|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

The following is the full, unmodified text of SCO's "intellectual property license for Linux," as received from the company on August 6, 2003.

THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
COMPLIANCE LICENSE FOR LINUX
This Intellectual Property Compliance License Agreement for Linux
("Agreement") is made and entered into on the date last executed by and
between The SCO Group, Inc., for itself or its Subsidiaries
(collectively referred to herein as ("SCO"), a corporation of the State
of Delaware, with its place of business at 355 South 520 West, Suite
100, Lindon, Utah 84042, U.S.A., and __________________ ("Company"), a
corporation of the State of ___________________, with its place of
business at ______________________________________. 
RECITALS
WHEREAS, SCO is a licensor, manufacturer and distributor of SCO software
and related products and materials, and 
WHEREAS, SCO wishes to grant and Company wishes to accept certain
limited rights to use certain SCO software programs, which rights
Company wishes to accept; 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein it
is agreed as follows:
1.0	DEFINITIONS
1.1	"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
1.2	"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
1.3	"General Purpose Computer System" means a commercially available
system which is intended to be reprogrammable by the end user and is
either (i) intended for primary use as a general purpose business
computer, a personal computer, or a scientific/technical workstation; or
(ii) part of a network configuration whose primary purpose is for
executing general application programs supporting general business,
personal, or scientific/technical activities.
1.4	"Linux Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation
controlled by a single instance of the Linux Operating System.  It may
provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other
client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It
may not host services for clients on other systems. 
1.5	"Linux Operating System" shall mean an operating system
distributed under the name Linux or a derivative thereof.
1.6	"Linux Point of Sale/Embedded System" means a computer system,
controlled by a single instance of the Linux Operating System, that can
not be used as a General Purpose Computer System and, as such, is (1)
restricted in  normal use to the execution of a predefined set of
special purpose applications, and (2) does not allow an end user,
directly or indirectly, to (i) add or run general purpose application
software; (ii) add or administer users; or (iii) provide system
administration functions other than diagnostics and maintenance.
1.7	"Linux System" shall mean a computer system, containing the
licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Linux Operating
System.
1.8	"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code
is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a
computer.
1.9	"SCO Product" shall mean the SCO intellectual property in Object
Code format included in any or all of the following: (i) the Software,
(ii) the Updates and (iv) any copy of the Software or Updates; to the
extent made available to You.
1.10	"Software" shall mean the Linux Operating System in Object Code
format.
1.11	"Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and
related system documentation, including all comments and any procedural
language. 
1.12	"Update" shall mean the updates or revisions in Object Code
format of the Software that You may receive.
2.0	GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE
OTHER THAN THE SCO PRODUCT COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RIGHTS TO ACCESS, USE, MODIFY OR
DISTRIBUTE ANY SCO SOURCE CODE IN ANY FORM UNDER ANY LICENSING
ARRANGEMENT. 
2.1	Provided Company complies fully with this Grant of Rights and
Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO Product licensed
by Company under this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual
property ownership or rights.
2.2	This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any
distribution of software from SCO.  SCO grants Company a limited and
non-exclusive right to SCO Product under the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.  Company acknowledges that it is not granted any other
right except for the rights specifically set forth herein.  
2.3	Provided Company provides the Linux System information and pays
SCO the applicable right-to-use license fees required as included
Section 1 of Exhibit A to this Agreement, SCO grants Company the right
to use all, or portions of, the SCO Product only as necessary to use the
Linux Operating System on each Linux System for which the appropriate
CPUs have been licensed from SCO.  Company must take reasonable means to
assure that the number of CPUs does not exceed the permitted number of
CPUs.  Such right is granted to use the SCO Product in conjunction with
the Linux Operating System solely in Object Code format. 
3.0	ORDERS, PRICE AND PAYMENT
3.1	Company's initial order for the right-to-use licenses, including
Linux System details and License Fees, is included in Exhibit A of this
Agreement.  SCO shall invoice Company, at the time of execution of this
Agreement, pursuant to the information contained in Section 2 of Exhibit
A.  
Caldera shall have the right to increase any list price on thirty (30)
days prior written notice.
3.2	Should Company require to add additional right-to-use licenses
for Linux Systems or additional CPUs, Company shall submit a purchase
order to, and subject to acceptance by, SCO's Sales Administration
Department located at SCO's Santa Cruz, California facility.  Such
purchase orders shall state the Linux System details and License Fees
included in Exhibit A of this Agreement and shall reference and bind
Company to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3.3	License Fees are exclusive of all applicable taxes.  Company
agrees to pay all taxes associated with right-to-use licenses ordered
under this Agreement, including but not limited to sales, use, excise,
added value and similar taxes and all customs, duties or governmental
impositions, but excluding taxes on SCO's net income.
3.4	Payments for  shall be due and payable thirty (30) days from
date of invoice.  SCO may charge Company interest at the rate of 1 1/2
percent per month, or such maximum rate as may be permitted by law,
