Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet)
SCO CEO Darl McBride, it seems, has told vnunet that he may go
after AIX users. "McBride claimed that SCO has the right to audit
IBM's customers. 'We have other rights under the contract we are looking
at. For example, we can audit IBM customers. SCO has audit rights on its
customers,' he said. 'The reality is that we are going into discovery right
now and that might be the vehicle to be able to investigate what we need
there anyway.'" One might well wonder how many AIX (and other
proprietary Unix) customers thought they were giving audit rights to SCO
when they bought their systems.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 26, 2003 15:22 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] I don't understand SCO auditing AIX users:1) What will scox be looking to find in an AIX audit? 2) How does auditing AIX users protect scox's IP? Especially since this IP is supposed to be in Linux. 3) What if AIX users don't cooperate, it's not as if scox has a court order or anything.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 26, 2003 15:27 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I suppose they would be checking to make sure the customers had shipped all of their AIX materials back to IBM (or had documentation showing they'd destroyed their perfectly good operating system in fear of SCO's Awesome Wrath.)<chuckle>...
Why (Was: SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet)) Posted Jun 26, 2003 15:36 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You are assuming that they expect to use the audit in a normal fashioninstead of a way to urge IBM to settle without putting up a fight. I don't know what their motivations are in reality, but based on past actions I wouldn't say they were above doing that.
Why (Was: SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet)) Posted Jun 27, 2003 6:35 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] I'd say their intentions are merely to sow more FUD... and I'd expect that companies using AIX would make SCO go to court to get an order to allow them to come in and do an "audit" on their company -- which I seriously doubt they'd be able to get without a favorable ruling in the IBM case.This is just more posturing and bluster from McBride and Co. I do hope customers are getting the message, though -- mess with proprietary software, and you might end up getting burned.
Why (Was: SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet)) Posted Jun 27, 2003 11:49 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Wiyhout any shred of a doubt !!..They are picking "HEAVLY" on IBM,... its not a quest for justice, its just picking like Mcbride & Co have real "PERSONAL" resent against IBM, or some top mangement there !!... I wonder if all this resent proves to be injustifiable as every evidence points to (they didnt sue themselfs for "actively" helping Linux be better, when Caldera) how is IBM going to "RESENT BACK" !
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 26, 2003 15:25 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I hope that Red Hat and Suse and others plan to take HUGE advantage of this great opportunity to point out that the GPL and other open source licenses under which they sell their software would obviate even any thought of an audit like this.This is an amazing opportunity to point out to *customers* the huge *business* advantages of open source licences. -Rob
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 26, 2003 15:38 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Except Red Hat has a similar clause in their EULA (ugh, Free Software witha EULA) relating to the use of Red Hat services.
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 26, 2003 17:27 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Sure-- so you might be audited by the person you signed the contract with, and you know that.But with the open source licence, no third party can come in and audit you to ensure their proprietary rights. And, if you decide the Red Hat service isn't for you, you can cancel the service but keep using the software without any worries. -Rob
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 26, 2003 18:03 UTC (Thu) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] well lets face it Red Hat seem to want to be the next M$ with their antics...Pete .
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 27, 2003 8:46 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] Oh, geez... that's so tired, not to mention a wholly mistaken comparison. All Red Hat is doing is saying that if you buy support through them, they are selling support per machine and they expect their customers to pay for that. If you don't want to pay, use another distro or get the free version of Red Hat and support it yourself. They do have to make money to keep funding the development and so forth that they do.I'd like to see you download the free version of Windows 2003 Server and source code. It'd be nice if people would stop looking for controversy. Red Hat isn't doing anything Microsoftian here, their customers have quite a bit of choice as to whether they want to enter into this kind of agreement with Red Hat and they have plenty of alternatives if they want to use Linux and don't like Red Hat's terms.
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 26, 2003 21:23 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] That's not completely accurate. Here is the RedHat Advanced Server EULA. http://www.redhat.com/licenses/advancedservereula.htmlIt's pretty uncontroversial. Basically, it says that each program comes with it's own license and that you should read them. Taken as a "collective work under U.S. Copyright Law" RHAS is licensed under the GPL. You are thinking of Redhat Service agreement. http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html The service agreement says that you have to pay for support for each system. The contract runs out after a year if you don't renew it. RedHat can audit you if they choose. Some people don't like the word "audit" because in the software world, "auditing" is used as a form of punishment. For example the word is used in phrases like: "Call the BSA to audit your ex-employer", "Microsoft audits Oregon Schools" or "SCO audits AIX customers." RedHat is not likely to fly someone in to audit your business, but if they do fly someone in to fix a system and that person finds that you've only paid for support on half your RHAS systems then, of course, they have a right to be upset.
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 27, 2003 10:53 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] So is it legal for me to:1. freely distibute all the packages (sans offending ones) from a public files server? 2. Distribute the updates packages of Advanced Server (sans offending ones) from a public files server? public files server: ftp, http, rsync, edonkey, whatever. This should also apply to distibuting through apt-rpm Without the updates packages you have a server that is pretty nice for academic-study/evaluation purpase, but not for any real-world use.
Grand marketing opportunity Posted Jun 27, 2003 10:57 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Q1: yes, you can freely distribute all the packages (they are GPL). Q2: yes, you can freely distribute all of the updates (again, GPL). What you can't do is sign up for support and install on more machines than you have paid for.
Fools I tell you Fool's Posted Jun 26, 2003 17:05 UTC (Thu) by johnjones (guest, #5462) [Link] yes they can walk along to IBM customers and say we would like to audit you...BUT they wont 1/ they cant get in the door unless the site administrator gives them access ( this is 2/ its hugly expensive to send out letters asking for access to read the documentation that 3/ they can see documentation its not like they can play with your systems ! just like if you 4/ this is a threat to IBM there has got to be a damages suit looming from IBM, when that happen's goodbye SCO ! regards John Jones
Shake up or shake down? Posted Jun 26, 2003 18:49 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] From the article, thus quoth the Darl:"As we move into discovery, this will be very nice for us because now we get to go in and talk to all their people, their customers. We get to really shake things up and get in to find out what really is going on over there," he said.Emphasis added. This is looking more and more like an old-fashioned shake down. SCO may be hoping that high up in IBM, a decision will be made just to buy SCO out. Last time I looked, of the 12.2 million shares outstanding, only 3.9 million were characterized as float. Originally, Mr. Ray Noorda had the Lion's share of Caldera stock. It would be interesting to know if that is still true. As of today, the market capitalization of SCOX is $120.7 million. The power behind SCO may be hoping that will seem to be a bargain once IBM starts noticing lagging Linux server sales and enough customers move from AIX to Solaris.
Shake up or shake down? Posted Jun 26, 2003 19:23 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] But remember, if IBM lawyers really believe that SCO has no case, they don't have to buy out anyone.Besides, has anyone here really seriously considere the effect on people if IBM did buy out SCO? Good for Linux? Bad for Linux? What about for Free Software? I also wonder another thing: I keep hearing business reports on the radio complaining that "the economy" isn't doing so well in the U.S. Has it occurred to anyone yet that maybe the people who actually make the bread might be getting fed up with the people who claim to own the mills? Especially since Enron.
Shake up or shake down? Posted Jun 27, 2003 15:53 UTC (Fri) by donstuart (subscriber, #4550) [Link] IBM probably does believe SCO has no case and they are probably correct. They probably expect to eventually win. Their problem is that legal costs and lost sales could cost them a large amount of money in the meantime. Even if they counter-sue and win they can't collect much from an empty shell like SCO. They could decide that a payoff is cheaper than winning. It wouldn't be the first time that a meritless lawsuit generated good results for the plantiff (see Jones, Paula).Why should they stand and fight? They don't want to look like an easy target for other shakedowns but that only goes so far. Essentially, we are hoping they will take one for the team. If they do, we should thank them. Don
Shake up or shake down? Posted Jun 27, 2003 12:15 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "THAT CANT REALY HAPPEN, EVER...""THAT WOULD BE A TREASON AGAINST ALL "LINUX/OSS" COMMUNITY..." The buy out of SCO by IBM should not even be acceptable by the "Linux/OSS" community, even if IBM faces the real danger of losing the case and had to pay a enormous penalty... "OTHERWISE", without real danger of losing, as every shred of evidence points to, it will only be helping FUD like:- "there was stolen code in Linux or other OSS, but IBM bought the complaints out"... that will be "DESASTROUS" for Linux/OSS for years.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 26, 2003 23:31 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
Quite simple: none. And that's also how many customers SCO actually has the right to audit, as far as I can see it: none. If I license AIX from IBM and the contract does not explicitely state that SCO (or others in general) have a right to audit me, why should they? They can try, of course, and spread more FUD to make you believe they can, but when you actually think things over, you'll realize that it's nothing but the thrashing of a dying (or, for all practical purposes, already dead) company.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jul 3, 2003 1:31 UTC (Thu) by cyanide (guest, #2236) [Link] They may be thrashing and dying, but they're thrashing pretty hard with the extra cash injection provided by MSFT. They could certainly thrash for a lot longer if IBM settles.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 27, 2003 2:13 UTC (Fri) by PhilHannent (guest, #1241) [Link] This is more rattling the sabre, to get IBM to over react.Most intelligent system administrators will see through this but its news sites like Zdnet that are going to slant this into a your safer with Microsoft article. That will then get read by management and that will slow Unix and Linux progress.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 27, 2003 6:47 UTC (Fri) by hjweth (guest, #1365) [Link] Yeah, because we know the BSA^WMicrosoft doesn't do stuff like this.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 28, 2003 19:45 UTC (Sat) by lshurr (guest, #10094) [Link] >This is more rattling the sabre, to get IBM to over react.In fact, to get IBM to react period. IBM's responses have been so low key that one may wonder if they're not taking SCO seriously. Their reaction has certainly not been satisfactory to SCO -- witness SCO's lame taunts, e.g., calling IBM's initial response "extremely weak." My opinion, FWI, is that IBM's saving it for trial, like they always do. It's SCO that wants and needs for this dispute to be tried in unrestricted public forums where one can play fast and loose with the facts and say almost anything except the outright defamatory and, even then, you can come pretty close to that as well. It's nice to think that that IBM's getting ready to publicly pulverize SCO, and maybe they will. More likely, however, they'll simply roll out a case that gradually undermines SCO's assertions and claims, one-by-one, with little or no public furor.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 27, 2003 7:18 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>As of today, the market capitalization of SCOX is $120.7 million.<<Up from $25 million before the lawsuit started. And you better believe insider are selling like mad. >>The power behind SCO may be hoping that will seem to be a bargain once IBM starts noticing lagging Linux server sales and enough customers move from AIX to Solaris. << That was what scox/sunw/msft hoped for, and it didn't happen. scox punked out in Germany, scox also punked out on getting an immediate temporary injunction. It has become increaslingly obvious that scox is all bark and no bite. scox won't really do any audits either.
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jun 28, 2003 4:07 UTC (Sat) by uaimp (guest, #12170) [Link] On the one hand SCO is not showing any evidence of copied code in Linux. On the other hand everyday they have been spreading FUD. This looks like a real CON job.
Future Hoax Writers Posted Jun 27, 2003 14:07 UTC (Fri) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] Once SCO goes bust, McBride and Sontag can make their living writing virus hoaxes. They seem to have a natural talent for deceitful hyperbole.A future MrBride and/or Sontag press release:
SCO may audit IBM's AIX customers (vnunet) Posted Jul 3, 2003 5:37 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] We have other rights under the contract we are looking at. For example, we can audit IBM customers. SCO has audit rights on its customers,More pure, unsupported bullshit. The Contract they are looking at has to mean the one they have with IBM. Problem is that there is no way, even in principle, that a Contract between SCO and IBM can grant SCO the rigth to "audit" the computer-systems of some third party, say me, who happens to use AIX. Contract law is restricted to the parties involved in the contract. There is no way for parties X and Y to write a contract that gives X the rigth to audit Z. This could only happen if Z themse4lves agreed to such a condition in a contract they signed. SCO needs to get a grip. They also need to start preventing evidence, or face massive slander-suits. I suspect this does not worry them very much: they expect to go into chapter-11 in the next year or so anyway.
|
|||||||||||