Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Linux Licenses Could Increase In Price 305

prostoalex writes "ZDNet UK says that, while SCO Group's legal department took a timeout from generating new lawsuits, their Linux license prices might be increased. 'Companies that license now may be able to do so cheaper than if they do so later,' [Blake] Stowell said. In the upcoming financials call, SCO expects to announce 6-figure revenue from its SCOSource division."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Linux Licenses Could Increase In Price

Comments Filter:
  • Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:44PM (#9944274)
    I haven't bought mine yet! I better rush out while they're still priced reasonably.
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

      by OrthodonticJake ( 624565 ) <[[OrthodonticJak ... . ] [ [ c o m ]]> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:47PM (#9944291) Homepage Journal
      You know, I was just thinking about switching to a free OS. It's a good thing that this was on slashdot or I would have ended up paying more than I needed to.
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

      by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) * <slashdot@stefanc[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:48PM (#9944300) Homepage Journal
      Just make sure you put it on the P2P networks so that we can get through Linux's nagware screens! My copy of Linux is a 30-day evaluation copy and it's about to shut down!

      har har har...
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)

      by ethzer0 ( 603146 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:48PM (#9944315)
      Don't stress yourself, simply pay the difference in monopoly money, like the first time...
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by danamania ( 540950 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:04PM (#9944419)
      If SCO and Rob Enderle aren't outright lying (!) then they hint that they're not going after smaller users.

      From Rob's keynote [] at SCOForum 2004, he states: "Now I hear from the Linux folks that it is SCO that is the bad guy here taking away the rights of those that worked hard to contribute to Linux and to that I say Bull Shit. SCO, unlike the RIAA which is targeting kids, is going after large well funded companies who are perfectly able to take care of themselves. In all cases the firms being challenged have more resources and are larger than SCO. If there is one thing firms like Daimler Chrysler don't need is a bunch of "hang'em high" bigots who think of themselves as judge, jury, and executioner."

      So it comes down to - do you believe Rob Enderle, that SCO is only going after the big companies, and isn't like the RIAA and targeting kids..?
      • Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

        by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:23PM (#9944535)
        Uh yes, we were in a meeting and someone pointed out that we should try SCO linux. The whole room started laughing. Boy, last time I lol to tears was watching some rerun of Naked Gun 2.

      • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShadowRage ( 678728 )
        they're wise not to attack invidividuals, because all is needed is a class action lawsuit, and given their "size" they're a tiny company compared to bigger guys who will simply push them aside until they get tired of them screaming and swat them with a newspaper made up of lawyers.... a class action lawsuit of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals (eg, the opensource movement is made up of people like these) could easily sue for infringement and harassment and deflamation.. and a few million dollars doe
      • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by msobkow ( 48369 )

        Personally I believe that everything coming out of the SCO "press releases" has degraded to demonstrating a completely delusional lack of contact with reality. Rather than just shooting them, maybe we should lock them up and pump them full of thorazine for their own safety.

    • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SourKAT ( 589785 )
      That's supply and demand for you! ... oh wait, too much supply, no demand ... WTF kind of economics is this?
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vladkrupin ( 44145 )
      you probably should! Or it might turn out that SCO doesn't really have the 6-digit revenue from their SCOSource division. That would make them mighty embarrassed, and you wouldn't really want that, would you?

      6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.
      • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Stephan Schulz ( 948 )

        6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.

        I think they are still milking the EV1 deal - this is the quarter in which (some of) this revenue should finally be on the book. It has consistently been toutet as a 6-figure deal.

        And notice that they have not said that they have a 6 figure income this quarter, just that they are going to report it.

        All in all, it again looks like

    • by zoloto ( 586738 )
      wtf?! are they still around?
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Necrobruiser ( 611198 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:11PM (#9944758)
      SCO Linux - Free as in "$699".

      (Limited time threat, er, that is, offer)
    • This has to be the best first post I've ever seen. :)

      [Sarcasm On]
      I just whipped out my credit card, and bought 10 SCO IP Licenses []. We should all buy our licenses now, and avoid trouble with the BSA later.

      By the way, I just got my patent for "electronic communication", and bought the patents for streaming media from Acacia. My fee is $10k per device (device defined as any individual component, including but not limited to telephone, cordless phone, modem, wireless network card, wireless network A
    • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shanen ( 462549 )
      You mean you haven't bought your shares of SCO stock yet? They're certainly priced reasonably. Since they broke through the $5 floor on short transactions, they've been sinking pretty nicely.

      Oh, you mean you want to buy SCOX shares to sell at a profit ? So sorry. That seems rather unlikely. Nothing to stop them from sinking to penny stock level now...

      I like the comparative views against IBM, their "favorite" target. This one shows the 6-month view, in which SCOX is about 70% below the starting point [].

    • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

      by mbrezu79 ( 669155 )
      Now I understand those Microsoft studies about Linux TCO. The TCO just went up, it seems. Boy, these Microsoft guys know the future! Wonder why they don't see the exploits coming ...
  • Cheaper... (Score:5, Informative)

    by IronMagnus ( 777535 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:45PM (#9944279)
    Wouldn't it be cheaper to just not by a license at all?
  • It makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheWart ( 700842 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:45PM (#9944281)
    I mean, if they have sold 2 licenses at $700 a license, but upping it to say, oh, $1400 (nice ring to it :)) a license, they can *double* their revenue with no higher operating costs!!

    At least that is how SCO probably is seeing it through the haze of their pipe dream.
  • by DiscoBobby ( 196458 ) * on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:46PM (#9944286)
    I think the only reason that SCO will be able to announce 6-figure revenue for SCOSource is because this is the fiscal quarter that they'll book the revenue from the EV1 scam - the first and to my knowledge ONLY large deal (other than the war-chest they got from Microsoft) they've ever closed.

    If this is the case, this does NOT indicate new deals, this does NOT indicate a new revenue source, this does NOT mean that did a dime's worth of business in the last 3 months - it's just when the revenue from their only decent deal some time ago hit the books.

    A quote from the SECOND quarter conference call (Darl speaking to Maureen O'Gara):

    McBride: We had a few deals on the SCOsource side, Maureen. You know with last quarter we had announced a major deal with EV1. That is not part of the revenue stream that we're reporting in second quarter. That revenue will start to be accounted for in the quarter that we're currently in.

    O'Gara: Sorry. The EV1 revenues will show up on this quarter?

    McBride: Yes. They will start this quarter, and they'll be booked over multiple quarters going forward.

    Now, within that conversation, Darl claims to have deals in the pipeline:

    O'Gara: Well, we'll see how that .... Now, you forecast 10 to 12 this quarter, but that's mostly from the UNIX business, which ....

    McBride: Yeah, until there's a stream of revenue that comes out of the SCOsource side, we're not going to get in the business of handicapping or projecting the forecast of it. You know, the pipeline that Bert is talking about that is healthy right now is not really part of that 10 to 12. Once we have more predictability, then we'll start to get projections on that.

    Notice he hints "10 or 12", but I suspect all he got this time was money from EV1. Looking forward to the conference call to see if anybody challenges his smoke-and-mirrors show.
  • SCO? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What, are they still around?
  • in related news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spacerodent ( 790183 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:47PM (#9944295)
    I wonder how many figures their legal bill is. Somehow I suspect its a seven or eight figures at least.
  • by duslow ( 648755 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:47PM (#9944297)
    Yeah, but what if nobody pays for it. How do they expect to generate 6-figure revenue from nothing? They have to win their cases first, and that doesn't seem to be that likely.
  • Before we panic ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by crimethinker ( 721591 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:48PM (#9944304)
    When I saw the mention of six figure revenue from SCOScam^H^H^Hource, I thought, oh shit, the FUD has been working. But then I remembered the EV1Servers deal. Didn't that happen too late to be counted on last quarter? Really, has anyone publicly stepped up and said, "SCO is right, and we're buying a license." I mean, since EV1 got slapped by the community for swallowing the BS hook, line, sinker, rod, and fisherman?


    • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:22PM (#9944531) Journal
      Really, has anyone publicly stepped up and said, "SCO is right, and we're buying a license.

      Publicly? No. How do you know what the millions of small to mid sized businesses may have done?

      700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc..
      • 700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc

        The only problem with that is "Once you pay danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."

      • by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @03:23AM (#9945477) Homepage
        That Copyrights aren't the same as Patents. Users typically aren't actionable for past and current infringements of Copyright unless they themselves are guilty of willful and active infringement- and typically don't owe anything on it. The worst that could have ever come out of this whole thing would be that SCO was right, there was some infringing code and it'd have to come out to be legit under the GPL- once that happened everything would be back to complete normal for the end-users. The only people that would be actionable and possibly facing stautory damages would be the guilty parties of the active act of infringement, not the contributory part. Worse, since SCO's pretty much made a botch job of their enforcement of any possible IP rights by way of keeping it secret- you're supposed to tell the infringers what they're infringing upon so they are obligated to stop. Failing to do so may be an estoppel on their pursuing anyone that currently is infringing- and may cause them to lose rights to the alleged IP with regards to it's use within Linux.

        $700 to throw at a potential problem- no, that's not a lot.

        $700 to throw at a NON-problem (which is what this is, no matter how you slice it...) is far, far too much.

        I can't see what you've said as being really insightful- what you've said is valid, but only in the context of a possible or probable problem and SCO's just not a reality and they're about to be NUKED from orbit by Novell. If Novell gets that Dismissal with Predjudice, I expect that the whole damn SCO mess will implode within a day or so- they didn't own the IP rights at the beginning of all these cases so they're actionable under the Lanham Act and pretty much all of their cases go *POOF*, including the IBM one (since Novell executed their rights per the APA to waive any issues regarding contract or IP with regards to the SVR4 source base...) with SCO facing countersuits and suits regarding their obvious Lanham Act violations, Copyright infringements, and Patent infringements.
  • by MrRuslan ( 767128 )
    I know it has been said before and i will say it again...WTF are these mother fuckers smoking...are they completly retarded or something???
    • I don't know what they're smoking, but I hope they're using the linux kernel source code as rolling papers.
    • What!!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by vwjeff ( 709903 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:19PM (#9944505)
      WTF are these mother fuckers smoking...are they completly retarded or something???

      How dare you ask that question. It should read as follows:

      These guys are smoking dog shit...their mothers(I guess bastards can't have a mother) dropped them on their heads daily as small children.

      Please don't ask questions. When you ask questions it appears that you don't have the answer.
  • Great line (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kafka_Canada ( 106443 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:49PM (#9944320)
    "SCOsource is the Linux users' shakedown program. Apparently, no one is paying up. It took in $11,000 last quarter. That's not a typo. President and CEO Darl McBride paid more lip service to 'increasing shareholder value,' but you really have to wonder about the viability of his vision when his firm's most engrossing initiative brings in less money than the guys who mow lawns in my neighborhood."

    --the Motley Fool []
    • by Kafka_Canada ( 106443 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:56PM (#9944366)
      This also, from a ComputerWorld interview [] with Darl McBride:

      Q. In June, SCO reported that Unix licensing revenue through its SCOsource division totaled just $11,000 in the quarter that ended April 30 - a 99% drop-off from $8.25 million in the same quarter last year. What happened there?

      A. In the day-to-day business, we have some speed bumps that come up from our [intellectual property] issues. In the previous quarter, we had several large licensing deals, but you can't repeat those every quarter. It's not really as brutal as people might expect.

      • by crimethinker ( 721591 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:21PM (#9944515)
        Revenue drops from $8,250,000 to $11,000 and that's a "speed bump"? Talk about cajones! Thankfully I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

        I think the financial world's penchant for integral numbers saved SCO a little face here: if you allow digits to the right of the decimal, it is actually a 99.87% drop in revenue. That's better than Ivory Soap and their "99 and 44/100th's pure" of yesteryear.

        I guess SCO is gunning for a new meaning of "five-nines" - a 99.999% drop in revenue.


      • Speed bumps? Ok, that makes sense, they've stopped smoking crack and have started shooting up speed. Sucks when revenue is down and you can't afford the crack, eh Darl?
      • s/speed bump/wall
  • Bad news (Score:5, Funny)

    by spellraiser ( 764337 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:49PM (#9944321) Journal
    Looks like this guy [] is going to have to get a new account. Such a pity.
  • by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:50PM (#9944323) Homepage Journal
    An associate told me that this was free software, but $699 sounds a bit steep for what looked to me like a hobbyist Mac OSX clone.

    He said you can do all sorts of stuff with it, and I'd sure hope so for that price. :P You can buy a PC with WinXP Home from Dell for that.

  • by Sean Clifford ( 322444 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @08:51PM (#9944329) Journal
    They've ditched the whole currency scheme - now it'll cost 10 shares of Google stock per CPU.
  • How many employees does SCO have working on this? I generated six figures in the last few by months selling mouse pads to users coming from ads on a single website... If investors consider the ability to generate revenue a test of your worth, SCO should be considered quite worthless.
  • I mean, that will mean all those licenses they have charged for will effectively have been fraudulent won't it? That's kinda illegal in most parts of the world, so what will SCO do? Refund everybody? haha right.
  • raise your hand.
  • by Landaras ( 159892 ) <neil&wehneman,com> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:03PM (#9944415) Homepage
    This is slightly OT, but it's in regards to SCO.

    A week ago at SCO Forum, Rob Enderle [] gave a keynote speech entitled "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It." Mr. Enderle employed repeated logical errors, accusations without evidence, and ad hominem attacks. He materially confused the meaning of Free Software, as well as assigning physical threats to the Groklaw / Free Software community without proof.

    I have written a paragraph by paragraph critique of his keynote, and it is available at my site (Part One [] and Part Two [])

    I welcome and appreciate feedback and comments on it. I jokingly refer to the paper as "Logical Fallacies and the Idiots Who Use Them," but did my best to keep the text proper professional.

    - Neil Wehneman
  • If SCO bought the licenses from themselves for all their internal servers like their webserver to claim they made the revenue.

  • by f-bomb ( 101901 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:12PM (#9944472) Homepage Journal
    last time i checked:

    anything * 0 = 0

    maybe they are just going to charge their UnixWare customers an extra $1400 when they bundle in the 'Linux IP' license
  • ($699 + increase) * 0 licenses sold is still $0.
  • by MbM ( 7065 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:21PM (#9944522) Homepage
    Don't buy a license, don't support SCO and most importantly don't give them any money to defend this business practice in court; it's cheaper and it helps out in the long run.
  • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:28PM (#9944561) Homepage Journal
    Blake must be feeling a little down and out now that Rob Enderle is apparently competing with him for the SCO Information Minister position:

    Here is one of Rob Enderle jewels from his SCO keynote:

    That is why I stood up for SCO; they were being attacked because they were vulnerable. Those that attacked them did so because they could in a clear effort to deny the employees, the stockholders, and the customers of SCO their rights and, as a number of veterans have reminded me from time to time, heroes died for those rights and I believe it is our.... No my, obligation to uphold them.

    One can only smirk at the twisted logic of coupling poor vulnerable SCO with the heroes who died for our rights... Not only that, SCO is proud of this address that they host it on their website . If I were them I would take it down immediately and claim I was hacked and the site was defaced.
  • get it while its hot, this deal won't last for long.

    I'll pay when SCO can publish their proof in the form of source code publicly on the internet. Heh, or I'll most likely just steal from them until that block of code, which probably doesn't exist, was removed from the Linux kernel.

    I just love stealing software, it reminds me of the good old days on Windows.
  • Does not compute (Score:4, Interesting)

    by adolfojp ( 730818 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:31PM (#9944583)

    I fail to understand...

    1. They release their own linux distro (Caldera) making their code GPL.
    2. They say that linux infringes their IP, although they have GPL'd it (They haven't proven that it is true anyway).
    3. They try to convince everyone that the GPL is ilegal.
    4. Their latest Unix distro is full of GPL software.

    Please help me understand, perhaps I am too simple minded to ascertain their logic.


  • When I take over the world, there will be a $20 'Existence surcharge'. If you pay now though, you can recieve the discounted price of $7.99 and a 2 liter Mountain Dew.
  • by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:38PM (#9944621) Homepage
    Tht just means I have to ship them more Monopoly money.

    Damn, and I had enough to survive Boardwalk before this...
  • License, or I will type license AGAIN! . bored now. That's it. You are banned. [00:01] *** ChanServ sets mode +b for #linux, SCOsAlEz
  • Big deal $1,000.00 that's "six" figures...
    Although more traditionaly I'd call 100,000 six figures and for whatever reason 1,000,000 can be called six figures too and that's not that impressive at all either. $9,999,999 wouldn't be enough to have made it worth the hate would it?
  • Damn it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by OmegaBlac ( 752432 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @09:49PM (#9944678)
    I was $199 away from getting that license and now this happens! Looks like I need to go find(create) some security holes in Mozilla to pay for the increase in SCO's Linux fee.
  • First they demand a fee for Linux and now they are raising the license fee!?! What are they going to do next sue their customers? Oh wait...
  • Six figures (Score:5, Funny)

    by VistaBoy ( 570995 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:00PM (#9944728)
    EXECUTIVE: "Sir, our evidence was laughed out of court again."
    DARL: "Figures..."

    A little later...

    EXECUTIVE: "Sir, our lawsuit against IBM was thrown out of court!"
    DARL: "Figures... guess I better sell my stock now."
    EXECUTIVE: "Yeah, it's about as high as it will ever be. Our products are being laughed at for being so obsolete in today's market."
    DARL: "Figures..."

    A little later...

    EXECUTIVE: "We're gonna have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy."
    DARL: "Figures..."
    EXECUTIVE: "Looks like the SCO empire is crumbling quickly."
    DARL: "Figures..."
    EXECUTIVE: "Also, there's some SEC guys outside. Said they wanted to talk to you."
    DARL: "Figures..."
  • When they lose their lawsuit (note: I didn't say 'if'), of course they will refund the money, no? I mean, a well-respected and morally sound company like SCO, I have no doubt at all they will. No?
  • you can hear the sound of everyone not giving a shit.

    sco tries to boast themselves up, thus far they've been the big bad wolf who has TB.

    "I'll huff...and I'LL PUFF.... and I'l *cough coughcoughgagcough*"

    *everyone sits there yawning*

    "Wait! lemme try again!"
  • by labratuk ( 204918 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:20PM (#9944788) selling my pants for $100,000.

    It doesn't matter, I can charge what I want because nobody's going to want to buy them anyway.
  • by kkirk007 ( 304967 ) <kkirk007 AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:31PM (#9944846)
    Last week I was willing to pay $0 to SCO for a license, but in the face of potentially increasing fees, now I'm willing to pay ten or twenty times that amount!
  • by talks_to_birds ( 2488 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @10:42PM (#9944912) Homepage Journal
    ...if you want a second opinion without the overhead at Groklaw.

    And the good news is: this guy *is* a lawyer. []

    His take on SCO's increasing their SCOSource license fees:

    • "...I guess SCO lawyers do not to see this motion [Novell's motion to dismiss] coming their way because someone suggested to SCO management that they should increase the price of those SCO licenses
    • to help scare at least one more linux customer into paying license money while the SCO legal scheme goes down in flames. Or maybe I should say gets hosed with cold water."


  • by di0s ( 582680 ) <cabbot917@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @11:13PM (#9945070) Homepage Journal
    Just because they may cost more doesn't mean they'll be worth more (as far as business value)... Don't sellers usually lower prices to get rid of inventory that doesn't sell well?
  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Wednesday August 11, 2004 @11:18PM (#9945092)
    If you want to get a licence later on you will need to give them enough money for them to recover from bankruptcy.

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham