×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the but-i-don't-want-unixware dept.

Linux 576

An anonymous user noted that SCO will sell you Unixware if you want to "Legitimize" your usage of Linux at your company. If you buy the license, you will be held blameless for your transgressions against SCO! Pricing has yet to be determined for the special licenses, but I suspect that for any value greater than zero, there are going to be a fair number of angry users.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

576 comments

If this is not the first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498940)

I will wax my nuts and soak them in drano afterwards.

As always, links to pictures will be posted.

Re:If this is not the first post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498958)

Thanks for beating the GNAA. Bet your nuts feel lucky now.

dupe (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498951)

dupe

Extortion is Right!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498952)

Could this allow for future countersuits if SCO loses??

Re:Extortion is Right!! (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499014)

Could this allow for future countersuits if SCO loses?

Not really no. Even in America, you can't sue something that doesn't exist, and the chances of SCO existing after they've lost are very low indeed.

How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (2, Funny)

drgroove (631550) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498954)

If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?

FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.

AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.

AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?

Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498983)

Trying to get an easy +5 insightful for stating some obvious shite, aren't ya?

Fuck you very much, asshole.

GMV (1)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499040)

Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT because if it leaks to the VC he could wind up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP.

Re:GMV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499138)

Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT because if it leaks to the VC he could wind up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP.

Exactly!!!

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499067)

I've been online way too long. I understood that, save the very last. I got as far as
If I Told You What I Mean Would You Be ...

Obfusticated until it makes sense. Just like the SCO situation.

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499114)

If I Tell You What It Means Will You Buy Me A Beer?

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499162)

if i tell you what it means, will you buy me a drink ? :D

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (1)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499099)

If I wwere a CIO or CTO debating it, I'd MSG him that OSS was GPL, and that the BOFH can't FART on my BUZZWORDS.

LAME !!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498955)

LAME !!!

Haha (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498959)

SCO owns linux.

Admit it. One of those unwashed hackers went and stole SCO code.

Where exactly DID NUMA, SMP come from? After a decade, it all hits linus like inspiration after the 2.2 kernel?

No.

Stolen code, corrupted and invalid license. Corporate ownership.

Goodbye linux, and code stealing lunix fags.

Hoo hoo

Re:Haha (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499113)

If Linux stole NUMA and SMP from SCO, that would be a mighty good trick, considering Linux had it first.

Re:Haha (5, Informative)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499172)

SMP came from Alan Cox's work with Caldera-sponsored equipment. A portion of NUMA came from IBM, as did the RCU which allowed greater scalability of the SMP kernel, mostly from removing overhead and latency with talking to many procs. The RCU which was sponsored through IBM, actually came from an acquisition of IBM, who essentially wrote it from scratch. It is the licensing terms and 'derivative work' stipulations which cast doubt on much of the validity of the added code.

Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.

And oh yeah, go back under the bridge, troll. That wasn't even creative. j00 ()w|\|z3r3d nobody.

but what's better? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498961)

(a) using Linux legitimately

OR

(b) having sex with a mare?

Re:but what's better? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499019)

What is a mare? I'm from France and don't know jack!

Why care? (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498962)

If Linus doesnt fear the SCO trolls, why should I? We're putting linux on our networks for free, and SCO wants a part of it.

Bugger Off SCO.

Re:Why care? (4, Funny)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498994)

We're putting linux on our networks for free, and SCO wants a part of it.

Sounds reasonable enough to me. How does 25% sound? :)

In case of slashdotting: (3, Funny)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498963)

Re:In case of slashdotting: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499070)

it's eweek.com you karma whore!

crazy (-1, Troll)

Boromir son of Faram (645464) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498969)

I lost my job when the bubble burst. I'm in hock up to my loogies just trying to keep my family clod and shorn, and the rent is due next week. Luxuries like legal software will just have to wait. Sorry, SCO.

Re:crazy (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499079)

What are you talking about man? You sound like you are forced to copy the "illegal" Linux , and apologize to SCO for decreasing their income?
Maybe it's a new kind of irony i don't understand?
But Linux is legal right Now, no matter what SCO says.Mp> It is also reasonable that they are selling you a Unixware license for legitimizing Linux. This way , when they Loose in court you may have a hard time getting your money back (after all you bought UnixWare.. not Linux)

Re:crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499124)


Luxuries like legal software will just have to wait. Sorry, SCO.

With all due respect to your situation, that sounds like the "man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family" story except you likely don't need legal software to feed your family

Uhm.. (3, Informative)

GearheadX (414240) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498972)

Didn't we hear about this yesterday? This isn't exactly new, news. How about waiting for a new bit on it until we actually have some new information. Like IBM or some other simliarly large corporation bending SCO's back the wrong way until it crumples like tin foil?

