SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 15:44 UTC (Thu) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

With everything I am seeing going on with this hullabaloo concerning SCO and the Linux kernel claims it is SCO that really should be concerned. I am starting to wonder why there haven't been more legal actions brought against SCO for violation of the GNU / GPL. After all, they are STILL distributing the same exact source code (as verified by md5 sums) that they contend is in violation of their rights. This would mean that they willingly, voluntarily, and knowingly are distributing the code under the GPL. Therefore ANY efforts SCO would undertake to limit others rights to this code or use of such code would be in DIRECT violation of the GNU / GPL.

Posted Jul 24, 2003 16:01 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link]

According to the GPL SCO will not be able to do this without removing all GPL'ed code. If they win then the good news is that there should be lots of cash in SCO banks for the taking...

Posted Jul 24, 2003 16:53 UTC (Thu) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link]

If you need a licence from SCO, then you also need a licence from everyone who has contributed GPL code to Linux, because code that requires a licence from SCO is incompatible with GPL code. If you obtain a licence from SCO without obtaining a licence from Linus, Alan Cox et al, then you might just make things worse for yourself because you will then be knowingly infringing the copyrights of Linus, Alan Cox et al.

Unless SCO are offering to indemnify you against copyright claims by anyone who has contributed to Linux it might be safer to just ask SCO to identify their code so that you can delete it.

Posted Jul 24, 2003 17:08 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

I am astonished that anybody could take scox's threat seriously. Scox has as much right to forbid me to use linux, as scox has to forbid me to use MacOS.

In fact I have called and emailed SCO's legal department to tell them that, according to scox, I am using linux illegally, and I will continue to do so. I left my name, address, and phone number. Predictably, no response from scox.

Can't Gartner see a stock scam for what it is?

Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:27 UTC (Thu) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link]

Guys and Gals,

There are many commercial companies, Microsoft included, that are funding and hiding behind Gartner's so called studies because they are absolutely desperate to stop the growth of Linux based systems.

The use of Linux only needs to reach a critical mass, which it has already done, for it to become a serious problem for Microsoft's plans for the use of hardware - namely Palladium. If the world isn't totally Microsoft-only and Microsoft-dependant by then (believe it or not it isn't now - we actually have a choice), then Palladium will simply be a closed VPN of Microsoft machines that won't be in the positions and markets that matter.

Let the kicking and squealing commence with abandon!

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:12 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

RE:"too much of its faith in IBM's lawyers.

Sadly you aren't even considering expressing any faith in the U.S. justice system and our judges. Could it be that the judiciary has become some politicized that we truly, cynically, believe that the better lawyer prevails regardless of the merits of the case?

As for Gartner's pronouncement. They have to say something "different" to get their name in the news, to maintain their appearance of currency and relevance. They need to say something that will appeal to suits, because that's ultimately where their bread is buttered. Gartner has never been about technology, only about the business trends that emerge from the application technology (IT) among Fortune 1000 and their ilk.

Is there anything to prevent SCO from suing each Linux user one at a time? If SCO loses to IBM (which seems likely) then they could still litigate against as many others as they can afford. In suggesting that companies capitulate to SCO's extortion Gartner says something soothingly sensationalistic to the CEOs of companies outside of the computer and software industry.

However, they also pose a prisoner's dilemma. We are all better off if we all stand fast in opposition of this evident extortion. (Note the word tort is at the root of extortion: thus is would be redundant to say that SCO actions are tortious). Every one who pays in "protects" themselves from immediate litigation (by entering into a licensing contract with SCO) but enthralls themselves to future demands and risks being sued for some alleged breach of their license. (Keeping in mind that SCO started all this nonsense as a suit on contract law).

It is obvious way Microsoft and Sun ponied up to the bar. For Microsoft it's a way to promote FUD by proxy. For Sun it's a slap at IBM (and Linux). Sun has been losing some ground to IBM z-Series; and losing alot of mindshare to IBM's Linux PR.

Anyone else who "licenses" Linux from SCO is filling their coffers for the next offensive. It should be obvious that SCO will chew up its own customers for breakfast any time the bottom line withers. They have no products nor services worth selling so they must leech off of the work of others.

