decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 01:10 AM EST

SCO has a new policy on its Linux downloads:

"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.

Dear SCO customer,

Starting on November 1, 2003, SCO will institute new procedures for you to access binary updates and source rpms. If you own an SCO licensed copy of Linux (such as such as OpenLinux, eDesktop, etc.), it will be necessary for you to register (or re-register) in order to continue to receive support files. During the registration process you will receive instructions on how the new access procedure will work or you can visit: "

There is, as of this post, no information on the page they invite you to visit, just a Document Not Found notice. UPDATE: It's working now. See updated information at the end of the article.

What exactly is a "SCO licensed copy of Linux"? And am I missing something or did SCO just tell its customers that the product they bought and paid for under one license, predominantly the GPL, which SCO now unilaterally says isn't valid, is being replaced by a new procedure whereby you must register and they offer you as a "gift" a free (as in gratis, not as in freedom) license that will take away several of the rights the customer already has paid for? What law would they be relying on here? Maybe they just noticed that if the GPL violates export laws, they are violating said laws too by their open-to-anyone distribution. Woops.

It's worded in the typical SCOspeak. They don't say you *have* to get the new license, but it sounds like you ought to, as part of the new procedure. Then, I'm guessing, they will show up in court, claiming X number of companies have already signed up for "SCO UNIX IP" licenses. Isn't that a new name, too? They used to call it the "SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux", didn't they? I wonder if somebody has been studying up on the GPL, not that they have it right even yet. Or maybe it's about the Australians who are suing SCO. The Linux IP license is very much at issue there. Or maybe they noticed you can't put restrictions on top of the GPL, and so they are now pushing a UNIX license, for "their" code allegedly put into Linux, instead of a Linux license. Or maybe they're in such disarray, they don't know what to do.

Caveat emptor, for sure. Last I looked, vendors can't change the terms of sale after the product has been purchased. I just don't know what these folks are thinking. If I buy a dress for $60, the store can't notify me a year later that they should have charged me $65 and now I have to send them the money. The deal is done. What, pray tell, is the difference? These customers bought a product under the terms of a license they wanted. Now SCO is saying they are changing the terms of the deal, like it or lump it, and you can accept or be sued? They evidently don't dare *sell* these prior customers these licenses, for the same reason the store can't bill me another $5. If the store tried it, I'd sue them and win. They hope their customers don't know the law, I guess, and will willingly sign up for a license they can't possibly want under any normal circumstances, since it severely restricts their use of the product they already paid for. I simply can't wait until this detail gets aired in court.

No kidding. The GPL is their downfall. It's almost amusing watching them get all tangled up in its terms. They can't satisfy their greed and abide by the GPL at the same time. Poor SCO. Poor Microsoft. They will have to write their own software, and they can't. They write it, but it isn't as good. They can't match our software because they won't use our method. The open source/free method of developing software results in better, more stable, more secure code, and it's developed blazingly fast in comparision to their pokey ways. They want the results, but they're so terrified of the open process, they won't use it. The apparent solution they have come up with is to steal GPL code. Maybe they think if they can get it put in the public domain, not that they can, then maybe Windows software will finally become secure, once it's running on Linux, like Apple runs on BSD.

It's pointless to talk about what use SCO could do with GPL code, because no one will ever do business with them again, aside from any payoffs there may be lurking in the shadows. Why would we? Look how they treat their customers.

UPDATE: The link to the info page works now and here's part of what it says:

"How to access RPMs and SRPMs for OpenLinux, eServer, or eDesktop through the password accessible download area.

"The Linux rpm and sprm files once available on SCO's ftp site are now offered for download to existing customers of OpenLinux, eServer, or eDesktop through a protected download area. To enter these areas you will be asked for a username and password. If you do not have a username and password, please read the Registration section below.

"The download location for OpenLinux, eServer and eDesktop products can be located at:

"The Caldera System Updated (kcupdate/cupdate)
"The Caldera System Updated (kcupdate/cupdate) will remain available to our customers for Linux non-kernel rpm files. To access Linux kernel rpm and srpms files you will need to use the protected download site noted above."

So a "protected" download. This new process may indeed be linked to the export law claim, and they do seem to be looking to open up new fronts, judging by this story, which indicates SCO may now try to go after those unfortunate enough to be using their libraries. They just want your money, by hook or by crook, somebody's money, anybody's. They started this saga talking about the SCO libraries and here we go again:

"As the world awaits the ramifications of The SCO Group’s Linux intellectual property licence, Linux users with SCO shared libraries installed for running Unix applications may have an additional licence to deal with regardless of the outcome, according to FreeBSD lead developer and Australian Unix User Group president Greg Lehey.

"Lehey said many third-party applications developed for SCO systems rely on the proprietary libraries supplied with the operating system. People have found it cheaper to run SCO-based application software under Linux, but they use the SCO libraries.

"'SCO claims that its licences only allow the use of the libraries under its own operating system,' Lehey said. 'It's possible that this claim might stand up in court. In that case, it would be necessary to re-write the applications. That could still be cheaper than running SCO.' . . .

"Open source developer Waldo Bastian said the stage is set for SCO to approach its shared library users in the same way it will with Linux users.

“'My prediction is that it is going to see how far it comes by extorting money from Unix licensees who have dropped SCO in favour of Linux and are now using their iBCS libraries to run SCO binaries under Linux,' Bastian said.

“If the company manages to find a single SCO shop that runs software written for SCO Unix on Linux with iBCS in combination with SCO libraries, and that shop has violated somehow the licence terms of this SCO library, it might be able to either sue or agree on a settlement.”"

As SCO looks to be opening up some new fronts, may we be the first to wish them the same success they had with their previous efforts.


SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"Licensed copy of Linux"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 01:42 AM EST
How can anyone have bought a "Licensed copy of Linux"? Before SCO
began this whole mess, they sold distributions, but surely there was no Linux
licensing then.

Since SCO "stopped distributing" Linux, there can be no
"Licensed copies of Linux" later.

Oh, and since the "Linux License" is not explicitly a license for
Linux, I really can't see any way anyone can have a "licensed copy of
Linux". So I guess there won't be many downloads.

Still -- it really shows that SCO STILL does not understand the GPL and that the
issue is not selling Linux, but DISTRIBUTING Linux.

It's not as if there are no alternatives: SCO could tell people to download the
kernel from and then provide only patches. Heck, one could probably
create a RPM file that downloaded the kernel, applied the patches, etc.

So, since there is no technical reason to do this, and there is no legal reason,
why are SCO making this change? Where is the gain?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: amcguinn on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:06 AM EST
If they're still distributing it to their customers, then they're still distributing it under copyright law, and they still need to do so consistent with the GPL.

Whether they're distributing to the general public or not has no relevance to anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Shared libaries again
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:17 AM EST
In case anybody missed it

They've brought the shared library issue out again

http ://

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:30 AM EST
This seems like a reaction to the constant comments from the open source
community that they are breaking their, that is SCO, interpretation of copyright
by distributing Linux. So instead of distributing Linux they only honor their
existing contracts.
It also seems like a new attempt to snow 'investors' and the judicial system
by trying to reinforce the claim that they own Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exactly what are they licensing?
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 05:16 AM EST
SCO's license appears to be for "methods", "ways of doing
things", and "trade secrets", since they cannot actually prove
there is infringing code in Linux.

I sure would be interested, as I am sure many would - especially Judge Kimball,
in hearing SCO explain exactly how it is they managed to attach a dollar figure
to vapourware.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 05:33 AM EST
Can it be the story of SCO and SCO's past and current history with SCO's

Hmmm, Bring out the old regular and/or legal dictionary (and get ready to search

Actual Authority
Apparent Authority
Apparent Agent
Ostensible Authority
Ostensible Agent

google search example:

SCO has AGENTS! Not only has SCO's agents activly worked on improving LINUX...
BUT, in the past SCO's agents have made deals with consumers that were governed
by certain terms that were binding to the deals made at the time.

SCO by their actions, or lack of actions, has a history of giving and ALLOWING
many different types of agents the authority to ACT for SCO. SCO, today, is a
self declared principle of LINUX! SCO still has not made a legal attempt to
stop the distribution "agents" of LINUX IP (that SCO is saying they
are a principle of)! Until SCO attempts to notify the public, by direct
actions, where then, by SCO's actions, it becomes clear that all distribution
of LINUX is to cease, ...until this happens, then all innocent 3rd party
consumers can only be lead to understand, by SCO's actions and lack of actions,
that SCO approves of them acquiring LINUX under the terms and conditions of the
LINUX acquisition! Yep - to date, there is no run time license material,
laguage about, or information concerning SCO or any UNIX license to be found in
any acquired unit of LINUX (bought at store, acquired by download, or even
gifted by a friend, etc.)! Hmmm, It does appear that SCO is still allowing all
agents of LINUX IP to still ACT as they have before (SCO seems to be obvious in
this act of approval, so they are both in denial over the GPL and also are in a
continued state of ACQUIESCENCE).

SCO has not made a legal move to stop any LINUX AGENTS, that are distributing
and allowing the upgrading of LINUX, from doing so under the terms of the
existing Linux version of the GPL!

When acquired, when one starts to use LINUX, does not the Linux version of the
GPL "imply" perpetual rights to: 1) use LINUX under the terms of
acquisition, 2) acquire future upgrades by download or by acquiring an upgrade
thru retail methods, AND 2) have perptual rights to access traditional methods
support? SO once you have used LINUX once then you have perpetual rights to use
LINUX forever, right or wrong?

Any comments from any legal eagles?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO scared stupid?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 06:29 AM EST
I think I have a serious explaination for the latest batch of wierdenss that SCO
had the gumption to give to a judge: They're scared out of thier minds, and
with good reason.

Everyone here knows the REAL reason the GPL has never seen the inside of a
courtroom: Every other time a company was going to take it to court their
lawyers read the GPL, experienced Bowel Liquifying Terror, and then they
proceeded to settle out of court rather than have their heads handed to them by
a judge.

SCO on the other hand obviously refuses to listen to their lawyers - otherwise
they wouldn't have been shooting their mouths off constantly for months prior
to the trial. Thus their lawyers are experincing that BLT feeling, but can't
run and hide like most other businesses by settling. After all those other guys
were dealing with the FSF which, while effective, is run by relatively humane
people. SCO on the other hand is talking serious smack, and has gone up against
IBM in such a way that IBM is essentially forced to go for blood to prove to all
and sundry that they do NOT breach contracts or give away trade secrets.

If that isn't enough to mess with SCO's lawyers' heads I don't know what is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ex Post Facto
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 07:46 AM EST
Last I looked, vendors can't change the terms of sale after the product has been purchased.

So far, Microsoft gets away with something close: they change the terms of the EULA as a condition of security patches.

The whole "this product is licensed, not sold" approach is spreading to game consoles, books, and (according to one news item) woodworking tools.

Before the dust settles, I suspect that the USSC is going to have to create a whole new doctrine on the subject because the once-clear lines separating non-copyright goods (printers), copyrighted works (books), and licensed software are blurring to invisibility.

[ Reply to This | # ]

At what point are they in criminal violation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 07:46 AM EST
Theyve pretty much shifted from the copyright infringement statutes to the
commercial piracy laws. I can't remember the exact terms but I believe it was
$250000 in fines per incident and up 3 years in jail.

Is there anyway to get this on the DOJ's plate ?? Heck is it something that
could be gotten on a states AG plate ?

Not to mention they are now completely violating every kernel contributors and
app authors copyright.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did SCO/Caldera include source code?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 09:20 AM EST
Does anyone know if SCO's Linux distributions included all the source code? If so, it would have no obligation under the GPL to offer further access to the source code, and SCO's new policy would be acceptable under the GPL. [I know that SCO is saying that the GPL is invalid. They probably believe that as much as we do.]

If SCO did not include all source code, it has an obligation to make the code available for three years:

  1. to any third party
  2. under the terms of the GPL
The new policy violates both these points.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads are not only SCO GPL usage.
Authored by: lightsail on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 09:33 AM EST
The General Public License is not limited to Linux. GNU and other software
providers use the GPL to license their products. SCO continues to distribute
many GPL licensed software products. I suspect that Unix product sold has some
GPL software in the product.

SCO cannot take the position that the GPL is an invalid license while continuing
to use the GPL to distribute software without being exposed to serious fallout.
This is legal suicide. This fact surely will be presented if and when this goes
to trial. SCO as Caldera included the GPL in SEC filings, and made frequent
references to it. SCO never took the step to advise investors that they had
mistakenly used an invalid license, possibly opening company to liability. Will
the SEC take notice?

SCO has used the lawsuit as cover for what appears to be a pump-n-dump scheme.
SCO told investors that it expected revenue from its Linux licensing. That
licensing plan has been drastically reduced before in was fully implemented.
Will the SEC take notice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 09:42 AM EST

Well, I am going to state the obvious here:

The people that have and are using Linux HAVE a license to use it already: GPL

For SCO to try and bend this "new" licensing scheme around to their way of thinking is just absurd. But, I expect no less from them.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Discovery response order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 09:56 AM EST
I see that Judge Kimball signed the order giving sco until the 24th -- he signed
it on the 28th...

[ Reply to This | # ]

They're trying to steal *all* of GNU/Linux
Authored by: stanmuffin on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:05 AM EST
Take a closer look at the memo: The "SCO UNIX IP" license allows "use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format" (emphasis mine).

A simple oversight, or is it not just the kernel anymore? If you want security patches for BIND and Apache and sendmail, do you need to get those in binary form from SCO now?

So it looks like your choices, if you're a Caldera customer, are to (1) languish in an unsupported binary-only platform, or (2) switch to a supported distribution and pay SCO exorbitant license fees (or get sued).

How benevolent of SCO to offer their customers a free license to use their most sacred UNIX "IP".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: kbwojo on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:40 AM EST
This looks like a violation of section 7 of the GPL.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions
are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that
contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the
conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of
the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you,
then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from distribution of the Program.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03
Authored by: inc_x on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:59 AM EST
Coolness, I notice that according to SCO's website OpenUNIX
CD 8 contains GPL'ed software that is copyrighted by me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time for a Linux Contributers class action suit?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 11:37 AM EST
Wow! Doesn't restricting who can download their version of Linux specifically
violate the GPL?

It must be time for someone to file a class action on behalf of all Linux
contributors for damages to the marketability of their software. I would think
all the FUD has limited the growth in both Linux and Linux support that many of
these people rely on for their livelihood.

I'd be sure try and prove that the actions taken by the individuals who control
SCO were malicious, knowledgeable and deliberate; and done for personal gain
through their sale of stock. By targeting them personally in addition SCO as an
organization you might be able to tap their freshly heaped piles of OPM (Other
People's Money). And what Linux projects wouldn't mind some pizza money?

Oh wait - I must have slipped into SCO think there. I was almost about to
suggest forcing SCO to GPL all of their products that contain GPL code...

Of course the though of SCO having to open many of their products and be stuck
with a huge pile of GPL code they must make freely available is kinda funny...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated - blacklight
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 11:43 AM EST
Re: the SCO Group's new Linux download policy.

My assessment: a prostitute who is more selective about her johns is still a

[ Reply to This | # ]

Weiss against SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 11:52 AM EST 0,289142,sid39_gci934329,00.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Waldo Bastian on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 12:50 PM EST
My prediction is that they are going to see how far they come
by extorting money from UNIX licensees who have dropped
SCO in favour of Linux and are now using their IBCS libraries
to run SCO binaries under Linux, see e.g. this artcile in 1999:

Remember: "Copyrights and patents are protection against
strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you
have relationships with," (Chris Sontag,,39020645,2135291,00.htm)

In fact,  back in January, when people still expected SCO to
make rational decissions, this option was discussed already:

SCO doesn't seem to have followed up on this either because
they got blinded by their own mistaken believe that they would
be able to charge all Linux users for the IBM copyrighted code
that IBM added to Linux or because they discovered that
hardly anyone uses IBCS these days and that everyone has
moved on to native Linux versions. Probably a combination of
the two.

So why are they now going to give it a second try? Partly out
of desperation and partly for the FUD value I reckon. If they
manage to find a single SCO shop that runs software written
for SCO-Unix on Linux/IBCS in combination with SCO-libraries
and that shop has violated somehow the license terms of
this SCO-library they might be able to either sue that shop or
agree on a settlement and book a PR victory by sending out
large press releases "SCO successful in enforcing IP against
Linux user." conveniently leaving out the IBCS/SCO-Unix/
SCO-library parts.

They then probably hope that that will be enough FUD to
scare other Linux-using companies towards their Linux-

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Wonder if I Should Register
Authored by: Ruidh on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 01:50 PM EST
I bought a copy of Caldera Linux several years ago. I still have the original
box on my bookshelf. I imagine that I qualify as a SCO-licensed user of Linux.
(Except that I've since installed several versions of Mandrake) But I wouldn't
want to give them ammunition. (We've registered x new SCO Unix licensees.)

What a dilemma.

[ Reply to This | # ]

By Requiring You to Register...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:00 PM EST
...they are building up a database of people that might be using their shared
libraries on Linux. Watch out folks.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Dave Lozier on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST
I was out and about and came accross this post: IBM should indemnify open-source customers I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this article out yet but if so just ignore this post. I just thought it funny that Julie Giera can point a finger at IBM and yet SCO just stated that they won't indemnify the open source software they ship with their products. HP offers it because it was cheap PR but I'm sure there are so many restrictions on it that the end user is SOL anyhow. I'm going to write send a letter to the editor asking how Julia can point a judgemental finger at IBM and overlook SCO who is the banner waiving indemnification buddy of HP.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:45 PM EST
"Lehey said many third-party applications developed for SCO systems rely
on the proprietary libraries supplied with the operating system. People have
found it cheaper to run SCO-based application software under Linux, but they use
the SCO libraries.

"'SCO claims that its licences only allow the use of the libraries under
its own operating system,' Lehey said. 'It's possible that this claim might
stand up in court. In that case, it would be necessary to re-write the
applications. That could still be cheaper than running SCO.' . . .

This is an utter crock. Most of these users already purchased a license for SCO
Unix, and simply copied the libraries from their old SCO systems when they moved
to Linux.

I can't imagine that SCO's old Unix licenses (and I think we're talking about
Xenix here) could possibly have a clause preventing customers from using only
part of the operating system. Certainly they'd be prevented from making copies
to multiple computers, but there's no way their license would prevent copying
the OS from a decommisioned PC to a new one.

And the process of simply copying part of the OS, i.e. the libraries, from a
decommisioned PC to a new one wouldn't be contrained either.

Sounds to me like SCO is trying to add new licensing provisions to their old
OS's after the fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Code will still be available
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:59 PM EST
Contrary to what some think, the code will still be made available to the public, just under a permission basis.

I don't think they are doing this to cover their ass in court; they are doing it to collect names of corporations that they can eventually pursue for license money.

Do you think anyone will do business with SCO now?
SCO Antics

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO License (included with SCO OpenServer)
Authored by: dan_stephans on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 03:41 PM EST
I just happen to have an unused copy of SCO OpenServer Release 5 (circa 1997) which also contains the SCO software license agreement (SCO document #AE00033P002) Here is the section entitled "Grant" which grants the end user rights (this is fair use btw you bastards). Spelling errors are mine as I'm typing this in directly.


SCO grants You (the Software User) and You accept from SCO, the following non-exclusive rights. You are not granted any other right in the Software. All proprietary rights in or related to the Software are and will remain the exclusive property of SCO or its licensors. You further acknowledge that the Software contains confidential information owned by SCO or its licensors and agree to take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of such information.

