Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
SCO sells a license
The SCO Group has announced that
it has found a taker for its "Linux license." The company is
EV1Servers.Net, a Houston-based hosting provider. No terms have been
disclosed, of course. For what it's worth, EV1Servers.Net was featured in
a
Microsoft case study last September claiming that Windows servers can
be deployed faster than the Linux-based variety.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 15:14 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] From their website, this looks like a company with a friendly culture. It is interesting that they would have entered such a deal, but then it is interesting anyone would. This need not necessarily be part of a grand evil plan on the part of some SCO backer. However, there must have been substantial economic benefits for EV1 in this agreement somewhere. Why else would they (a) buy a license whose need is unproven at this time - but even if (a), why would they (b) publicly yell about making a business decision which is questionable in the eyes of many ...
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 16:27 UTC (Mon) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] EV1Servers.Net are prepared to go on the record as having bought the license: they had SCO over a barrel. They would have been fools to pay more than a nominal amount, since SCO would be fools not to accept that offer. In the context of that other reality where American commercial Linux users will soon shower SCO with license fees, it's pocket change. The sooner licensees appear, and the more of them there are, the more likely it is that other companies will follow suit. In this reality, five dollars are better for SCO than none. Of course, this argument has the fatal flaw that SCO seem to believe that "logic" is SCO's valuable IP, which they can define as they see fit.
James.
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 20:19 UTC (Mon) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Perhaps they plan to sue SCO for fraud when a court rules that that IP isn't SCO's to license. So it's like buying a corporate lottery ticket, I guess.
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 21:15 UTC (Mon) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] this looks like a company with a friendly culture. It is interesting that they would have entered such a deal, but then it is interesting anyone would. This need not necessarily be part of a grand evil plan on the part of some SCO backerEv1 Servers (the company formerly known as "Rackshack") is featured on Microsoft's web site. Draw your own conclusion.
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 15:20 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Does the fact that a sale has been documented deepen the legal mire SCO is in with regard to their lack of GPL compliance ? Does this make possible any action against SCO that was not possible previously ?
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 17:35 UTC (Mon) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > Does the fact that a sale has been documented deepen the legal mire SCO is> in with regard to their lack of GPL compliance ? No, I think their GPL problems kick in when they *try* to sell a license, whether or not they actually manage to. > Does this make possible any action against SCO that was not possible Maybe, particularly if their claims of their "IP" being in Linux are proven to be unfounded. In that case, EV1Servers.net might have a fraud case against SCO. "You sold a license to use something you don't own the rights to?"
Legal problems for the licensee? Posted Mar 1, 2004 18:51 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But are there problems with being a licensee? It would seem difficult tosatisfy the terms of the GPL and whatever SCO's license say at the same time. Unless they do not download, distribute, copy, compile, etc. any code which has been "relicensed" by SCO. That of course depends on SCO explaining which code they are talking about, which I highly doubt they have done. That means that this company pretty much has to assume the entire kernel is off limits, and some of userspace as well.
Legal problems for the licensee? - More questions Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:10 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Does this limit their ability to compile custom kernels, apply securitypatches, etc.? Does the agreement also bind their cutomers or are they free to ingore the terms of the agreement and install whichever kernel they like?
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 16:35 UTC (Mon) by evil_e (guest, #19889) [Link] I think this was a very good way for EV1Servers.Net to get freeadvertisement and nothing more... but SCO is going to be dead in a couple of years anyway. /Dave
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 16:58 UTC (Mon) by Halmonster (subscriber, #4537) [Link] I'm not sure this is good for ev1servers at all. I know that if I had any business relationship at all, I would immediately terminate that relationship as part of my SCO boycott. This announcement could cost them revenue.Hal
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 1, 2004 17:51 UTC (Mon) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link] Not sure if they are or not.But they are now running software under some other licence than the GPL. Does this mean that they are not accepting the terms of the GPL? Does this mean that they should not now be using the GPLd software???? i.e. the software is only available from the copyright holders under the terms of the GPL - they've now accepted that this doesn't apply - so they no longer agree with the GPL terms etc. etc.
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 1, 2004 18:49 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] I don't think so. Unless they are modifying or distributing, I don't think merely using Linux exposes them to such problems. (Read section 5 of the GPL carefully.)On the other hand, if they do modify or distribute it, they terminate their rights under the GPL, and expose themselves to action from every copyright holder in the kernel.
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 1, 2004 19:48 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Of course they do. It does not matter if they sell it or not. They do copy Linux on new systems. And now they have no right to do so. When we can expect RedHat lawsuit for copyright violation? Oh. And on side note: we are now thinking about hosting provider switch. This news were enough to drop ev1servers from candidates list.
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 1, 2004 21:29 UTC (Mon) by welinder (guest, #4699) [Link] They have a license to copy: the GPL.That license remains in effect until such time they violate the provisions of the GPL. Just buying an extra license does not violate the GPL. If they were to redistribute anything with that license they would be in trouble, but in-house use should be fine.
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 2, 2004 11:47 UTC (Tue) by odie (guest, #738) [Link] You are allowed to copy any material to your heart's content, as long as you do not distribute these copies. The GPL specifically does not require you to accept it to modify and use the software, as long as you do not distribute the software (modified or not).
But are EV1Servers.Net violating the GPL?? Posted Mar 1, 2004 23:01 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] It is actually SCO that are committing copyright infringement here. They are licensing (authorising) distribution of copyrighted works that don't belong to them. Unless they can prove by some magic that ALL code in Linux is copyright SCO (heck, they can't even prove Unix is copyright SCO), they will face a copyright infrigement suit.But wait, IBM is already alleging this. OK, move over, Big Blue have the ball...
SCO sells a license Posted Mar 1, 2004 18:13 UTC (Mon) by deatrich (subscriber, #25) [Link] There are bound to be a few companies that decide to buy licenses. It's just a feature of human activity - if you have a large enough population, sooner or later someone will do whatever everyone else said should never happen.. statistics.
fight fire with fire Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:15 UTC (Mon) by darkpink (guest, #19896) [Link] how about IBM start threatening to sue any company that buys a license from SCO?I know they don't have a case, but then again neither does sco. seems like it would level the playing field and make you just as scared to buy the stupid thing as to not buy it. it's too bad we're the good guys...
Good alternatives to RackShack, er, EV1 Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:30 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] After evaluating dedicated host providers last fall for housing our Linux server farm I narrowed down potential hosting providers to two companies, EV1 and Rackspace. Rackspace won our business for its commitment to service and also for its relationship with RedHat and MySQL (also, using RH Enterprise Server instead of RH 7.3 or RH 9 is a benefit in my book).After deciding on Rackspace I realized that EV1 was Rackshack -- the company that began as a knock-off of Rackspace. Rackspace also has a relationship with Microsoft and offers Windows 2003 hosting should that be your need. I understand that the Linux and Windows support teams are separated by a armed-guard-monitored iron wall on the third floor. (Kidding. I saw the the blackout zone upstairs in the Broadway Bank building; no signs of bloody battles between the platform teams.) I note that LWN is hosted on Rackspace. I don't know about you, but if I had made the misfortune of choosing a hosting partner that decided to wed SCO I'd be sure to correct my mistake by learning from LWN and relocating to Rackspace. For no other reason than the icky factor of knowing my money was indirectly going to SCO. Eeeeewwww.
Copyright infringement Posted Mar 1, 2004 22:56 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] This is no doubt copyright infringement.Remember, the SCO IP licence is binary run-time only - it doesn't allow copying, modification or distribution of any kind. Linux contributors, Linus and others, did not agree to distribution of their software under those terms. SCO IP licence terms cannot be satisfied at the same time with the GPL terms, so the only conclusion here is that SCO is attempting to authorise (license) distribution of copyrighted works that don't belong to them (i.e. even if there are millions of lines of SCO code in Linux, there are still parts that are copyright other people) and on the terms that those other people didn't agree to. This is plain and simple copyright infringement. The key word here is authorise - you do not have to distibute yourself to commit copyright infringement. If you authorise, you're exercising one of the exclusive rights and if you're not the owner of copyright, you're in the business of copyright infringement. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Not to worry, good folks at IBM will get them on that once the charade with "trade secrets, nah, copyright infringement, nah, we have no case" is over.
|
|||||||||||