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:27 UTC (Thu) by heunique (guest, #728) [Link]

For IBM it's not just the community who's in stake - it's their sales. A sale of Power4 based servers (including their Z900 beasts) is worth a lot of money (mainframe costs millions, add to it the support contracts - and you'll see why IBM invests so much in Linux)..

I'm pretty sure that if the SCO VS IBM trial will show signs that SCO might win, IBM WILL aquire SCO only to shut them up and kill the company. There's too much sales in danger if SCO will win, and IBM really wants to sale their servers as much as they can push (Power4 based servers are MUCH more profitable then X86 servers, no matter whats the configuration).

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:51 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

In California, we have laws against false advertising. SCO is trying to promote UnixWare by making false accusations against Linux and that is against the law here.

The Attorney General has a web form where people can complain about companies breaking the law so I sent them the information.

Just report SCO to the authorities and get on with business. No need to get worked up about stupid stuff.

Posted Jul 25, 2003 1:19 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

Consider who Gartner's customer's are: large risk-averse organisations. This advice is meant for them.

You've also got to consider what other advice Gartner could possibly give its customers. They can't say "it's unfounded litigation" because Gartner's reputation amoung its customers would be toast if SCO had even a minor win. So in many ways this is a "cover our arse" statement from Gartner.

You'll notice how the analysis relies solely on SCO's claims. This is very unusual; typically in Gartner analysis all points of view are evaluated. So this statement is very remarkable for not considering the views of the open source sotware advocates.

I can only think that this is done so that the analysis doesn't need to state Gartner's thoughts on the likelyhood of the SCO litigation succeeding. If the litigation is eventually unfounded Gartner can simply claim to have been hoodwinked too.

Coming from the market where Gartner aims its advice, I've got two objections:

(1) By not exploring the likelyhood of a SCO success they are doing their customers a disservice. Gartner should have learned that total risk aversion is not useful advice. Too many of their customers spent far too much on Y2K issues because of their lack of clear-eyed evaluation of risk.

(2) The alternatives to SCO's licensing are not considered, rather SCO's licensing scheme is taken at face value. For example, many large corporations already hold UNIX source licenses. Even a new license may be more economic than per-CPU based binary licenses, yet Gartner doesn't consider this alternative. Given Gartner's minute examination of Microsoft Licensing 6.0 the acceptance at face value of SCO's licensing scheme is remarkable.

The most obvious strategy, wait until the outcome of the permanent injunction litigation with IBM, is given remarkably little consideration. The analysis is adverse to this approach but gives far too little legal basis for that aversion.

Posted Jul 25, 2003 6:30 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would.

First, sadly, being sued in the USA typically costs piles of money even if you win. That's sad, but true, and doesn't really have anything much to do with SCO. SCO can hurt you, simply by suing you. So can anyone else who have money and feel so inclined.

The if successful part merits a closer look though. How could SCO possibly be successful in a claim against a third party Linux user ? Let's look at the available legal theories:

• Patent. Fine, if SCO does indeed have a patent on some algorithm used in Linux, you could indeed be liable. This is however pretty unlikely, since SCO did not even claim to have such a thing, and in general they're pretty free with their claiming.
• Copyrigth. If SCO has copyrigth to some of the code in Linux, AND they didn't implicitly agree to this by distributing Linux under the GPL themselves. Ofcourse if this was proved to be true, it would take on the order of 2 hours for all the offending code to be removed, and you could carry on as usual.
• Contract law. This is the hammer they claim they will use to crush IBM. If it will work or not is impossible to say without actually having read the contracts and the code in question. Problem is, a contract between parties A and B does not place any obligations on C. That is, it is not my concern what IBM and SCO agreed to between themselves. IBM, and anyone else stupid enough to sign any contract with SCO can be hammered by those contracts. Anyone who doesn't have a contract with SCO is safe.

In ligth of the last point above, and the statement from SCO that "Contracts are what you use against your bussineee-partners" it is questionable if the rigth thing to do is to sign contracts with SCO.