| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux
SCO has announced its
latest move: concerned Linux users will be able to buy a UnixWare License
for a "run-time, binary use of Linux." If you buy into their protection
scheme, they promise not to sue - but only for binary use. Looking at the
source (or modifying it), it seems, will not be allowed. It will be
interesting to see how many companies actually buy these licenses.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:34 UTC (Mon) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] Just when I thought that SCO couldn't go much lower."Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager, SCOsource intellectual property division, The SCO Group. "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."
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:44 UTC (Mon) by freeio (guest, #9622) [Link] Hey, you! Yes, you!You never know what might happen to a nice business like yours. All sorts of things just might happen - the place might burn down, you might get a case of broken kneecaps, or lawyers might appear at your door. It could ruin you! You just never know, do you? But me and my buddies here can help you with this. Understand? All you gotta do is buy our "insurance," see? I mean, the choice is yours, of course. But we will be back.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 17:58 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Just when I thought that SCO couldn't go much lower.Or in the long run, do more for the Linux community. Assuming that SCO does badly in court, they will have effectively rendered Linux FUD-proof for the near to mid-term future. It won't matter what anyone says that might cast doubt on the legal standing of Linux, the response will be "SCO already tried that and lost." PS. I hope this post looks OK; I'm posting from a sub-standard system.
Where is the mainstream media? Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:50 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Can we at least get the mainstream media to at least say:"Linux user do not owe SCO anything" Would that be so much? Theoretically, the media is supposed to inform the public. I know, in practice, the pop-media is a just a shill for their advertisers. Still doesn't the media have *some* obligation, *some* concern to alert the public to an absolute fraud? As you probably already know, SCOX is claiming, that unless Linux users buy UnixWare SCO will sue the Linux users. >>The company said it plans to offer UnixWare licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on the 2.4.x and later versions of the Linux kernel. SCO said any commercial Linux customers that purchase the license will be held harmless against past copyright violations and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format<< http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/2237771 Of course, SCO can not enforce this. But, those who don't know better may be fooled SCOX's attempts at fraud and extortion.
Where is the mainstream media? Posted Jul 21, 2003 17:17 UTC (Mon) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] Well, it's understandable for any media to avoid giving its readers legal advice.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:58 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Now you know why they will not post the infringing code!!!!
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 16:10 UTC (Mon) by dvrabel (subscriber, #9500) [Link] I always assumed they couldn't actually find any...
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 16:24 UTC (Mon) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] I will love to see in USA the same action against SCO as in Germany: show the code or shut up.I do really not understand legal system - but I beleive even IBM can go with this kind of case: IBM already involved. Actually any-one who is in UNIX business involved. SCO has _*nothing*_ concerning Linux kernel source code infrigement. It will be just sad to see how much people will be bought to SCO. They just have grown in eyes of publicity big enough - they are attacking Big Blue after all - to persue anyone to pay them money. I hope that court will dissmiss they motion to enforce license on Linux kernel - if will be any - on base that they gave _*no*_ chance to customers of Linux kernel to aviod IP infrigement. Good Luck there in USA.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 16:52 UTC (Mon) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] This is absolutely incredible!How dare they ask me for money so that they won't sure me for making money using a free operating system, distributed under the GNU General Public License! It's difficult to put into words the anger I am feeling right now towards this company. How can they possibly get away with this? How can they be stopped? Surely the GPL does not allow this?! Or is there a loophole, as long as they themselves aren't distributing Linux? It seems more likely to me that SCO is simply ignoring the GPL, and hoping that it can't be enforced.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 17:36 UTC (Mon) by stark (guest, #13095) [Link] You're really missing something critically important here.Hypothetically : If I submit code through LKML to Linus and it gets into the This is, obviously, patently false, ignorant, and misleading. The problem is that there is a trust layer in that I said Then the GPL licensed code contains tainted material and it So if IBM submitted code to the Linux kernel that IBM stole from So you should be saying "how come SCO is charging me insurance to I don't think they could win a court case against an end user The problems that people _should_ be harping on are : 1 - Does SCO actually own the copyright? If not, then IBM 2 - Is SCO harping about specific code or IP? If it's IP that's 3 - Has the Linux kernel ever, from any source, not just IBM/SCO, 4 - I seem to recall early on in this SCO claiming that the source In the end, I'm reserving judgement till the code fragments in