Seriously.

We know that SCO is being a naughty boy.

We don't need to be reminded about it every day.

Re:Uhm.. (2, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499128)

Didn't we hear about this yesterday?

1. Yes, but /. has a quota for SCO stories, and for weeks the quota is lying un-utilized.

2. SCO realises that getting abused at /. is the best way to spread their FUD.

3. CIOs and PHBs in the US are already writing checks to SCO.

4. CIOs and PHBs in Germnay, France, Asia and elsewhere are ROFLTAO...

5. Tune in for daily updates on the SCO extortion fund - brought to you by /.

-

Obligatory welcome (4, Funny)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499137)

Didn't we hear about this yesterday? This isn't exactly new, news.

I see that you are new amongst us. Welcome. What you're referring to is what we slashdotters call a "dupe". Please report to the re-education center where you will learn many things including, but not limited to, "profit lists", and jokes about non longer in existance soviet nations.

Re:Obligatory welcome (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499166)

ack...also, I feel that I need to give you a few tips, which I obviously follow myself:

Never use the preview button, and stay away from goatse links

Hrm (5, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498974)

This couldn't have been edited onto the previous SCO story this morning?

It's getting to be a bit much, especially since attention is what they're after in the first place, Slashdot...

Binary version of Linux? (4, Interesting)

cruppel (603595) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498976)

It will now offer ... run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on the 2.4 kernel and later.

Ok, maybe I don't understand, but isn't supplying a binary-only copy of Linux w/o source the exact opposite of every ideal GNU and the FSF stand for? Maybe I read the article wrong, if anyone can clue me in I'd appreciate. Is this a violation of the GPL?

Re:Binary version of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498992)

The GPL is effectively invalid, since it's SCOs IP, and they never authorized it's inclusion into the kernel.

It's pretty much all said and done now, you are witnessing the end of a "free oss"

Re:Binary version of Linux? (1)

eXtro (258933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499031)

Bullshit. This is only the end of a free OS if SCO wins and the only solution acceptable to the court is financial compensation to SCO.

Re:Binary version of Linux? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499082)

Not quite. They are not selling or licensing the binary (which would be in violation of the GPL, unless they accepted the GPL in which case they could only sell one of these licenses then the person who bought it could give away as many as they wanted). What they are doing is selling indemnity frm prosecution.

They are still claiming that the Linux kernel (or whatever part of SCO/Linux they are claiming today) contains their code, and that it is being used illegally, however if you give them money then they will ignore your violation. I'm not convinced that this is legal, since it sounds a lot like blackmail to me, but that doesn't seem to stop SCO.

Re:Binary version of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499164)

it's like making a child give you his lunch money so you don't beat him up.

Re:Binary version of Linux? (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499125)

Is this a violation of the GPL?

Among other things. Where are the damned counter-suits? IBM and other Linux copyright holders are making SCO look legitimate by just rolling over and taking it up the ass.

Why greater than zero? (4, Insightful)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498977)

Even if the price is zero, then I'm personally likely to be angry enough as it is. This is all about accepting that SCO is in the right, and until such time as they've taken this through court and proven that to be the case, I have no intention of doing anything to suggest that they have the right to impose restrictions on my use of Linux.

If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.

As it is, their case is built mostly on hot air, so I can see their motivation in pushing for payment in advance.

Re:Why greater than zero? (5, Interesting)

Shiblon (25972) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499109)

Even if the price is zero, then I'm personally likely to be angry enough as it is. This is all about accepting that SCO is in the right...

Actually, it's a bit more than that. Since nothing has yet been proven and all of this is allegation, isn't this just a form of blackmail? Isn't that illegal? Here is a definition of "blackmail", which I find very interesting indeed:

Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

It isn't much of a stretch to see how today the threat of "exposing a criminal act or discreditable information" has the same effect as "threatening to sue the pants off of someone for alleged and unproven wrongdoing." Perhaps even more interesting is the relationship of this next definition to SCO's current approach:

Tribute formerly paid to freebooters along the Scottish border for protection from pillage.

(All of these from dictionary.com [dictionary.com]) That last one is all about what SCO wants: "We're the pirates, pay us and we won't harm you."

I may be wrong (hey, it's happened before), but I find it interesting that the people who shout most loudly about their legal rights are often those quickest to disregard the rights of others.

License.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498982)

Buy a license help validate SCO's claim...

all your source are belong to us (4, Interesting)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498984)

is it possible that microsoft are paying sco to become 'most hated business ever' so that we stop beating up on the redmond boys? i'm running out of logical alternatives for this story. i mean... does sco really believe that anyone believes that linux belongs to them?

linux gets what it deserves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6498989)

Good, finally Linux gets what it deserves. Copyrighted software was infringed upon, and Linux open sourced it. There is nothing to say about that. The law was broken. It doesn't matter that its a "crappy law," only that it was broken, and now people have an option from the rightful holder of the copyright to be within the law.

Re:linux gets what it deserves (1)

jbottero (585319) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499106)

I know the parent will be modded troll or flamebait, but really, I keep hearing that if SCO prevails, the offending code can be replaced quickly. Why not replace it NOW?

Re:linux gets what it deserves (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499157)

Because every time the community thinks they know what SCO is talking about, they change their tune. First it was changes only in IBM's distribution, then it was in Red Hat, then it was in the stock 2.4 kernel, now it's in every kernel since 2.4.

It's NUMA, it's RCU, it's JFS, it's low-level subroutines, but they won't tell you exactly what it is. How can you change something when you don't know what needs changing?

Unicks Where? (2, Funny)

packethead (322873) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498995)

Q: "What UnixWare are you running?"
A: "I really don't want to concern myself with what UnixWare."

Re:Unicks Where? (1, Funny)

drgroove (631550) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499097)

First, you spelled it wrong. The word is 'eunuchs [reference.com]', a name for a man who has been castrated (yikes!).

Second, your 'Q:' is really 2 questions, not one, given the pun.

Your 'Q:' was:
What UnixWare are you running?

But, given the pun, it would be interpreted:
What Eunuchs wear? Are you running?

Meaning the answer, originally:
I really don't want to concern myself with what UnixWare.

Becomes:
I really don't want to concern myself with what Eunuchs wear. And, no, I'm not running.
Or, even:
I really don't want to concern myself with what Eunuchs wear. I would imagine its not a g-string - possibly a kilt? And, no, I'm not running.

Otherwise, I think your post should be modded up as at least +1 or +2 Funny, since the Unix/Eunuchs pun is so little used these days.

:D

It's for "business" (5, Insightful)

eXtro (258933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498996)

whatever that means. Even if I ran a business and I believed that SCO had a strong enough case to cause me worry I wouldn't buy into this. Say my business runs RedHat, I purchase a license and I'm held blameless. Fine, but RedHat itself isn't, so SCO goes and sues RedHat at a later date.


A few things can happen. 1) SCO loses, my license purchase was pointless then but I'm only out some money. 2) SCO wins and RedHat pays the licensing fees. My license purchase was pointless again because RedHat's aquisition of a license covers me. Not only that but RedHat will past the cost on to the consumers. 3) SCO wins and RedHat can't afford the licensing fee. RedHat goes out of business and I'm left with an orphaned product.


Basically unless I roll my own internal variant of linux I don't see any positive benefit to purchasing the license unless they intend to go after each business individually in court.

Re:It's for "business" (5, Insightful)

nightsweat (604367) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499059)

3) SCO wins and RedHat can't afford the licensing fee. RedHat goes out of business and I'm left with an orphaned product.

But that's the beauty of Open Source. You can't be truly orphaned.

Re:It's for "business" (1)

goranb (209371) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499163)

What does a red hat licence have to do with open source?
Sure, the individual packages will still be developed, but the automagic updates will be no more (and other stuff... You get the picture... :))

what about sco trangressions against Linux? (3, Funny)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498997)

What about a license to indemnify me from trangressions of SCO against Linux..oh wait IBM gives those out for free!

Thanks IBM!

dupe? (-1, Redundant)

deego (587575) | more than 10 years ago | (#6498998)

wasn't the same stuff mentioned here [slashdot.org]?

Re:Not at all!!!! (1)

botzi (673768) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499148)

You forget that:
1. It was more than 3 hours ago!!!!
2. It was far more complete and full of links which very probably few people managed to read.(actually _exxactly_ this story was posted as a reply from a user)
3. It's tuesday.
4. The previous one was by timothy and this is taco's... finally you can't expect them to check what has already been posted by another editor....;o)))))

woah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499006)

Two SCO stories within 3 hours?

Well.. (2, Insightful)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499009)

Well, now we know what their plan was. As everyone suspected, it's not to sue.

This way, they make money without legal fees, and don't need to prove anything. The only thing that can stop this is a countersuit...which I very much hope we see.

Exactly. (4, Insightful)

ins0m (584887) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499117)

Why spend money on a primary injunction? While some predicted that this may have been a ruse to get bought out, others held to the premise that SCO is on a sinking ship and just wants money. Since the controversy started, their stock price has gone from $1.09 to upwards of $12 per share. Coincidence? Nope; controversy sells.

