The text of SCO's "Linux license" [LWN.net]

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:17 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339)
Parent article: The text of SCO's "Linux license"

"Caldera shall have the right to increase any list price on thirty (30) days prior written notice."
"SCO's Sales Administration Department located at SCO's Santa Cruz, California facility. "

Do they even bother to proofread this crap?

Speaking of crap, Darl's shouting that RedHat and IBM don't indemnify their customers is completely hypocritical, as neither will SCO/Caldera the Lindon/Santa Cruz based company:

7.0 LIMITATION OF WARRANTY SCO MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT. SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. SCO DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTION CONTAINED IN SCO PRODUCT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ITS OPERATION WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW, CUSTOM, PRIOR ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY PARTY OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED. SOME STATES OR COUNTRIES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE OR COUNTRY TO COUNTRY.

(Log in to post comments)

Indemnification, or the lack thereof

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:24 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Hey, man, you're stealing the thunder from tomorrow's "indemnification" article...:)

Audit terms

Posted Aug 6, 2003 23:19 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

Sorry! As the CTO for a small pharma co that really stuck in my craw.

How about this:

4.3 Upon written request, SCO agrees to make available to Company, in the event that SCO makes any claim with respect to such audit, its records and reports pertaining to the audit and any such records and reports prepared for SCO by third parties.

If they want to sue me under this contract for breech they allow me to request documentary proof of claim -- but they won't give me proof of claim prior to entering into the contract. How about I just wait until they prove that my GNU/Linux system has their proprietary source code in it before I agree to be bound by a license agreement based solely on their claim of right?

Besides, when I listen to My Sweet Lord by George Harrison I'm not required to pay a listen-time license fee (based on number of speakers) to Ronald Mack who wrote "He's So Fine" or Bright Tunes Music Corp., to whom the copyright was assigned. See, George lost a copyright lawsuit for plagiarising the smash hit. As an end user I don't owe Bright Tunes a dime for George's mistake. So, if SCO's case is based on copyright, why should I be forced to pay as an end user?

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 7:00 UTC (Thu) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link]

When reading the license, as well as the SCO website, it becomes very clear that the "license" is not a license at all in the way we have come to understand the word. It is a "get out of jail free" card with respect to an upcoming courtcase, and the potential fallout of that courtcase. They don claim anywhere to license you Linux, they only say that "we won't sue you over using Linux".

As such they indemnify you in the sense that they won't sue you, but at the same time, they are not going to give you a warranty over the software.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:45 UTC (Thu) by seal (guest, #13808) [Link]

I agree -- this is a "license" which is not licensing anything.
Even a M$ EULA specifies that you are selling your soul for a license to use the software which you are about to install. This "license" specifies no concrete items; it vaguely refers to "intellectual property". For those of you who don't know, "intellectual property" is a management mantra, a catch-phrase. It means absolutely nothing in a court of law (at least not in the US, EU, or Australia). If you ever mentioned "intellectual property" to me, I'd ask you to clarify that -- is this a matter of copyright, patent, or trademark? You have very different rights under copyright/patent/trademark laws -- they are not uniform and can never be referred to as "intellectual property rights".

In short, the "license" is for people who don't know their legal rights but are easily spooked by any threat of litigation. Oh... did I just describe a "shakedown" racket?