You may load, copy or transmit the Software in whole or in part, only as necessary to use the Software on a single personal computer or workstation, unless the Software is designated on the registration document as being for use on a multiuser or multiple system configuration, in which case You must take reasonable means to assure that the number Users does not exceed the permitted number of Users.

In addtion, You may make back-up or archival copies of the Software; you may not copy the printed Documentation.

All trademarks, service marks, patents, copyright and other proprietary notices must be reproduced when making copies in whole or in part.

You may not reverse compile the Software for any purpose. If You wish to exercise any rights under Article 6.1 b of the EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Software, (Directive 91/250), You shall, in the first instance, write to SCO's Legal Department. You may not copy or adapt the Software for the purpose of correcting errors in it.

If your software includes font rendering software from Adobe Systems, Inc., your use of that software is restricted toa single processing unit connected to a display of less than 150 dots per inch and, optionally, connected to a printer with a resolution of 700 dots per inch or less.

Now, other than the fact that one could argue that this license is no better than the GPL the reason I post it is that there is nothing here that would restrict you from using the Software, in part, in conjunction with another OS on the same machine. I had forgotten that I had this box-o-fun. =) Dan

[ Reply to This | # ]

A response from FSF
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST
On NewsForge


Eben Moglen make several important points about SCO and thier role in this

"NewsForge: Are you saying in your exclusion of the Linux kernel that the
FSF has no interest or concern with SCO's recent attack on the GPL?

Eben Moglen: No. I have, however, said repeatedly that our position in the
dispute which SCO has initiated against IBM in the form of litigation, and at
least potentially with users of free software through the emission of
threatening documents, then our position in that controversy is inevitably
effected by the fact that the only claims that SCO has made whether legally or
in the form of PR, concern a single free software program, the Linux operating
system kernel, which we do not have copyright in, and about which we cannot take
direct legal action one way or another. "

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - but for PJ, links and hard evidence about IA64
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 04:08 PM EST

Great work.

Here is a set of links, articles and presentations that proves that the TSG is

In joy, I'm sure IBM has all of this already, but for others who haven't
followed the lnag history of *nix, GNU, GPL Linux, enjoy.

TSG doesn't have a prayer in court!

[ Reply to This | # ]

new article, new quotes - PC pro turns on SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 04:20 PM EST
New article, new Blake Stowell quotes, PC Pro, asking a few questions now

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: old joe on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 04:25 PM EST
It would be interesting to see if the registration process asks users to agree
not to publish the code.

If they issue under the straight GPLicense then any of their customers can
publish the code and SCO have agreed to this.

If they have applied additional conditions then this breaches the GPL and they
can be sued by anyone owning copyrights in the code.

As all these customers are Linux users there must be a chance one of them will
tell us exactly what they've done.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: community-editable documents
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 05:29 PM EST
I'm sure a lot of people saw this over on ./

3D17 (what kind of name is that?) is a collaberative editing tool that allows a community to propose and vote on changes to a document.

This really sounds like something that the Groklaw community could use. Then PJ wouldn't have to do all the editing and the resulting document could truely be said to be a community document.

At the moment it does not appear to be open source. Nevertheless, perhaps Groklaw could become a beta site. I'm sure we could put it to good use.

BTW, whatever happened to our 'Questions for SCO' document?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 06:26 PM EST
Isn't SCO now willfully violating section 3 of the GPL?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Status Conference
Authored by: Newsome on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 07:11 PM EST
I noticed that there's an entry on Magistrate Judge Wells' calendar for tomorrow (Friday the 31st):

Friday - October 31, 2003
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
CASE NO.: 2:03CV294 DAK
CASE TITLE: SCO Group, et al. v. IBM
HEARING: Status Conference

Presumably, they're not meeting to share their Halloween costumes and swap candy. I'm guessing this is a routine thing, and that it will probably happen in chambers (rather than a public courtroom). Can anyone enlighten us (at least me) on "Status Conferences"?