whichever shall be less, with respect to any sum that is not paid when
due.
3.5	 Company shall make all payments in United States Dollars.
4.0	RECORD KEEPING AND AUDIT
4.1	Company shall keep full, clear and accurate records with respect
to Linux Systems and the number of licensed CPUs per Linux Systems.
Such records shall contain all information necessary to determine
exactly all fees due hereunder.  Company shall provide to SCO, upon
request by SCO, reports with such records including the number of copies
of  made by Company. 
4.2	SCO may cause an audit to be made at its expense (except as
provided herein) of the applicable records to verify statements rendered
hereunder, and prompt adjustment shall be made by the proper party to
compensate for any errors or omissions disclosed by such audit.  Any
such audit shall be conducted during regular business hours at Company's
offices and in such a manner as not to interfere with Company's normal
business activities.  In the event that an audit discloses an
underpayment by Company to SCO of the greater of five percent (5%) or
the equivalent of Five Thousand United States Dollars ($5,000), then
Company agrees to bear the cost of the audit.
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.
5.0	TERM OF AGREEMENT; OBLIGATIONS UPON TERMINATION
This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated as set forth
herein. Company may terminate this Agreement, without right to refund,
by notifying SCO of such termination. SCO may terminate this Agreement,
upon reasonable notice and without judicial or administrative
resolution, if Company or any of Company's employees or consultants
breach any term or condition hereof.
Upon the termination of this Agreement for any reason, all rights
granted to Company hereunder will cease.
6.0	PROPRIETARY NATURE OF SCO PRODUCTS AND OWNERSHIP 
6.1	No title to or ownership of the SCO Product is transferred to
Company.  Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the
contrary, Company acknowledges that SCO, owns and retains all title and
ownership of all intellectual property rights in the SCO Products.   
6.2	SCO Products and related materials, and all copyrights, patent,
trade secret and other intellectual and proprietary rights therein, are
and remain the valuable property of SCO and its suppliers.  Company
shall not reverse engineer or decompile, translate, create derivative
works or modify any of the SCO Product.  If Company wishes to exercise
any rights under Article 6.1b of the EC Directive on the Legal
Protection of Computer Software (Directive 91/250), Company shall, in
the first instance, write to SCO's Legal Department at the address
above.
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.
8.0	LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES,
WHETHER FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, BASED ON YOUR CLAIMS OR THOSE OF
YOUR CUSTOMERS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF DATA,
GOODWILL, PROFITS, USE OF MONEY OR USE OF THE SCO PRODUCTS, INTERRUPTION
IN USE OR AVAILABILITY OF DATA, STOPPAGE OF OTHER WORK OR IMPAIRMENT OF
OTHER ASSETS), ARISING OUT OF BREACH OR FAILURE OF EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERSONAL
INJURY WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES SUCH
LIABILITY.  IN NO EVENT WILL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY WHICH SCO MAY INCUR
IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU
TO SCO FOR THE LICENSE OF THE SCO PRODUCT THAT DIRECTLY CAUSED THE
DAMAGE.
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY
FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE
LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
9.0	MISCELLANEOUS
9.1	Neither party shall be liable for any delay or failure in its
performance hereunder due to any cause beyond its control provided,
however, that this provision shall not be construed to relieve Company
of its obligation to make any payments pursuant to this Agreement.
9.2	Company may not assign, sublicense, rent, lend, lease, pledge or
otherwise transfer or encumber the SCO Products, this Agreement or any
of the individual licenses granted under it or Company's rights or
obligations hereunder.
9.3	All notices and requests in connection with this Agreement may
be sent or delivered to the addresses above by hand, by certified  mail
return receipt requested, by fax, or by courier.
9.4	Support and maintenance are not available under this agreement.
9.5	This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced
in accordance with, the laws of the State of Utah and the United States
of America, specifically excluding the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and without giving effect
to conflict of laws.  Any litigation or arbitration between the Parties
shall be conducted exclusively in the State of Utah.
Company  expressly consents to the jurisdiction of such courts.  Process
may be served by U.S.  mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered,
return receipt requested, by express courier such as DHL or Federal
Express, or by such other method as is authorized by law.  Nothing in
this Section will prevent SCO from seeking injunctive relief against
Company or filing legal actions for payment of outstanding and past due
debts in the courts.
9.6	If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held
to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and
enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be
affected or impaired thereby.  The Parties will seek in good faith to
agree on replacing an invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision with
a valid, legal, and enforceable provision that, in effect, will, from an
economic viewpoint, most nearly and fairly approach the effect of the
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision.
9.7	This shall be the only agreement between the Company and SCO
with respect to the subject matter herein and shall not be modified
unless a written amendment has been signed by one of SCO's and Company's
officers.
9.8	This Agreement is signed by Company on behalf of all the
employees and agents entitled by Company to use of .  Company undertakes
to make all users of  aware of their responsibilities under this
Agreement.  This Agreement supercede all prior agreements between SCO
and Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement,
effective as of the last date properly executed by both parties.  All
signed copies of this Agreement shall be deemed originals.


