mhesseltine's Journal: Sitting in on the SCO conference call

Well, it's 2pm EDT. SCO is having their conference call. I'm waiting to see what gets said. I'm also a little paranoid about having to give them a name and phone number, but hey, I'm at work, so no big deal, right? I think I'll use this journal to note highlights of the call. Might be interesting.

2:06, Darl starts with a statement. (He sounds like Ben Stein) First issue is Redhat. Linux developers are either unwilling or unable to screen intruding code. Responses to Redhat

1. Redhat claims SCO hasn't exposed code. SCO claims this is false. Redhat is pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
2. Redhat claims SCO is at fault for recent loss in Linux business. SCO claims that Redhat has a faulty business model. Darl begins quoting Section 7 of the GPL, concerning stopping distribution.
3. Redhat pledge of Linux development fund. SCO will only sue companies that hire Linux developers, not developers individually.
4. Redhat wants SCO to show all infringing code. SCO thinks they want the code to just ignore it. Darl begins to discuss the large picture of will IP rights disappear in the future? Darl mentions RMS and his vision of all open software. Their long term growth plan is defending their IP.

2:15p Darl has finished his opening statement. The floor is open to questions. First question from Wall Street Journal reporter. He asks about why SCO hasn't released the infringing code. Darl claims that the source is shown publicly, but then seems to backpedle and say that they can't show it to the public. Reporter asks about getting a list of people to whom the code has been shown. SCO will work on getting the information to the reporter. Darl says he's met with a Linux developer, who acknowledges the problem, and wants to know what will be done.

New question about the details of the Linux license. Single CPU commercial use - $699 intro to 10/15/03 afterwards price will increase. Obtain license by contacting SCO rep.

Larry Greenmier, Information week: Global resolution of SCO IP claims? What went into this prior to the suit? Darl can't get into details, (confidentiality)

Micheal Singer, Jupiter Media: Are SCO thinking about a counter-suit to Redhat? They have counter claims that they could file. Figure Redhat case could go in 2005. IBM case April, 2005.

Maurine O'hara, : Will customers be back-billed? What about multi-cpu, embedded systems, etc? After 10/15/03 $1,399 per license. Somewhere close to this for aditional CPUs

Reporter from Reuters: Will this be a 1 time, or yearly type of license? Also, about timing in relation to LinuxWorld conference. SCO says it will be a 1 time license. Darl talked with Matthew Szulik on Thursday. Felt like they might be making progress with Redhat, until the lawsuit was filed.

2:25p Wired Magazine, Gary Rippland: Are you worried about winning this battle, but losing the war by alienating the entire Linux community? All developers SCO has talked to ask about making money on top of the GPL software. Thinks that people will make money on proprietary enhancements.

Boston Globe: How many users are you expecting to get licenses from, and would you go after individual users? SCO thinks there are 2.5 million servers running 2.4 or later kernel. They do have the option to go after end-users if necessary. IBM won't idemnify users. Will 100% fight for IP rights. We've paid hundreds of millions to acquire/develop.

Herbert Jackson, Renisance Ventures: Discussions with software vendors who would produce a legal version of Linux? SCO is dealing with companies and have seen the code and are wanting to fix it. Others are attacking SCO and trying to squash their legal rights.

Darl's summary: the reality is IBM and Redhat have painted a liability target on their customers, and SCO will have to fight the battle toward the end-users.

Redhat started the fund, and targeted it towards people who aren't under attack (developers, not end-users). SCO thinks that Redhat didn't acknowledge the end-users, that Redhat doesn't care about the customers, and that the end-user is responsible for the infringement.

Darl launches a comparison to the RIAA suing individual users, and results a 30% reduction in downloads. If SCO has to do the same thing, they will. They don't want to sue. They want people to license the code. SCO sales team is ready to go.