Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)
InfoWorld speculates
on SCO's new Linux licensing scheme which may or may not be announced
at Monday's press conference. "While the majority of Linux customers
probably would not participate in a SCO licensing program, [analyst Gordon]
Haff predicted some companies might be willing to pay SCO for the security
of knowing they would not be sued. SCO is 'hoping that even if 99 percent
of Linux customers laugh in their face, that there will be sufficient large
companies who, for what is presumably going to be a relative drop in the
bucket of their IT budgets, can potentially eliminate a cloud over their
heads,' he said."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 16:14 UTC (Sat) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] Well we all knew it was a money making scheme, but why bother? SCO are going bust anyway. Who are these people to 'license' Linux?
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 23:27 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I don't think they are serious about releasing a licensing plan. This is just an event to scare up more press. They might actually release a plan just for the dramatic effect, but they're not serious about it.This situation is similar to the ongoing patent battle between Timeline Inc and Microsoft. In Febuary, a judge ruled that customers could be liable because Microsoft violated a contract with Timeline. After the verdict Timeline stock doubled. SCO has a weaker case, because they are arguing that code and algorythms which IBM wrote and patented are really trade secrets which through an unusual set of circumstances belongs to SCO. Despite the weak basis of the lawsuit, SCO has been able to generate an incredible amount of press and its stock has increased to 10 times its original value.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 16:36 UTC (Sat) by bret (guest, #13048) [Link] Gosh, this looks an awful lot like paying protection money to the mob. "Give us money you don't owe us and we won't attack you."SCO provided it's own distro of GNU/Linux, released under the same GPL. How ingenuous, to now claim it's their proprietary property. Were they lying then, or now? Can't both be true. Before that, the ATT/UC Berkeley court case settlement severed the connection between the free Unix code and the commercial stream, and pointed out some in the commercial stream was taken from the free stream. http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html Fame lasts 15 minutes, infamy lasts a bit longer...
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 4:21 UTC (Sun) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I dont' think Caldera Linux was licensed under GPL as a whole. Sure, it included components under the GPL and took advantage of the permission to distribute the code under the GPL. But I don't think the license for the distribution as a whole, if it existed at all, was GPL.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 16:37 UTC (Sun) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] That's somewhat irrelevent. The code in question (at least, currently) is only in the Linux kernel. I'm sure you'd find (though I haven't checked), that the kernel included in Caldera's distribution did include a copy of the GPL and indicated that it applied to the *kernel* as a whole.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 18:25 UTC (Sat) by cgilkes (guest, #2113) [Link] So, if I don't pay, I'll being sleeping with the fishes......
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 18:26 UTC (Sat) by macemoneta (guest, #2717) [Link] Handy definitions:1. What is extortion? Extortion is committed when a person forces another person to do something against his will (usually give up money) by threat of death or bodily injury, extreme financial hardship or damage to the person's reputation. Extortion is a class 4 felony. 2. What is racketeering? Racketeering is criminal activity in furtherance of an enterprise, even if the enterprise has lawful purposes. 2. What is RICO? RICO -- the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- is a federal statute originally enacted in 1970 to control organized crime (such as the Mafia). In the early 1990s, however, this law was expanded to target non-traditional organized crime groups. The statute makes it unlawful to conduct or conspire to conduct an enterprise whose activities affect interstate commerce by committing or agreeing to commit a pattern of racketeering activity.
so what SCO is saying ... Posted Jul 19, 2003 18:57 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] is that the GPL doesn't mean anything.
I like best Wes Felter's take on this Posted Jul 19, 2003 18:58 UTC (Sat) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] at his Hack The Planet weblog: SCO readies new Linux extortion program.He, too, likens it to protection money. Wouldn't it be nice if I could say "Wes is trying out for a spot writing headlines for the Onion"?
How to sell something you don't own? Posted Jul 19, 2003 20:23 UTC (Sat) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] In some countries there are laws to make some things illegal.In other countries it is possible to sell pieces of the moon or mars, "insurence" against arseny or even a license to use Linux without being sued. Sounds like an offer you can't refuse.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 19, 2003 20:58 UTC (Sat) by mklatsky (guest, #2196) [Link] And I also guess, that, if(when) SCO loses their case, they'll gladlyrefund the license fees to which they are not entitled? Oh but of course! :)
Sounds more and more like a Scam Posted Jul 19, 2003 23:18 UTC (Sat) by conz (guest, #4784) [Link] As I've mentioned in other forums, this whole fiasco is soundng more and more likea manufactured scam on SCO's part.
Sounds more and more like a Scam Posted Jul 20, 2003 14:32 UTC (Sun) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Of course it's a scam. But not to sell linux licenses, only to pump the stock price.From the article: 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. Scox said they would sue Linux Torvald, they haven't. http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=SCOX&selected=SCOX
Pathetic Posted Jul 20, 2003 0:09 UTC (Sun) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] Expect a few paid shills to step up to the plate following the execution of this latest scam from SCO. These guys are just criminals.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 1:22 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] We all know SCO are going down the tubes so why would anyone in there rightminds pay em one penny/cent ... Anyone that pays SCO anything other than total disregard is purley playing into the hands of last moment attempts to find the money to make themselfs nice big fat golden handshakes when SCO finally goes BUM upards... Pete .
The SCO Group would then be in violation of the GPL license Posted Jul 20, 2003 5:48 UTC (Sun) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] The GPL and LGPL licenses do not grant the right to sublicense the code.From the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance..
The SCO Group would then be in violation of the GPL license - and they do not care Posted Jul 20, 2003 12:08 UTC (Sun) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] Who said they will sublicense anything GPL'ed ? They will sublicense their code. Wrongly GPL'ed by others. They will give you nice paper which will guarantee that even if you are using code illegaly sold to you by RedHat under GPL you are "in the clear" as far as SCO is concerned. Sure: if you accept such a license you can not redistribute or modify code in question (even inhouse!) or you'll stumble upon IBM, HP, SGI and so on copyrights but you can run it "without worry" and this can be enough for someone... Obviously if there are no such code they will be criminals - but to say this we need to wait for a few years. Long enough for SCO... P.S. Oh... and after that SCO will never be able to distribute Linux but looks like they do not care as well.
The SCO Group would STILL be in violation of the GPL license - and the FSF do care Posted Jul 20, 2003 14:37 UTC (Sun) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] The SCO group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL'ed kernel, containing the supposed "infringing source". SCO executives have publicly claimed that they knew of the existance of the supposed "infringing source" for many months before they considered legal action.To quote Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, in the FSF Statement on SCO v. IBM But even if SCO could show that some portions of its UNIX source code were copied into the kernel, the claim of copyright infringement would fail, because SCO has itself distributed the kernel under GPL. By doing so, SCO licensed everyone everywhere to copy, modify, and redistribute that code. SCO cannot now turn around and argue that it sold people code under GPL, guaranteeing their right to copy, modify and redistribute anything included, but that it somehow did not license the copying and redistribution of any copyrighted material of their own which that code contained. Any attempt to introduce a sublicense would open The SCO Group to potential legal action from any and all individuals or organizations, including IBM,HP, who hold copyright over parts of the same Linux kernel SCO have distributed. Such an attempt to limit downstream rights could result in The SCO Group being potentially liable for damage claims from everyone who currently uses the same linux source. Remember that The SCO Group's own Unix offering relies on many GPL's components. The SCO Group's violation of the GPL license of the kernel would grant the right for any the copyright holders of those components to file an injunction to prevent the SCO distributing SAMBA,CDRecord,Squid and most importantly the entire GNU GCC toolchain and libraries, all vital components for a modern Unix system.
SCO is not SO dumb Posted Jul 20, 2003 12:00 UTC (Sun) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] Heh. You are overlooking one small detail: then can sell you licence for "SCO's IP included in Linux". Even if there are no SCO's IP in Linux in first place (though in this case RICO will bite them... eventually). They can not and thus will not sell you "License for Linux" - they know such license will be illegal. More: they can not and thus will not sell such a license to Linux distributors - this will be illegal as well. But they can and looks like will sell license to end users. So you can buy Linux from RedHat (never bought license and has rights to distribute Linux under GPL) and license from SCO (does not distribute anything under GPL and does not care) and be "in the clear": you'll lose rights to redistribute Linux as per GPL but nothing in GPL says you'll lose rights to run it. The only problem: they can not sell license to distributors (this will invalidate their copyright and make Linux distribution illegal) so only end users will be in the clear ...
And what can be done about that ? Who knows: I'm not layer - it's not clear what can be done till it's proven that there are no SCO's trade secrets in Linux. After - it's obviously illegal extortion, before - unclear. So in SCO's interests is to make this process go on forever. Very clever... We'll need to see actual licensing terms to see if it's illegal already though.
Does SCO expect that end users will be SO dumb? Posted Jul 20, 2003 14:55 UTC (Sun) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] The SCO Group might have stood a chance had it not sold and distributed the GPL'ed binaries and source code to the Linux Kernel. Once The SCO did distribute, they forfeited the right to impose any further restriction of the source use under the GPL than what is granted by the GPL license.