THE SCO GROUP, INC.	___________________________________

By:			By:		

Name:			Name:		

Title:			Title:		

Date:			Date:		


to post comments

Trademark infringement

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:08 UTC (Wed) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (4 responses)

The footer of LWN says it all:
"Linux (®) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" so sue them for improper use of a trademark. Also, if Linus doesn't give permisson for them to use the Linux trademark, does this make the license invalid?

Trademark infringement

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:16 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] (2 responses)

You can always use a trademark in a descriptive sense.

Trademark infringement

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:49 UTC (Wed) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (1 responses)

But they are not doing so. All other license's do at least mention who owns various trademarks.

Trademark infringement

Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:01 UTC (Thu) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

They do that, but it's not required.

Food for thought

Posted Dec 26, 2003 1:37 UTC (Fri) by adaptr (guest, #18182) [Link]

I have no experience with copyright and/or trademark law (either US or NL), but if I were Linus, I'd seriously consider specifically forbidding SCO to use the trademark _in any way whatsoever_.

Anybody know whether such an exception is possible ?

I know that it won't bring any long-term victories, but it might just send a small message to the f*ckers - from the creator of the system, no less - that some people don't think much of what they're trying to shove down our collective throats.

And imagine how hilarious it would make this License read!

"oh sh*t, we have to replace every single use of the word "Linux" with "that trademark we are not allowed to use"!"

Does it for me ;-)

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:17 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (4 responses)

"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.

Indemnification, or the lack thereof

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

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] (1 responses)

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?

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:23 UTC (Wed) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] (1 responses)

"UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, WHETHER FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, BASED ON YOUR CLAIMS OR THOSE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF DATA, GOODWILL, PROFITS, USE OF MONEY OR USE OF THE SCO PRODUCTS, INTERRUPTION IN USE OR AVAILABILITY OF DATA, STOPPAGE OF OTHER WORK OR IMPAIRMENT OF OTHER ASSETS), ARISING OUT OF BREACH OR FAILURE OF EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERSONAL INJURY WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES SUCH LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT WILL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY WHICH SCO MAY INCUR IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU TO SCO FOR THE LICENSE OF THE SCO PRODUCT THAT DIRECTLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE."

This is in every single commercial software end-user licensing agreement from Microsoft to SCO. Where the hell is this 'we will indemnify you' crap that Microsoft and others having been playing up in all this? It seems you can pay for indemnification at the software vendor's choosing, but the above provides a get-out clause if the software company starts feeling the heat. EULA's are total and utter crap and guarantee nothing, and thanks to the GPL we are now seeing that.

