Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News) [LWN.net]

The BBC News covers SCO's attempts to sell Linux licenses to European firms. "Mr Sontag said taking out a licence was a cheap way to avoid potential legal action and was less expensive than the indemnification schemes set up by firms such as Novell to bail out Linux users that end up in court."

to post comments

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 20:45 UTC (Fri) by mgrinder (guest, #4202) [Link] (3 responses)

The author of this piece obviously didn't do much research since SCO is referred to as a California-based company.

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:06 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

I submitted some feedback to them suggesting that they place groklaw.net on their list of associated links, and that they use a little more journalistic scrutiny on the SCO stories, since SCO is so richly deserving of such scrutiny of its trade practices. We'll see if they start smelling the... well, I was going to say 'coffee', but I think 'barnyard effluent' might be a better term. ;-)

California based company

Posted Jan 17, 2004 4:22 UTC (Sat) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

SCO used to mean Santa Cruz Operation. Santa Cruz is in California. That must have confused the author.

California based company

Posted Jan 19, 2004 19:16 UTC (Mon) by rankincj (guest, #4865) [Link]

And they've now updated the article to read "US company" instead. Unfortunately, that looks like the only change that they've made.

inaccurate

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:17 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (3 responses)

I had a fairly high opinion of BBC's reporting so far.

This piece is a real disappointment. Except for the obvious inaccuracies (see above), they fail to address things like SCO's unwillingness to offer any proof whatsoever for their claims, or the stark incompatibility of SCO's "license offering" with the license under which Linux has been released.

I forget now whether they mentioned that this is a Linux company which bought its Unix rights (whatever their nature) in order to then sue IBM using those acquired rights ....

and ...

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:42 UTC (Fri) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

And changed their name to that used by the other company in order to look
like an old Unix provider rather than a failed dot-com era Linux company
eyeing the lawsuit as a way to keep their stock from being delisted.

inaccurate

Posted Jan 19, 2004 9:49 UTC (Mon) by minichaz (guest, #630) [Link] (1 responses)

"I had a fairly high opinion of BBC's reporting so far."

You have obviously not read much of the BBC's technology reporting then because it is terrible. I have no idea who the reporters are but they appear to be a lazy bunch not at all keen on research and they generally just recycle press releases.

I've used the feedback option a number of times and they have never bothered to respond or correct factual errors I have informed them of(always very politley and calmly). As a British tax (and TV license) payer I am bitterly dissapointed in the falling journalistic standards of the BBC and am considering contacting my local Minister of Parliament to request that he looks into the matter.

inaccurate

Posted Jan 19, 2004 10:05 UTC (Mon) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

All reporting is always 100% accurate. -- Except when someone is writing about a field you actually know something about.

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:49 UTC (Fri) by rheggs (guest, #4737) [Link] (3 responses)

I agree with all the foregoing comments. I have likewise posted polite, constructive feedback. We shall see if the BBC is prepared to update the story. The more POLITE, CONSTRUCTIVE feedback the BBC receives, the more likely this is to happen.

I also dropped a quick email to Bill Thompson, a technology columnist who has a regular spot on the BBC technology pages, and is generally well known for his clear and unbiased reporting on tech issues (from toys to serious stuff like DRM). I hope he feels strongly enough about the situation to write up a proper article on the subject.

The cynic in me asks: is this the real reason that SCO have expanded their, urm, 'marketing': the US media are becoming wise to their rhetoric, so they have to look further afield to get favourable press?

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:54 UTC (Fri) by Dabuk (subscriber, #1507) [Link] (2 responses)

Bill Thompson? You mean the guy who wrote this?

I guess he might have changed his views since he wrote that...

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 22:19 UTC (Fri) by rheggs (guest, #4737) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, I don't think the article to which you refer is all that bad. His turn of phrase is a bit abrasive here and there, but generally, I think that it is fair. The key points he makes, as far as I can see them are:

1) SCOX have sued IBM, claiming that the latter placed copyrighted material into Linux - but there may be nothing to the claim, and the evidence so far is not impressive.

2) SCOX was a struggling company before this, and since the whol fiaSCO (ahem :) began, senior executives have been selling their shares.

3) UNIX has a long and complicated history.

4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)

5) The typical response from Linux users (at the time of writing) was one of dismissal.

I think that this last point is perhaps the most arguable. In my not-so-humble this was indeed a common opinion, last summer; it was certainly mine. 'How dare they make such claims! Ignore them and they will go away.' The attitude has since shifted decisively towards 'We're convinced you're wrong; show us your proofs, and we will demolish them' - a much healthier attitude, I believe.

I disagree with the 5th and 4th paragraph from the end of the article (and the last bit of the 6th paragraph), but on the whole I think that this is a good article, given the facts available at the time. Of course, a great deal has happened since this article was written, almost 5 months ago. I would be very surprised indeed if Mr Thompson would write the same article today.

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 17, 2004 11:49 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

"4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)"

Well, there might by nothing inherently implausible about SCO's claim that it believes there's infringing code in Linux. There is something inherently implausible with SCO threatening to sue people if they don't pay for using SCO owned code that it didn't want to be in Linux but now doesn't want to be removed, thus wanting it to be in Linux, and for which it has given not a single bit of evidence that it actually exists. I find it deeply disturbing that this doesn't raise an eyebrow with a long list of journalists.

BBC should present both sides of the story.

Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:12 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link]

I thought the article was lacking too.

What is lacks is the other side of the story, there are no quotes from Linus Torvalds or IBM who would seem to logical places to look for comment! But SCO gets centre stage.

There is also no mention of the fact that Red Hat is suing SCO for making such claims in the US. If one lawsuit in the US is news, you might as well mention them all....

For what it's worth I made a comment to the BBC as well.

There's an opportunity here.

Posted Jan 17, 2004 0:00 UTC (Sat) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

We are now at the point where SCO has made a significant number of threats which have proven to be empty. Examples include:

Darl's thuggish talk of suing Hollywood, including the statement "They can choose licensing or litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay, we'll say, Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first. I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit." (emphasis added).

And who can forget the infamous threats of invoices? On September 2nd, Blake Stowell said "the company will begin the more active approach of sending invoices requesting payment to commercial Linux users, 'probably some time this month.'" (emphasis added). They flogged that one for all it was worth, then, finding nobody spineless enough to pay, and facing criminal prosecution if they followed through, they cravenly bailed out by October 15th.

As I recall, Darl also promised in the Dec. 22nd conference call to sue someone early this year. With a pattern this blatant and consistent, don't we now have an opportunity to create a "SCO Big Bluff Page" with the whole sorry spectacle spread out for all to see? It might go a long way toward stiffening the spines of the waverers.

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 17, 2004 3:20 UTC (Sat) by Ajarn (guest, #8521) [Link]

This looks more like an article from someone just waking up from his 6 months long wintersleep, than like an article from a professional.
My 92 year old granny can do better.

Disgusting

Posted Jan 18, 2004 23:50 UTC (Sun) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

>>Mr Sontag said taking out a licence was a cheap way to avoid potential legal action <<

I think it reads more accurately as:

"Guido said paying protection money was a cheap way to avoid potential 'accidents' in the future."

It's more accurate because in both cases the protection money is paid to protect from the threatened actions of the bully, er, spokesperson.