright infringers.
This is some lethal FUD here. There is a huge difference between music thieves and open source developers. Music thieves are in fact making using other people's work without their consent, whereas open source developers create their own independent content and distibute it on their own chosen terms. We are indies. We are not warez d00dz.
Back to SCO
Classical company: make products and services, sell them to customers for money, profit.
F/OSS community: make products and services, give them away, self-generating funding, community rewards (but not much profit).
SCO: generate FUD, sell "ScoSource licenses" to Microsoft and Sun, profit.
Classical companies took some time to adjust to the radically different approach of the F/OSS Community. We don't breath the same oxygen that they do, so strategies that worked against, say, Netscape, do not work against, say, Apache.
Similarly, SCO has a radically different model. SCO throws shit like a mad monkey at the Bronx zoo. For a classical corporation, there is huge backlash to this, because customers tend to avoid the products and services of the shit-thrower. But SCO doesn't care, because they don't make their profit from selling products and services
How to fight something like this?
Well, Linuxtag did something effective. Red Hat's lawsuit may or may not be effective, but it sure is good for morale. I asked RMS to boycott SCO -- remove support for SCO operating systems from GNU products -- but he replied that he didn't think it would be effective (because SCO can just maintain their own branch). I disagree with that and I urge more developers to follow Fyodor's lead and remove OpenServer and UnixWare as configuration options in their software.
SCO makes money by throwing shit at Linux -- not indirectly by increasing sales of their products (which does not work very well), but directly, in the form of checks from Microsoft and Sun.
SCO has essentially two assets and is fighting on two levels. They have legal claims and are pursuing those in court. But they also have PR assets. It is deadly for us to reply to their PR attacks with legal defenses. We have to attack SCO's PR assets.
Some ideas for an attack:
. SCO claims they spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and purchasing the rights to Unix. Well, actually, they probably spent a lot less than that. Check how much they raised in their IPO and how much revenue they've made since then and how much they've actually spent on engineering.
. SCO even bought their name! The SCO Group didn't build a reputation on that name. They used to be Caldera International, but when that didn't work, they bought the name from the Santa Cruz Operation.
. SCO isn't a product and service company. Their revenues are tiny and declining. Their VP of Engineering sold all his stock (and I've heard a rumor that he left the company, haven't tracked it down yet). It's not enough to point out that they are litigious. Point out that they have nil legitimate technology to bring to the table.
Sorry this rambles a bit, I should write an essay instead of just rambling in a comment box.
Re:Notes from the conference call (Score:5, Informative)
Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain.
Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.
2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400
800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.
2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400
Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.
2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400
McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.
Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.
Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model.
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.
Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.
Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can
What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy.
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.
Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.
2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400
Assemble roster for Q and A.
#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal
Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.
#2 David Becker, CNET
Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative
#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week
Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions