SCO - Buy licenses and we'll "forgive" you

Lemming

Article here

The company also said in a statement that all commercial Linux users are software pirates.

Opening thsemselves to a world of pain when IBM win as all these "software pirates" decide to press for slander. God that'd be amusing to watch :rolleyes:

"While using pirated software is copyright infringement, our first choice in helping Linux customers is to give them an option that will not disrupt their IT infrastructures. We intend to provide them with choices to help them run Linux in a legal and fully paid-for way."

Geeh .. how noble! They want to give linux users "choices" to help them. Umm .... which part of that statement does "buy a license or we sue" fall under?

Boies also stated that there is no need to resolve SCO's pending legal case against IBM before proceeding with the copyright cases it may choose to pursue against unlicensed corporate Linux users.

Now here's the REAL cruncher ...... since IBM are charged with providing the code to the linux community, I would have thought the legal case to be the litmus test as to the legal standing of the linux community. So what if SCO go ahead with these cases, and IBM prove that no code was leaked and that SCO were wrong, what happens to all those companies who paid up?

I smell something funny .... and it smells rather foul.

The company did not completely rule out further action in the future against those who use Linux in a non-corporate setting, but said for the time being it intends to focus on those who "profit from Linux use."

Oh deary me ..... SCO are really trying to endear themselves.


Anyway ..t he whole thing smells of sh*t. THe bit that does it for me is the whole line on not needing to wait for the IBM case to persue users of linux.

fisty

are these press releases supposed to scare us out of using linux?
what a pack of jackasses.

Typedef

What a load of arse.

SCO will have to prove that theft has taken place, against company x, and by inference IBM, before it can sucessfully sue anybody. Sure, it may be able to scare some cluless marketing droids into buying SCO licences, but, everybody else will let IBM drag SCO through the court system and out the other side.

SCO has some major sort of cheek, trying to post-licence alleged code, in Linux.

This sort of nonesense was enivatable, what with all that money being involved.

Still, if SCO can use FUD, to squeeze money out of over-protetionist manager-x, it will be worth it for SCO, even if, after selling licences on the grounds of alleged copyright violation, SCO is found to be in error and has to give the money back.

Hmm.... maybe I should bye some SCO stock?

Capt'n Midnight

I thought that thier claims would be thrown out in any EU court since we don't endorse the God-Given right of US monoplolies to retrospectively patent software that has been published...

AFAIAA if you can't Patent "prior art" ie if anyone has published it anywhere - it's out of the bag. - and you can't patent SW on this side of the atlantic (or any side of the south atlantic) (again Algorithms would not be locked in the same way here)

Now here is the crunch - can you sign in such a way that states - "we agree to pay - if SCO agrees to refund us in full - inclucing expenses and interest / loss of earnings should it loose the case..."

Anyway my understanding is that once SCO publish the offending code - that part of the kernel can be re-written - it's only copyright so can easily change word order / variable names - eg: instead of A=0 ,try XOR A,A or SUB A,B etc. etc... - there is a whole science of patent breaking - so doable...

Correct me if I am wrong this only applies to multiple processors so single processor usage (99%) and perhaps cluster usage should still be unaffected.

Also can SCO put up thier hands and say they use no GNU or other sw or derivations that require them to submit full source code of the particular module.....

Again the phrase money for old rope comes to mind..

Typedef

Programmers and legal experts say that a majority of commercial Linux users probably will pass on buying a UnixWare license but some larger corporations might opt to buy a license simply to ensure that they don't become involved in a costly legal wrangle.

"It's like spam," said attorney Frank Barkin. "If you get even a 1 percent response to your offer, you're ahead of the game."

What an apt quote.

fisty

yea it pretty spot on...
its kinda like that saying, if you throw enough mud at the wall, some will stick.

Capt'n Midnight

It's actually support for MORE than TWO processors that is in question - which rules out almost everything except some very high end servers...

Note: In it recent incarnations of application licencing M$ have turned to a PER-PROCESSOR license for some products eg: SQL
(sorta good in that you can run as many clients as you can hang off the processor - I'd recomend a dual proc machine and have one proc do EVERYTHING else and reserve the second one for SQL's sole use)

The bad news is that both of these licenses may to a limited extent stifle the growth of multiprocessor systems..


The other danger is this may work out like genetic engineering - the original work was copyrighted/patented (big dispute between uni and the lab workers on that) and asked all the big biotech companies for a grand each - they paid up 'cos it was cheaper than going to court. Only problem is that by paying the Danegold you have acceded to the claim and precluded any future legal action or protection from further spurious calims...

Here's a question - who wrote the lines of code - and what do they think about all this - and more importantly - do thier views count for anything ? (worse publicity for SCO)

Capt'n Midnight

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227
This was actually done to show someone how to patent something - but it shows what is allowed to be done retrostectively ...


- an aussie has patented a "circular transportation device"

the wheel

PS. AFAIAA you can use patents for your own personnel use ...

Silent Bob

Software patents will soon be valid in the EU (they are voting in September)

It's time to stop the apathy and write to our MEPs

link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/31553.html

sceptre

Didn't Microsoft once own 20% of SCO?

(not that it's all that relevant in any case)

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone thinking of not getting Linux because of licencing uncertainty should be made aware that Microsoft have a law suit on thier hands too.

InterTrust is now seeking an injunction against the following Microsoft products, among others: Windows XP, Office XP, Microsoft .NET, a number of Microsoft .NET-based products and services, Windows Media Player, new embedded products such as Windows CE for automotive, XBOX, and aspects of Microsoft's ActiveX technology. InterTrust is also seeking compensatory and punitive damages for Microsoft's acts of infringement

The Linux lawsuit only really affects servers with more than two processors... and you can bet that if SCO publish the code there will be a patch pdq.

On the M$ Forum
cf: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1020105

[edit] - moved rest to M$ forum

Gerry

So I suppose you think the crappy restricted software currently distributed with sony netmd's is fair enough yeah?

Capt'n Midnight

The old proverb comes to mind "a pox on both your houses"

Seriously the point is Sony are not a monopoly and you do have choice - other companies make similar products for similar prices - yes they take 1.5c royalty on every CD (as do Philips) - but they don't stiffle inovation or invention or blatently rip off other companies without paying them (Ok lets not go in to the history of the CD ..)

Other point SCO don't have as good a case as InterTrust.

The question is will IBM buy them out or will they go for the hard slog ...

Repeated point: If you are worried about the legal status of Linux then Windows is probably in a worse position legally speaking.