Tell me, why should I buy this license again? Oh, right, yer, I'm not going to. Come on SCO, make my day. Sue me. Sue anybody actually. Get yourself a firm legal basis and people will pay for the license. The reason why it's being dragged out is that neither is going to happen, and I believe that SCO have a nice financial arrangement with Microsoft. I hope Gates and McBride don't slip up on their secret little meetings.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 6:18 UTC (Thu) by climent (guest, #7232) [Link]

What about the "OSS might be ilegal in the EU" because it offers no liability?

Sounds like the same crap in Licensed software. Not to mention MS and others.

shades of Halloween

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:24 UTC (Wed) by awolfe (guest, #7092) [Link]

Back in 2002, the Halloween 7 document included these gems:

- Messages that rely on an abstract discussion of intellectual property rights are not effective.

- The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions.

Seems like we're starting to see concrete actions.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:54 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

To summarize: Call S_sco the set off stuff in a compiled Linux
kernel that is "SCO intellectual property in Object Code format",
whatever that is (of course S_sco may be empty). You can pay on a
per cpu basis for the right, as far as SCO is concerned, to run a
Linux kernel containing S_sco at a given fixed price and they promise
to give you a one month notice before they raise the price they are
charging. They make no warranty of anything, even including the
possibility that S_sco may be empty and the possibility that they
will help, say MSFT, to charge for S_msft, or HP to charge for
S_hp, etc. at some later date.

Any lawyer who advises his company to buy this thing, even if he
has a crystal ball and believes SCO will win their case against
either IBM or Redhat, should be sued for malpractice. I think
the case for the conspiracy theory grows stronger because this
reads like something designed to hurt Linux and not something they
seriously expect to generate *any* revenue from.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:54 UTC (Wed) by jarek (guest, #4105) [Link]

Do we really have to spread the manure from Utah. Until the IBM and RedHat cases are over, this is all BS. Any time SCO is pushed on the details, they admitt the case is not a copyright case, nor is it a patent case. They even admitt that IBM holds the copyright for the stuff (RCU/JFS/NUMA) included in linux. Let SCO prove that they actually have copyrighted material in the linux kernel first. Then we can bother.

/jarek

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:57 UTC (Wed) by dthurston (guest, #4603) [Link] (2 responses)

> SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.

Does this mean that SCO is definitely claiming to own some rights over the a GNU/Linux system, and that anyone who buys this license can sue them when they turn out not to have any such "intellectual property"?

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:42 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

They are keeping the revenues from the licenses in an escrow account until
the suit with IBM is resolved.

Derek (or they would if this was anything but a scam)

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 8, 2003 12:43 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I think, actually, they are saying that they have the right to sell their rights to a bridge in Brooklyn.

All this licence is is a quitclaim.

Cheers,
Wol

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 22:26 UTC (Wed) by del (guest, #380) [Link]

I would love to see Ms. Didio explain this clause:
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.
In fact, let's hear from Charles Cooper and other critics for whom linux supposedly poses "IP" problems. SCO disclaims any accountability for any lifted code. What hypocrisy!

Definition of Intellectual Property?

Posted Aug 6, 2003 22:32 UTC (Wed) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link] (1 responses)

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.

I don't see where they "define" any intellectual property??? What am I missing?

Definition of Intellectual Property?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 3:56 UTC (Thu) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link]

You're not missing anything, read again:

1.9 "SCO Product" shall mean the SCO intellectual property in Object
Code format included in any or all of the following: (i) the Software,
(ii) the Updates and (iv) any copy of the Software or Updates; to the
extent made available to You.

2.0 GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE
OTHER THAN THE SCO PRODUCT COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

2.2 This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any
distribution of software from SCO.

I don't see SCO making explicit claims about Linux containing any proprietary intellectual property of Caldera/SCO. To my untrained eye this looks suspiciously like they are selling hot air, in exchange for people giving SCO money, the right to have SCO audit them at any time and limiting their Linux deployment. The word "proprietary" is mentioned twice in the license, but I can't see how that relates to "The Software", meaning Linux.

Of course I am not a lawyer, so you should show this document to your own legal counsel, giving them a fair chance to laugh at it.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 6, 2003 23:19 UTC (Wed) by lpbbear (guest, #4827) [Link]

Alrrrrright, the first example of the new product from SCO...."Virtual Toilet Paper"!
(Now if I could only figure out how to wipe my ass with a monitor, anyone want to loan me theirs for testing purposes?)

You might be a SCO (executive, employee, etc.) if ...

Posted Aug 6, 2003 23:45 UTC (Wed) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link]

You might be a SCO executive if...
You're sueing your elementry school for $3B because you think the 100 times
your 6th grade teacher made you write 'cat' on the board is 'your intellectual property'

You might be a SCO executive if...
You just cashed in your highly inflated scox to buy a used Armored Personnel Carrier to drive to work in.

Greedy.

Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:13 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.

</quote> Nice. So that's how much money for the non-server edition? Sheesh. Legitimacy aside, this is the end-user equivalent of a $3 billion lawsuit over a few hundred lines of alleged copyright infringement.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:25 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] (2 responses)

It's interesting to note that if you agree to this license, you agree to keep records of all your Linux deployments, and be audited by SCO.

There are probably enough strings attached to this license to make the balance of risk for many corporations (and the government) in favour of not going for SCO's Linux license.

To really convince nearly everybody to not bother with the SCO license, though, it would be nice to see IBM, Red Hat and SuSe come out right now and indemnify all of their Linux customers against any legal action from SCO. I think this would be enough to tip the balance for most organisations firmly in the direction of not licensing.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 0:38 UTC (Thu) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link]

To really convince nearly everybody to not bother with the SCO license, though, it would be nice to see IBM, Red Hat and SuSe come out right now and indemnify all of their Linux customers against any legal action from SCO.

They can't "indemnify" something they don't 100% own/control, but,
IBM did put out a memo to calm their customers and RedHat did file
for an injunction against SCO.

That's good enough for me.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:46 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

If IBM did copy code into Linux and you lost a lawsuit as a result you could probably sue IBM.

Of course, that senario is pretty unlikely, because IBM didn't copy any code, and SCO can't sue you as an end user.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 11:24 UTC (Thu) by jedi98 (guest, #13763) [Link]

Translation: "Pay us some money and we won't send the boys round".

AKA: "A protection racket".

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 12:21 UTC (Thu) by Highlander (guest, #13768) [Link] (5 responses)

SCO did sell a Linux distro, didn´t they ?
They must have done so under the GNU License, so if their distro included their own code (the code in dispute), they effectively did license it under the GNU License. And there is no case left for them.

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:46 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

Tut tut, now. You wouldn't want any facts to enter into the discussion now
would you?

This is a scam, similar to the 20 or so scam emails I got this morning. A scary
scam since they sic lawyers on you, but a scam nontheless.

Derek

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:19 UTC (Thu) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] (1 responses)

It would be interesting to see how this wil work.
It is going to be hard time for SCO to prove that you have to buy second license to use their product.
First license you can wget from ftp.caldera.com. And first license - in fact GPL - prohibit any second linceses or what ever.

Interesting dialog between imaginary customer and SCO:
SCO: buy license - you do not have license to use our product.
Customer: No. You gave us a license some time ago!
SCO: What kind of fu@#$%^&*ing license you are talking about?
Customer:
$ rpm -qpi linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm | egrep "License|Vendor"
Vendor: Caldera International, Inc.
License: GPL

And this "viral" license says that no-one can change it or put any other restrictions on sources and binaries. And this license has no clause for revocation niether.
...
No comments.

P.S. ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/current/

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:39 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

> And this license has no clause for revocation niether.

Actually, the GPL has a revocation clause. If you break it (like SCO's doing now with
requiring a second license), you lose the right to do the things the GPL entitles you, e.g.
putting Linux sources on a web server (something SCO still does). None of your licensees
do lose theirs, since they received a license from the original authors.

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:17 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] (1 responses)

> SCO did sell a Linux distro, didn´t they ?
> They must have done so under the GNU License, so if their
> distro included their own code (the code in dispute), they
> effectively did license it under the GNU License. And there
> is no case left for them.

SCO is claiming that although it did distribute its code with
a GPL license text, it didn't really license that code under
the GPL because it was not aware that the code was there.

Effectively, SCO is claiming that when it distributes Linux
it violates the copyrights of all the authors of Linux who
have licensed their contributions under the GPL. But that is
a matter for SCO and those authors to settle.

SCO's concerned with YOU is that you, user of Linux
distributed by someone other than SCO, pay for using the
code that slipped into Linux without SCO's intent.

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 8, 2003 12:49 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Except, of course, that you can STILL wget the appropriate licence today, and SCO is well aware that their code is included.

SCO should have pulled their ftp server the day they realised that code was there that shouldn't be.

Oh - and by the way - they would have been (and still are) perfectly entitled to do so and yet still remain within the GPL. If their lawyers haven't advised them how they can legitimately escape this catch 22 then their lawyers aren't worth a dime.

But I'm not going to tell you in case I give them any ideas. Just the little hint - does the GPL mention the internet at all?

Cheers,
Wol

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:49 UTC (Thu) by rtorres (guest, #13577) [Link] (2 responses)

We must not pay!
Go back to non-SCO claimed IP Linux kernel, and go forward again. may be it takes one or two years...
In the mean time, no SCO product must be buyed...
That solves the problem and moves SCO to its right place: nowhere.

Linux kernel must continue to be free.

Best regards!

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:54 UTC (Thu) by revrus (guest, #13774) [Link]

Caldera now known as SCO released parts of Unix to Linux under the BSD.
Google search used to find several references.

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 19:23 UTC (Thu) by lockjaw (guest, #13790) [Link]

This is the best part in my opinion. Read the following:

5.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT; OBLIGATIONS UPON TERMINATION This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated as set forth herein. Company may terminate this Agreement, without right to refund, by notifying SCO of such termination. SCO may terminate this Agreement, upon reasonable notice and without judicial or administrative resolution, if Company or any of Company's employees or consultants breach any term or condition hereof. Upon the termination of this Agreement for any reason, all rights granted to Company hereunder will cease.

So, what they are saying is that when this turns out to be BS in the end, you can't get your money back. You will in fact have to sue them to get any license fees back that they collect from you, and if you only have a single Linux desktop, lord knows it's not worth paying a laywer to get a 3 digit amount back from SCO. Gotta love that protection racket....

The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:35 UTC (Thu) by mormop (guest, #13775) [Link]

OK Mr mcBride,

I've read it and come to the conclusion that you still jam it up your arse you sad twat

SCO Executive chat

Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:00 UTC (Thu) by wolfab (guest, #13796) [Link]

SCO Executive and Penguinist go to the same supermarket

SCO Executive:Penguinist, I will sue you

Penguinist: Why?

SCO Executive:Because you parked your car in my place, to do that you had to use my car-parking method

Penguinist: Ok, I'll leave you that (not yours) place

SCO Executive: Ok, thanks, I'll sue you anyway

Penguinist: Eat your underware

Narrowing the market

Posted Aug 26, 2003 14:20 UTC (Tue) by Gavin_D (guest, #14469) [Link]

2 points jumped out at me...

...
This Intellectual Property Compliance License Agreement for Linux
("Agreement") is made and entered into on the date last executed by and
between The SCO Group, Inc., for itself or its Subsidiaries
(collectively referred to herein as ("SCO"), a corporation of the State
of Delaware, with its place of business at 355 South 520 West, Suite
100, Lindon, Utah 84042, U.S.A., and __________________ ("Company"), a
corporation of the State of ___________________, with its place of
business at ______________________________________.
...

SCO doesn't want to deal with individuals. Companies only, maybe due to the deeper pockets.

...
2.2 This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any
distribution of software from SCO. SCO grants Company a limited and
non-exclusive right to SCO Product under the terms and conditions of
this Agreement. Company acknowledges that it is not granted any other
right except for the rights specifically set forth herein.
...

And they're selling you permission to use a product you get somewhere else, from someone else, at your own expense.


Copyright © 2003, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds