|
|
| SCO Wants Us to Buy Their Binary-Only License for $699 |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:51 PM EDT
|
Um. No. Speaking just for myself, I'd give up computers altogether before I'd hand over one slim dime to SCO. I think I'd prefer to join the DoD and spend $640 dollars for a toilet seat first. Next, I was planning on buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Hey, we all have our priorities.
Here [update: you'll have to get it now from Archive.org] are their thoughts and terms:The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed. . . .SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available. Nope. Guess again. Back to GPL Summer School for you. Take your time. We'll wait. This is, no doubt, what the teleconference will be about. Until they open up the floor for questions. Then it'll be about Red Hat, I'm thinking. That $699 is a special introductory offer, by the way, so you probably need to snap them up quick. Unless you think you might do better with their Going-Out-of-Business sale.
Here's their press release:
*********************
Press Release Source: The SCO Group
SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET
SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX® operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux®. The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
SCO announced in July that it had registered the copyrights to its software releases of UNIX System V and UnixWare® with the U.S. Copyright office and that it would offer licenses to cure the SCO IP infringement issues for Linux operating systems. Beginning this week, SCO will start meeting with commercial Linux customers to present the details of this right to use SCO intellectual property binary licensing program.
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the intellectual property licensing division of SCO. "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."
Pricing and Availability
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource .
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com .
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
Source: The SCO Group
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
| I noticed that after the announcement, SCO stock went back up a bit (after the
hammering it took yesterday.) I really worry about some of these day
traders...
Note that SCO do not specify which Linux distributions and which kernels. This
makes the licence meaningless in a legal context, since two Linux kernels could
differ massively - for example, one could take the 2.4.20 kernel tarball and
tweak it to announce its version as 2.3.1209 ;) But this is intentional, I'm
sure, because SCO do not want to alledge infringement against a specific
kernel.
I really can't work out how they think this license is compatible with the GPL..
perhaps they are trying to claim the GPL only covers the source code and not the
result of its compilation? But even Ms Didio understands the GPL links source
and binary intimately.
As an aside: Today I was involved in a pitch for an embedded Linux project. Now
of course this is a lower-risk item since most embedded projects don't need any
of the code under dispute in the IBM-SCO suit, but I was ready to handle any SCO
questions. None arrived; all the customers considered the use of embedded Linux
an undoubted plus for this application, and these were not ignorant people. Just
a nice sidenote :)
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
SCO has an explanation of the licenses they offer on the ScoSource website. It
isn't clear to me when the "Single User Desktop" License suffices or when a
Commercial server license is "required". Desktop licenses are at $199 only 4
times as expensive as a distribution.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
| They make it abundantly clear
1. it applies to all Linux 2.4, which by definition must include Red Hat,
although it is never explicitly said.
2. Distributors of Linux 2.4, which by definition must include Red Hat (not
explicitly said), are infringing in SCO's view ("SCO doesn’t offer a license to
cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because SCO’s source
license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL.")
3. If you don't pay you might get sued (You have the option to do nothing, adopt
a “wait and see” attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its
intellectual property rights in the end user community")
4. There is an issue with the GPL ("SCO doesn’t offer a license to cure the
infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because SCO’s source license
agreement directly conflicts with the GPL.")
http://www.sco.com/scosourc
e/description.html
This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a
distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating
system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel
The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does
it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure
infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes
Linux source code.
Since the license pertains to SCO IP that the end user already received in the
unauthorized Linux distribution, the SCO license doesn’t include a media kit.
Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO
IP license.
I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides
purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:
• You have the option to do nothing, adopt a “wait and see” attitude, and hope
that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the
end user community
Why doesn’t SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux distribution
companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux distribution?
The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in
binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor
does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn’t offer a
license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because
SCO’s source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL.
Why is SCO charging so much for the right to use SCO IP in Linux when most of
the code in the Linux distribution is not SCO IP?
SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of UNIX and is
therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO believes that
major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of the Linux kernel are
unauthorized derivative works of SCO UNIX IP.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
Some of the quotes are from the FAQ page. Sorry I mixed up. It would probably
be good to get some certified copies of these pages in case they change
later.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
| I listened in on the Aug 5 SCO conference call, and came away with
a few observations:
1. No one has yet asked what I think is the obvious question: "I
purchased a SCO OpenLinux product, accepted the terms (GPL), is
SCO now revoking that license?" Surely there must be *some*
paying SCO OpenLinux customers that have this running through
their minds. If SCO's answer is "you are covered under this
new license" the reply should be "uh uh, I'll stick with the
terms of the *first* license I agreed to."
2. SCO is, I think brilliantly, lumping linux users in with the file
sharing crowd, and if slashdot comments are any indicator, people are
*embracing* this. I'm sorry file leachers - fight your own
fight. This community *built* Linux, we have a right to
distribute it under our terms, period.