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:51 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] 1 - Does SCO actually own the copyright? If not, then IBM simply stole it from someone else, so this isn't entirely a good thing.What??? If SCO doesn't own the copyright on the code in question, it does NOT follow that IBM stole anything. For instance, IBM almost certainly owns the copyright to the read-copy-update (RCU) code. This code was developed by Sequent who was acquired by IBM. SCO claims that their contract with IBM gives SCO ownership of any modifications to Unix that IBM develops. But this is based on an interpretation of the contract clause that is very unlikely to be upheld by a court, IMHO. There's a remote chance that SCO might have some limited rights to RCU, but not exclusive ownership.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 23, 2003 19:47 UTC (Wed) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Hypothetically;The trust layer is always a variable. Be we are not talking about a straw man, Nothing SCO has said yet about this Can you come up with an example of a developer Yes, SCO has stated that it is the Kernel If it isn't the kernel, it isn't Linux. does SCO own the copyright? What copyright? As to whether SCO is harping about lines Yes, it is acrimonious. SCO has gone from how many to how many in It's a very old trick, "Let's see 'em deny it". Works really well in the press and doesn't cost SCO is nothing but big bosses and lawyers anymore.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 16:57 UTC (Mon) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Just download ftp://ftp.sco.com//pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm Now you have linux under a general public license, from the SCO Group.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 18:51 UTC (Mon) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link] i just did that. i post the following log:kevin@owsla( 7:37)% rpm --checksig -v linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:01 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Well, let's think about this another way: sco says people have been infringing since 2001, and their kernel srpm is 2.4.13, which is from Oct. 2001. If that's the last version they say is legal, then let's have a look at the changelog for 2.4.14:final: pre8: pre6: pre5: pre4: pre3: pre2: pre1:
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:03 UTC (Mon) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link] From this list of committers, who's working for IBM?
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:15 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] If that's the last version they say is legalGo back and reread. They said no such thing.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:55 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I know they didn't say it explicitly--it's a synthesis: (a) They're still distributing 2.4.13 under GPL, (b) They say that people have been infringing since 2001, therefore, 2.4.13 seems to be the last version they aren't complaining about. They are very foggy in the extreme about their understanding of "Linux" in the first place--they can't seem to figure out the difference between the kernel and the aggregate collection of software in general--so the synthesis seemed as logical as anything else I can think of related to this psychotic case...
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 23, 2003 19:49 UTC (Wed) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Right, and they never do.That sorta sits at the core of the whole thing, doesn't it? Occam's razor applies here.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 21:16 UTC (Mon) by Kef (guest, #13101) [Link] It is gone from SCO's site now... How come? :c)
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 22, 2003 0:16 UTC (Tue) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Hmm, it wasn't gone when I looked again just now :) Maybe you're not set up right for FTP urls? If you're firewalled you need to use passive ftp.
FSF now has "Legal Standing" Posted Jul 22, 2003 3:03 UTC (Tue) by freeio (guest, #9622) [Link] ftp.sco.com is an interesting site. While downloading the above, I took a look around with gftp and found that the S390 linux source is found here on sco's site.ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/RPMS Why does that matter? Well, the S390 linux is the only linux version for which FSF owns the overall copyright. IBM donated that to FSF. SCO is non-compliant with GPL, and is distributing code for which FSF specifically owns the overall copyright. Thus FSF has "legal standing" for copyright claims, since under the circumstances, sco is now distributing FSF code without a license. Remember, the GPL is the only license anyone has to distribute linux. Since sco is flagrantly violating the GPL, they have forfeitted their GPL license to release linux at all. They are thus infringing copyrighted material belonging to the Free Software Foundation.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 17:03 UTC (Mon) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link] Please help polish this up, make it persusasive.http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO
Does BSD now belong to SCO? Posted Jul 21, 2003 17:45 UTC (Mon) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link] This is my understanding of today's disturbing events:After the BSDI/UCB v. AT&T lawsuit it was sort of found that most of the System V stuff was more/as much BSD than AT&T. That AT&T didn't have the copyright; and BSD was liberally copied into their sources. Has this decision now been overturned, and all the BSD code copied into System V been assigned to SCO? And this is turn means that now BSD is a copy of System V rather than the other way round. So any BSD code in Linux is now System V code in Linux?
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 18:07 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] stark, I'm sorry but: you're really missing something critically important here.At the very least scox is putting the cart before the horse. Let scox prove they own linux *first* then let scox start talking about royalties or whatever. Doing things the other way around makes no sense. It would be like me putting up a toll both on the Brooklyn Bridge. Scox is threatening to sue people for using a competitor's product. Scox is saying that is because they own the competitor's product. But scox is only *saying* that. They have offered no proof. It would be like me selling you real estate without ever showing you my deed.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 18:10 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>Well, it's understandable for any media to avoid giving its readers legal advice.<<How about this: "At this time, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that SCOX owns Linux."
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:00 UTC (Mon) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I'm not a concerned user nor will I ever be. There is no evidence or legal basis whatsoever that says SCO owns anything within Linux. But just on the off chance that they are right, with no evidence whatsoever, we can give them our money to get them off our backs. Come on SCO, please defend your intellectual property rights in court and give us all a laugh will you?Alternatively, just go out of business, will you? The end cannot be far away. Is that Frank Sinatra I can here?
SCO says it's in your best interest to wait till you are sued before buying in: Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:29 UTC (Mon) by jcurious (guest, #2845) [Link] I realy find this quote intresting:"SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format." so basically it is in your best interest to wait until you are sued since your rights to linux and SCO's copyrights are greater before you purchase UnixWare ("ANY copyright violation") then after ("use of linux in a run-only, binary format").
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:40 UTC (Mon) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] SCO announced today there new marketing campaign: "April, 1st, all year". CEO Darl McBride explained to reporters today, that tests with focus groups have shown to increase the brand recognition dramatically. SCO will now do everything to become the most well known brand in America and in the rest of the world, even if it needs to sue Coca Cola for the use of the letters C and O. Industry analysts commented, that this might be a very smart move by the company, given that its brand name consists almost 67% of the letters C and O and Coca Cola uses both letters two times. SCO Vice Presiden Chris Sontag is quoted by reporters with the question: "Do you know how often the word Copyright, containing also C and O, has been found by researchers in our UNIX code?"
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:01 UTC (Mon) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I think SCO is making a grave mistake here.Up till now there has been alot of very hot air with regards to linux itself. Now they are claiming ownership of the whole thing, going to do a binary package of it, and license it. Included in linux is a huge body of code that clearly doesn't belong to them, is clearly licensed, clear as to provenance, and clearly owned by the various kernel hackers. They are including that in the license, or they must be, since a binary linux to work (if it is actually linux) must include them. Are they assuming that the developers will be happy with a portion of the take? Or are they assuming that they don't care about their property which they licensed under the GPL? What will the reaction be if say, Al Viro, announces that the binary linux is ok as long as it doesn't have any of his bio code in it? Or Linus says it's ok as long as none of his code is in it? Etc. There won't be a whole lot left, I think. Or maybe someone will call the prosecutor about a theft. Derek
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 22, 2003 6:11 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] > Now they are claiming ownership of the whole thing, going to do> a binary package of it They do NOT say that they are going to distribute Linux binaries. That would be even more confrontational than what they are already
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:09 UTC (Mon) by Crusher-1 (guest, #10046) [Link] Google search:Ransom+Love+conference+Linux+Unix = SCO dead in the water. Ransom Love gave a speech at a major conference. In said speech he stated that Caldera would "help" the development of the Linux kernal, and made direct mention of the 64bit development by make Unix codes available to the developers. If you read the speech and then look into IP and "trade secrets" one will find that SCO's claims are essentially baseless. Also, they started this soon after a couple of the news sites posted the article with the details about Mr Love's speech. The first sign of backpedelling is concessions. "Ok, so maybe if the trial doesn't go well we can still scare the CIO's and Legal teams at various companies and make a little cash then - that way we still don't have to actually have a product or development cycle". The other thing to remember is that this is a contract dispute overall. This is way SCO won't actually show the alledged infringing code - if they did that all the steam would go out of the FUD campaign. Expect more twists and turns as the trial date gets closer. Perhaps, we will actually see a buy out. Oh, and does anyone know SCO's stock value right now - gee it seems that everytime they pull this it goes up! Hmmm, can you say day trading on the specs?
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:23 UTC (Mon) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link] >> This is way SCO won't actually show the alledged infringing code -Actually we know most of the claimed infringements RCU to wit,
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 21, 2003 22:14 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>RCU, JFS, SMP, NUMA<<SCO also claims to own: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and C++. SCO has hinted that they may also own MacOS and MS-Windows.
Meanwhile,,,, back in Florida... Posted Jul 21, 2003 22:30 UTC (Mon) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link] Looks like SCO's lawyer is having a little problem of his own.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17302-2003Jul19.html
Meanwhile,,,, back in Florida... Posted Jul 22, 2003 16:55 UTC (Tue) by MLKahnt (guest, #6642) [Link] Noticing the listed cases on which David Boies made his reputation - I'm not sure about the New York Yankees vs. Major League Baseball case, but wrt the Al Gore Florida election case and the CBS vs. General Westmoreland, he was on the losing side of both of those. Great track record ;)
Clean UnixWare code ? Posted Jul 21, 2003 23:26 UTC (Mon) by nicke (guest, #12150) [Link] Looking through the list of features in UnixWare that arenot from the old SysV codebase one cannot help but wonder how much of the new stuff: hardware support (USB,SCSI3 ... driverers for a lot of hardware), scalability etc are based on concepts and/or actual code based on work done by the Linux community? this in addition to the contested "derivative work" like RCU and NUMA We all know that they have been involved in the Linux development It is time to start ask questions about the procedures used at SCO
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 22, 2003 3:47 UTC (Tue) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>It is time to start ask questions about the procedures used at SCOto ensure that their codebase is clean! << You can ask questions, but you won't get answers for sco. SCO will not show it's codebase to anybody. Ex-SCO employees have stated that SCO was frantically stealing GPL code.
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 22, 2003 12:04 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Get an ex-SCO employee to sign a legal affidavit, and the linux developer concerned can demand that SCO release it into court.If SCO won't show its codebase then, they have effectively admitted IN COURT that they are guilty of theft. Bearing in mind SuSE now employs most of Caldera's linux developers, maybe one of them could spill the beans... or did SCOldera do the right thing and keep the Unix and linux teams apart ... Cheers,
SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Posted Jul 22, 2003 17:08 UTC (Tue) by MLKahnt (guest, #6642) [Link] I think it is less a question of whether the teams were kept separate than if SCO did include GPL'd code into UnixWare, it may well have happened before the transfer to Caldera, rather than from the time of having two active programming teams. While Novell did some nominal work with Unix after acquiring it, SCO has not had a reputation of active development or vision of the future of that system, which is why the development mindspace has moved to Linux and the *BSDs.An observation, however - the licenses matter. GPL'd code except as GPL'd callable modules would be a no-no for inclusion. BSD licensed stuff, however, is legal, AFAIK. I remember reading, years ago (as in late '80s of some previous millenium) that the SCO name was chosen as a marketing slight of hand - they tried to sneak in under the radar of large companies by leaving the impression that they were an office of the company, located in Santa Cruz.
I'm going to dare scox to sue me Posted Jul 22, 2003 21:44 UTC (Tue) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] I'm going to call scox and say: "According to you, I'm using Linux illegally. I'm not going to stop, and I'm not going buy UnixWare."What do you think scox will do?
|
|
||||||||||||