Does SCO expect that end users will be SO dumb? Posted Jul 21, 2003 11:07 UTC (Mon) by danam (guest, #13082) [Link] So how about PUBLICLY revoking SCO's right touse the GPL'd Linux Kernel. That would kind of halt their "we-are-the-safe-linux" fantasies, not so ?
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 20:11 UTC (Sun) by raymondk (guest, #13070) [Link] This is becoming a bad joke (long with no possible punch line). It has all the symptoms of the past (limited lock down software) clashing with the future (open source & free). If SCO is unable to adapt (and open up), then let them die, for they are no longer useful!Raymond (South Africa)
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 22:22 UTC (Sun) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] Make no mistake about it, this move by SCO, if true, is an attack upon the GPL, an attack which I for one have expected for some time, and especially now following on the heels of the attack on Linux. It is clear that SCO is not alone in this attack on Linux and Free software, that allies such as Microsoft and Sun behind the scenes. Since this action could ultimately result in the first true test of the GPL, both in court and in the court of "public opinion", it is critically important that the Linux/GPL/Free Software community engineer the correct response to this attack.This attack is not the (perhaps) expected frontal attack, but rather an attempt to engage the open source community, GPL advocates, and business that benefit, in a legal conflict in a setting that will put the GPL and its advocates and beneficiaries at a serious disadvantage. I do not believe that SCO will be successful in extorting money from other corporations in such a fashion (except perhaps from a select few for PR purposes as mentioned above), but then again, I do not believe that is the intent. The intent, I believe, is to invite exactly the kind of proactive response that has been discussed on this and other forums (fora?). Under no circumstances should any business or anyone in the Free Software community move to file any kind of injunction or take any proactive action in the courts in response to this provocation. Such a move would play directly into the hands of SCO and its allies, as such a case would of course be brought before a judge with little familiarity with the GPL, but with the case itself case itself carrying significant "political" or "social" overtones which would very well dominate any judge's thinking, and not to the advantage of the GPL. A case brought in such a context could be a disaster. Contrary to some of what I have read on this and other forums, I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the community or any business to "proactively" defend the GPL. Instead, I believe that the best course of action is to RESPOND to any direct (legal) challenges. As I understand it, the nature of the GPL and any software licensed under it is that you as a challenger must PROVE your right to inhibit or prohibit distribution of said software, generally through direct legal action against another "infringing" corporation or entity, not the other way around. In fact, I think that is basically true of all software licenses. That is, until SCO has proven their case directly against an infringing distributor (or gotten a specific injunction of their own), there is absolutely nothing they can do about the distribution of Linux. And in the outside chance that they do, it will of course then be possible for the community to remove the offending code as soon as it has been revealed, as has been pointed out so many times. Given the above, I believe that the best response to this latest gambit by SCO and its allies is a ramped up PR capaign. Organizations such as the FSF and other interested parties and corporations need to loudly deliver public reassurances about the truths laid out above, couched to the maximum extent in legal language. In addition, the aforementioned parties should declare their preparedness and optimism about defending the GPL and Linux at the appropriate time, in the appropriate venue -- for example, if SCO were to file for an injunction against the distribution of Linux. At this time Linux is getting more than its share of press, and truth be told, most of it cannot be characterized as hostile. If such organizations and companies were to issue such statements to the press, I am confident that they would be widely disseminated. This would provide the necessary reassurance to corporate and other users of the software that the payment of any extortion money is not necessary. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but since this whole affair has started Linus Torvalds has really stepped up the plate in manner I have described above, giving interviews, etc.; he's definitely doing his part. I think that if everyone works together on this, there will eventually be a positive resolution for Linux and the GPL. Peter Yellman
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 5:43 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] You don't need to worry about the GPL. This comes up over and over and over again, "What if a court found the GPL invalid?"This is ignorant. First, in what way exactly invalid ? The GPL is not a license anyone is forced to accept in the first place. Anyone are perfectly free to not accept the provisions of the GPL. The thing is, there exists this thing called copyrigth-law. This says that only the copyrigth-owner is entitled to make copies of a work, or to distribute the work. GPL is only a set of extra permissions with conditions. It in effect says that IF you agree to certain limitations, then you can distribute the software (in original or changed form). If you don't agree, then that's perfectly ok. But then, by pure copyrigth-law, you cannot distribute at all. People misunderstand this all the time: "If GPL where to be deemed invalid, Microsoft would be free to incorporate parts of Linux in their prorietary OS". Type of comments. This is silly, pure copyrigth-law prevents this.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 6:36 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Exactly. The GPL is actually stonger than most software licensesbecause acceptance is not based upon a button click or you use the software. It is based upon distribution of the software. If you didn't agree to the license there is nothing which would allow you to distribute the software. With the more common "by downloading this software/by using this software/by clicking accept you agree to the conditions of the license" arrangement, a user could claim that the purchase of the software had implied a license to use it or claim some other reason to use it under fair use. Of course I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding. The other thing which bothers me is the "viral" terminology used by
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:23 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] >You don't need to worry about the GPL. This comes up over and over and over again, "What if a court found the GPL invalid?"Nowhere in my post do I make anything approaching such a global statement; the word "invalid" does not appear in my post. However, if you and the following poster believe that (1) the GPL is in no way different from any other software license, and (2) the fact that the GPL has never been tested raises no concerns about when and how that eventuality will be dealt with, then you have some serious blinders on. The point I was making was not that the GPL could be declared "invalid" in one fell swoop, but that it is important the first public "test" of the GPL be a victory, no matter how large or small, in its favor, and conversely, that a negative outcome in any such first test could be uniquely damaging. Keep in mind that you are dealing here with corporations such as Microsoft whose lifeblood is long-term litigation; chipping away at open source and the GPL in the courts is exactly their intent, and getting that first one in their pockets would be significant. Peter Yellman
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 24, 2003 13:27 UTC (Thu) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] I very much agree.Essentially, once the US dept of justice gave Microsoft a pass in it's Well, they have the money. The SCO-MicroSoft link is pretty evident This This whole thing isn't really about SCO at all. Sure, it's an exit strategy
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 20, 2003 23:32 UTC (Sun) by edvac (guest, #13074) [Link] Is this article anything more that flamebait? Look at the number of GNU/Linux users in the world outside of the United States, and ask youself if they are going to even give a hoot what sco thinks or does. Do these people at sco really think the rest of the world is just going to bow down to them and pay them money because they are cool or something like that?If you happen to have a copy; look at "Caldera Lite, Release 1.0, 24 April 1996" (distributed by caldera), it uses the GPL licensed kernel. Sorry sco, you loose.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 5:45 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] You don't need to go that far back at all. Infact I downloaded a kernel, complete with COPYING-file containing the GPL and sourcecode for the entire thing from ftp.caldera.com on the 15th of may 2003, long after SCO started this present nonsense.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 6:28 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Heck, you can still download it if you want.ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/current/RPMS Regular old kernels, with the same md5sums as the ones Suse distributes.
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) Posted Jul 21, 2003 14:09 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] <SARCASM>Hmmm. SO what you are saying is that SCO is still distributing what they claim to have closed license of, under terms and conditions of the GNU / GPL? What a surprise! </SARCASM>
SCOX stock scam working like a charm Posted Jul 21, 2003 14:16 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Scox insiders laughing all the way to the bank. Scox up 15% Friday, and another 12% so far today. Scox up over 600% since lawsuit started. Insiders selling like mad.http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=SCOX&selected=SCOX Linux user *still* don't get it. This is just a scam for the insiders to back out at insane valuation. Scox has never had a profitable year. In fact, Scox is a company with a book value of $10 million, and scox has lost as much as $125 million in a year. Scox was selling for way under a dollar in the last 52 weeks. Now this failing company is rich rich rich. All because nobody can see what scox is *really* up to. There will be no attempt at licensing linux - don't be silly. Why do you think insiders gave themselves a boat-load of options at $0.001 each when scox was planning this lawsuit in January? It's so obvious.
SCOX stock scam working like a charm Posted Jul 21, 2003 14:45 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] Hmmm....I keep seeing this "insider trading" thing on several sites. Anyone out there, with any amount of stake in the Linux movement, have any suggestions for dealing with it?
Why do you think people don't see it? Posted Jul 21, 2003 14:51 UTC (Mon) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Surely you don't think it's Linux users that are driving up the stock price?It's obvious enough, there's just not much we can do about it.
SCOX stock scam working like a charm Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:41 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] With any luck this bubble will bust wide open like the Enronesque hoax that this really is. Those danged fool investors that are willing to put their money in SCO deserve to lose their pensions, and those money managers that are putting my 401K funds in there need to be soundly flogged.
Why do you think people don't see it? Posted Jul 23, 2003 15:13 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Because so many posters think scox is serious about collecting money from Linux users, or getting some big payoff from IBM.SCO cannot do either of those things. There is no legal basis. But, in the court of public opinion, you don't need a legal basis. Canopy group made a lousy investment in SCO. Now canopy want to back out, at top dollar. That is all there is to it. If Canopy/SCO can pump the stock price, that's all that matters. Canopy/SCO has won.
|
|
||||||||||||