3. SCO is making a big deal about indemnification and who is offering
it. Is SCO offering indemnification against *other* companies
who may have IP claims to Linux, or just themselves. If, god forbid,
SCO wins, aren't they opening the doors to a feeding frenzy
where company after company assert ownership of Linux because
50 lines of code ended up in file foo.c? Can SCO reasonably
offer indemnification against that?
My head is spinning, mostly I'm just outraged that reporters, the people
who are supposed to be curious by profession, are pitching boring softballs
like "duuuuh, how much is a TWO cpu license?"
Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
| Well if SCO's source license conflicts with the GPL, then SCO themselves cannot
distribute the kernel at all - you must either distribute under the GPL, or not
distribute at all. Read the GPL. Therefore, SCO are breaking the law by their
own admission by continuing to distribute the kernel. Moreover, in some
jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) just installing a program constitutes copying.
Therefore, SCO's licence is no good to anyone in the UK. Well, I don't know
anyone here planning to buy one, so that works out nicely.
No-one is "entitled" to an ROI. I could invest a trillion dollars in a product
and it wouldn't give me the right to a red cent in ROI. [If the opinions
expressed in several forums are to be believed, SCO's version of UNIX is the
worst out there, missing several features that even in Linux.] Moreover, what
SCO "believes" is utterly irrelevant to what it is entitled to.
P.S. anon, they don't make it clear from a *legal point of view*. If they
referred to particular versions on kernel.org, or "versions that contain SCO IP
as set out as follows" that would be another matter. I could take a 2.3 kernel
(which SCO have omitted) and patch it up, off my own bat, to effectively 2.4
functionality, yet leave the version number as 2.3. Because they haven't
referenced their claim to a particular source tree, they can't say "but you're
using 2.4 *really*" To do that, they have to say what they *mean* by 2.4, which
ultimately comes down to identifying the code they alledge infringes their
copyright - something they don't want to do - or change the licence terms to be
"this licence means we won't sue you, even though you may not even be infringing
our IP", which puts its extortionate nature into sharp relief.
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
Trent, I think that SCO has said it would hold existing SCO customers harmless,
i.e. those that purchased OpenLinux. With regard to those customers, remember
that they received the kernel under the GPL and no other licence. Moreover, a
GPL licence can only be revoked as a result of the user's actions (read the GPL)
- that is, once I issue something under the GPL I cannot take it back. The
person I supply code to under the GPL can lose his/her rights by violating its
terms, but I cannot withdraw my original release under the GPL. As has been
pointed out, the doctrine of mutual mistake doesn't apply since there is no
contract. Therefore, anyone who received the kernel under the GPL from SCO can
do whatever they like with it that the GPL permits - including sending a copy to
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Lycoris...
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
| Who said: "SCO’s source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL."
Oh it was SCO, on their web site, in their FAQ. Funny thing, I got the
impression they were saying there was no conflict between their license and the
GPL on their conference call.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
Mathfox, I'm sure the distinction between desktop and server licences is
deliberately obscure to induce people to pay the higher price ;)
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
There is a new login message on the SCO ftp server:
NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until
the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will,
however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux
customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at
no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for
their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary
format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed
to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its
intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing
customers in the marketplace.
The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to
existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with
LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.
It wasn't there on Sunday 03 Aug...
Who mentioned GPL summerschool?
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
| What's the betting the kernels on SCO's ftp site still have all previous
copyright and GPL notices intact?
Even so, this is far too late for SCO. They could have pulled the kernel from
their ftp months ago (and offered, say, to send CDs to existing customers.) Far
too little, far too late.
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
| No, they can't send CDs either if they contain any kernel code. The only way
they could meet their supprt commitments would be to either supply a complete
new kernel containing no GPL components under a new license or to rewrite or
remove all the bits they claim infringe their IP and release the modified kernel
under the GPL.
They cannot distribute something which they claim is a mix of GPL code and their
proprietary code in any medium. Anyone who has an OpenLinux license with a
current support contract could request them to do this - it would be interesting
to see the reaction but as pj always says, ask your lawyer first.
Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
| I am considering making a phonecall to sco.nl tomorrow and ask them what licence
is valid for the kernel source I downloaded last week from ftp.sco.com.
*looks at glass of beer* Dutch courage!
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
If SCO alleged that kernel version 2.4 or later are tainted, would it be
possible to narrow down the alleged tainted codes by running a diff between
kernel version 2.3 and 2.4? Would it then be possible to determine if any of
such code has what SCO alleged 'enterprise class'? Would it then be possible to
determine whether the alleged tainted can be removed? or not possible per SCO
claims?
Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
| No that would'nt help.
There are backports of 2.4 stuff to 2.2
SCO talks about anuthing from 80 lines to hundreds of files and hundreds of
thousand of lines of code, it changes every day.
Main point is that it is up to SCO to identify to us, the alleged infringers,
what code is infringing. If I (in good faith) uses property belonging to
somebody
else, then they cannot charge me for that without identifying what it is and
give me the chance to give it back (remove it from the kernel).
Of course they can also send me a bill for the usage of their property, that I
can contest.
Magnus.
Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
| Magnus,
Even there are backports stuff from 2.4, could they still be identifiable by
review the history log? I am not interested in doing the proof for SCO but
rather to see if it is possible to satisfy the curiousity.
I am not a programmer. So I was just asking aloud.
Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
| Thinking aloud !
Probably not, their claims are very wide and consists of
basically three different parts.
Identical code from their codebase - can be found and removed
Similar code to old SysV Unix - the "common knowlege" that is taught
in university classes BUT SCO claims as "obfuscated". This is probably all over
the kernel, we basically all had the same education based on the same operating
systems priciples as in Unix.
And Linux is similar to Unix in many respects. In the sense of ideas
and principles for an operating system I would say taht it is a
derivative (more precisely a reimplementation) of Unix, but as for
the actual code (copyright) it is not a derivative of Unix
Enterprise class stuff - RCU, NUUMA, SMP can be found and removed
but we dont think SCO has the rights to this stuff.
So we still need SCO to clarify their claims.
Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
| About finding the infringing code. It's a waste of time.
f'gedaboudit. Really. SCO's story has shifted so often it's like SCO is a
desert, the dunes always moving and shifting.
I've seen this posted in a couple of places, and it really resnates with what
I've seen of SCO's antics
SCO's whole game plan revolved around never showing any infringing code.
1. sue IBM
2. by spreading a ton of FUD get IBM to settle, never having shown the alleged
code (AC from here)
3. use the cash from IBM to go after the Linux distributors. Most of these are
poor so many would settle or go under. AC never shown
4. use more FUD to get the remaining distributors to settle, AC never shown.
In the end, SCO gains control of Linux without ever having proven the case,
basically by gaming the legal system.
And why do it this way? Because there really is very little to the claims. SCO
has no case.
Anyway, that's the one explanation that best comports with the available facts.
The other stuff (Vultus, execs dumping) is just opportunistic money grabs.
Anyway, About finding the infringing code.
f'gedaboudit.
Really.
Because aside from the above, Sontag made some statements about SCO going after
the BSDs too - find the article by Trevor Marshall in Byte.
It's not about protecting legitimate IP rights. It's a premeditated money grab
with very tenuous links to reality. (the tenuous links being the AT&T
contracts)
Spend your time brainstorming some way to reach people who may be thinking of
getting SCO's licenses and convincing them NOT TO DO IT.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
| Correct myself
Spend your time brainstorming ....
Should have been "please consider spending your time ......"
I ask myself this question constantly ..... It's frustrating not to have a good
answer .... SEE ALSO ....
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO
http:
//twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMLawEnforcement
I need to update those, or you can, if you have better (more convincing )
wording, better ideas ....
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
| > P.S. anon, they don't make it clear from a *legal point of view*.
I am not a lawyer, but would have thought it depends on which legal point of
view. If it's from a view of removing an alleged infringement, yes there is not
enough detail to do it. If it's from the point of view of Red Hat saying, "look
they are after our customers", I would have though it's pretty clear?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
Help me out here. Isn't SCO violating the IP rights of the independent Linux
developers (non SCO contributors) and in effect stealing their code by
attempting to distribute the non-SCO code under a non-GPL binary license? The
non-SCO code certainly was and still is under GPL which requires distribution
use etc. of the source code. Am I missing something here? In laymans terms, it
looks to me like SCO is stealing from the open source community.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
| >>> In laymans terms, it looks to me like SCO is stealing from the open source
community.
I've been saying this for months, it's the thing that's 2nd most disturbing to
me about this affair.
on the LicensingJustSayNO page (link above) , look at the 2nd last entry.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
| Yes, I did make the phonecall to SCO.nl (around 09:00 MEST, 07:00 UTC), not that
they were very helpfull... It was clear anyway that they had been briefed about
the situation and that some procedures were in place to handle licencing
inquiries.
They couldn't offer me a quote for the price in Euro's in the Netherlands;
the only thing the salesman had to say was that "prices would be in line with
the US prices". It could be that they ment they would just bill the dollar
amount, anyway the exact price didn't have my priority.
On the question of whether or why I would need a license the only thing SCO
had to offer was FUD. I should ask legal advice and check whether the licenses
we currently had were good enough. They didn't confirm or deny that they
distributed Linux kernels under the GPL. They refused to confirm that I
needed a SCO licence. And then the "seek legal advice" came up again.
I forgot to ask them whether their licence would indemnify me against similar
IP claims from another company... If some of you would do that for me? I
allready decided that I don't buy the SCO licence and I don't feel any need to
deal with them.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
Thanks for doing this MathFox. It's significant, I think, to note that SCO
wouldn't tell you that you needed a licence. It's been pointed out here and
elsewhere that if SCO told people they *must* get a licence and it subsquently
is established this was untrue, they would be in hot water. Whereas, if SCO says
you /may/ need a licence and your company lawyer advises you to buy one, then it
would just be bad advice on the part of your lawyer should it turn out you
didn't need it - at least, that would be their argument.
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