By spreading FUD and insisting everyone cease and desist without actually seeking an injunction, it seems that the dynamic duo of Sontag and McBride are hoping to make some money without doing any dirty work. However, as was noted before, we have seen the GPL stand up to the legal tests (remember Progress and MySQL fighting over Gemini?). I hope someone eventually nails these guys with a libel suit. They haven't proven anything and they talk about this magical "discovery" phase like the dirty laundry is about to be aired... but it hasn't. As of the time of this post, SCO still has GPL'd Linux up on their FTP: ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/upda tes/SRPMS/ [caldera.com]. If that's not donation, I don't know what is.

My respiration patent. (4, Funny)

levik (52444) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499016)

Having submitted a patent for biological respiratory systems, we have gone back and looked over some evidence, and are pretty confident that the majority of the world population (not limited to homo sapiens) may be infringing on our intellectual property.

Pending the outcome of our patent application we are offering carbon-based lifeforms to protect themselves from possible litigation by lisencing out technology for a low upfront fee based on the cell count of the organism.

By chosing to forgo purchasing a lisence, you may be opening yourself to a potential injunctive action down the road.

Unixware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499017)

My employer has been asking me whether we should buy Unixware licenses to avoid legal threat. I've been saying that their threats have no backing, but he says he has been reading scary things in the Wall Street Journal. He thinks we should, and a board will vote tomorrow on whether to make the purchase.

What if? (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499025)

What if SCO loses in court? What happens to all the companies that buy these licenses to license linux via Unixware? Do they demand a refund? Will SCO just claim "Hey you licensed SCO, not Linux" and keep their moneies?

Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

Now, if I buy this license... (5, Funny)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499029)

If I buy this SCO license it means I own Unix right? Do I own Linux? Netware is thrown in there somewhere too isn't it? What about the Brooklyn bridge?

You can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

Heh. (2, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499030)

"Yeah, it'z a real trad-jedy what happened to old Mr. Smith and his hosting bidness down da street. Poor guy. Hoid he was gonna retires in a few weeks. Simply tragic. So, bidness seems do be brisk today, eh? That's great news, iddnit, Bennie? I was was just sayin' to Bennie, 'Gosh, we loves seein local bidness thrive,' I was sayin'. 'Cuz ya know, we's all gots a stake in bidness bein' good, don't we? And we wants ta help make sure that your fine shop doesn't fall victim to the same thugs what so ruthlessly beat an' murdered Mr. Smith, God rest his soul..."

Finally we have filled in the blank (3, Funny)

stand (126023) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499033)

Ahh! so finally we can fill in the blank at point 2.

  1. Latch on to/buy into someone elses idea
  2. Extort unsuspecting user community
  3. Profit

We'll see how it works out.

CmdrTaco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499034)

-1 Redundant.

Didn't this get covered ad nauseum yesterday?

I'd like to ask a question... (3, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499038)

What part of "GNU is not UNIX" don't you understand, SCO??

There... I feel better... ;-)

What? (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499041)

So I'm supposed to pay SCO to use a version of an OS that may have a few lines of their "copied code" in it? I'm sorry... this is like them asking people to pay to use Windows or MacOS because "key elements" in computer operating systems came from Unix. Who knows? Maybe that's where SCO's trying to go with this...

What's sad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499045)

What's sad is that, if it turns out that SCO is in the right, most Linux users will go "well, too fucking bad!" and won't pay anyway... just like pirating mp3's, everyone just wants to take whatever they please.

SCO Inquisition (1)

eweu (213081) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499054)

This is getting a bit out of hand, don't you think? Does anyone else see McBride running around in a red suit?

"Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!"

The feature we at SCO demand for a true open Linux (1)

skandalfo (623756) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499058)

Absolutely yes!

Let's ask those pesky GNU/Linux developers to include a signed bootloader for Unixware in their ISO distributions or we will charge astronomical rates for ransom Unixware/binary Linux licences...

Yes, I know. Grub/Lilo allow Unixware to be booted too, but they aren't signed, so they don't count.

:-P

SCO licencing unix code? (0)

DrunkEvilPenguin (680517) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499061)

As I understand it, SCO are willing to grant licences to use 'binary-only' distributions of linux, so as to not violate their alleged IP. But if the agreement is that the source is not to be available, won't that violate the GNU? So in effect that will violate the IP rights of every other contributer to the Linux kernel?

IANAL, but it seems that SCO haven't thought parts of this out too well...

Hmmm... (1)

Tyrdium (670229) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499062)

Will this put an end to the multitude of distros that we all know and love? I don't like being locked into a single distro...

Why not just use the GPL (5, Interesting)

yamla (136560) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499063)

Rather than buying a license, why not just go to their ftp site and download the source code to the Linux kernel? SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources under the GPL.

Why do we let them get away with this? (2, Interesting)

countach (534280) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499068)

Even giving SCO the best case argument. Even arguing that their distribution of of Linux didn't put their IP into the GPL domain.... Neither did their distribution of Linux absolve them from obeying the GPL surely?

What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?

i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?

Bender says (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499069)


SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Ok. Info please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499075)

I neglected to read the first few SCO vs. everyone else stories, then was too lazy to catch up, and now I have no idea what the fuck is happening.

1) What the bloody hell is "SCO"?

2) What's this whole mess all about? "SCO", whatever it is, claims copyright on parts of Linux that cannot be removed or what? The first person to give an executive summary in 5 sentences or less will receive a cookie and 3 karma.

also... Re:Ok. Info please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499132)

What the hell is "Unixware"? Or System V, for that matter? Seriously, help me out here, I'm kinda lost in the namespace of Unix business thingies.

RedHat's answer to SCO's licenses (5, Informative)

opkool (231966) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499080)

See it here. [redhat.com]

A sample of this, in perfect "Management-Speak":

* Do I need to buy a SCO license?

SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed.

Which, translated into English says:

* Do I need to buy a SCO license?

Not at all

You go, RedHat!

Peace!

I can't wait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499092)

I can't wait for SCO to release the copied code and put all you zealots in your place. Seeing as you all pirate Windows to play games and MP3's because "Music wants to be free and who am I hurting" I don't imagine you will complain that your beloved Linux is illegal.

At what point has SCO stepped over the line? (4, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499100)

At what point can SCO finally be charged with fraud, extortion, and stock manipulation? When can SCO at least be sued in a civil court?

This is the most blantant racket I have ever witnessed. And the USA legal system seems to be completely incapible of doing anything about it. Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.

Germany shut down SCO a long time ago. Germany said put up or shut up - show us some evidence or stop making claims. Predictably, SCO ran away with it's tail between it's legs.

I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.

As a Linux user... (1)

powerlinekid (442532) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499135)

They can have my HD when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Seriously I hope they try to enforce this on people running Linux in the home:

SCO: "I see you have 3 machines with Linux so give us $4500".

Me: "Who let you in? Get off my property you bastards."

Should we boycott Trolltech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499136)

The guys that own SCO also own Trolltech.
Should we boycott QT to send them a message?

No need to pay. (4, Informative)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499141)

SCO has acknowledged that they make claims against 2.4, not 2.2. They also haven't yet made the specific claims public.

For desktops and servers, stay the course, but do your research now and be sure you're able to step back to 2.2 should SCO's claims prove valid. With 2.2, you give up some performance and compatibility with a few newer peripherals. But ducking down to 2.2 while the allegedly offending code is removed from 2.4 will cover your business. Be very surprised if it takes more than just a few weeks for an untainted 2.4 branch to be released.

The one thing you should not do is to purchase an SCO license without your legal department fully reviewing the terms of the license. By entering into a license agreement with SCO, your company could find itself vulnerable in all kinds of new ways. If SCO is turning into a pure litigation company, you don't want to be on their customer list!

I Promises...No, WE Promises (My Precious)... (1)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499145)

"Though we possess broad legal rights, we plan to use these carefully and judiciously," he (SCO CEO and President Darl McBride) said.

And though I possess superhuman and godlike powers of my own proclaiming, I promise to use them carefully and judiciously. I will not arbitrarily turn Slashdot readers into toads; nor will I cause boils to rise on their asses; neither will I create pimples (new ones, anyway) on their faces. Simple worship and dollars will help me keep my promise. You may license my mercy.

What they really said (1)

Micro$will (592938) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499147)

Following the distribution of our letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 1000 and Global 500 companies, many of them contacted us to ask what they could do to move into compliance.

I bet many more contacted SCO telling them to fsck off.

This is getting rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6499155)

I think the whole world should create a backlash at SCO and everyone who has anything to do with them.

SCO will GIVE you a license (4, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499170)

Check out this posting [slashdot.org] from yesterday. You can download a GPLed copy of the Linux kernel from SCO, if you feel you need a license from them.

Problem solved, let's go back to writing code.

Loophole... (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#6499171)

If a company is developing a product using Linux as an embedded solution, a simple way to avoid any problem with SCO (if there was any fear) would be to simply not include those portions of code which SCO claims as their own (SMP, etc). Why pay for IP you aren't going to use?

Problem solved

(I hope that anyone reading this can detect the sarcasm intended by it)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...