Frank Sorenson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 07:16 PM EST
interview with Gartner analyst George Weiss. He seems rather dubious about SCO. Check out especially the last paragraph. link

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Story - Authored by: mnichols on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:03 PM EST
Missing page updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 07:40 PM EST
The page which PJ said is 404 now exists: ux_info.html

This has a link to a password protected area and tells you how to get the password

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL good or bad - new Sontag quotes
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:26 PM EST
There is a new article replete with Sontag quotes about whether the GPL is a good thing:

Sontag's final claim is: "The authors of the GPL wrote the licence in such a way that it would govern the use, distribution and copying of software that was licensed under the GPL. These are the same items governed by the US Copyright Act. The Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. Because of this, SCO believes the GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law."

And what does he believe the OpenServer or Unixware license governs???

What a bunch of BS^H^HCS

I have not publicly disclosed this on GROKLAW before. I am involved in closed source development (please don't shoot me). I would have to get a new job if it were not for closed source. But I still think GPL is a good thing for the industry? Why? Because authors have the right to control their work, which includes right to choose or not choose the GPL. Except for unusual cases (anti-trust, export issues, etc.), more choice for authors can ONLY be a good thing for authors (i.e. the software industry).

(Yes I know there is also a societal argument about "information wants to be free", etc., etc., but that's a different debate, a political one, not one I fully personally agree with... my point is under the CURRENT SYSTEM, the having the GPL available as a choice is a good thing for software authors, for the software industry, and therefore for the wealth and happiness of society at large).

[ Reply to This | # ]

New GPL Article
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 10:28 PM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another article, no quotes, one factual error
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 11:59 PM EST
h ttp://
< BR> Factual error, being SCO sued in March, not January

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:06 AM EST

Ah... the SCO Linux Libraries. I remember those. They seem to be the thing that got SCO's undies in a bunch to begin with. It sure would be nice if this whole affair could be reduced back to SCO getting their customers to keep from ripping off the SCO runtime libraries and using them on Linux. And leave the Open Source community -- who aren't stealing your second-rate code -- alone. And Microsoft couold go back to fighting their own battles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Napster case - something reminiscent of cy pres idea
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:01 AM EST
I've been reading up on Napster

Couple of good links:

1. artmir0201.htm

In the Napster case, Napster seem to have asked the court to impose a compulsory royalty, instead of an injunction. The court said no, the sanctions (injunctions, damages, criminal penalties) all exist in the Copyright Act... and the court would not give Napster an "easy out"

Maybe it's just me, but Napster asking the court to invent a new rules regulating copyright, sounds somewhat similar to trying to ask the court to apply "cy pres" to Linux or GPL software.

To quote the article: "The decision is a disappointment to Napster users and to those who were expecting it to alter the copyright law in a fundamental way."

Forgive me for laughing.

2. http://www.vjolt.n et/vol6/issue3/v6i3-a16-Rayburn.html

This is an excellent commentary on the Napster case.

OT: BTW LaMacchia has been mentioned at least once on GROKLAW. Those who don't know what this is about, read items 37 to 39.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: orgngrndr on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:59 PM EST
I never thought I would say this:

THE DMCA is your friend!!

If you have contributed to, and/or hold the copy(left)right for any piece of
code commonly used in a lunix distribution particularly those of United
Linux/Caldera/SCO. Then you have grounds to sue.

Get a lawyer and send one of those great "infringing" letters the
RIAA has floating about everywhere and give SCO 72 hours to remove the offending

Then notify SCO's upstream provider with the intent to cut off their internet

SCO's damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If SCO does remove the code. They most likely will break any contractual
relationship with their customers. And, have real stinky download support. If
they don't...damages, damages, damages.

Now its Joe Schmo/linux hacker/coder/developer who maybe in for some of the pie
(along with your lawyer(s).

Remember if by anyway in hell the GPL is found to be invalid, YOU would still
retain copyright control over your code. And may include SCO infringing on your
code as they have no licensing agreement with you outside the GPL.

Its one thing to have beensued by a Redhat or IBM, but having to responf to
hundreds perhaps thousands of claimants can be a nightmare.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:15 PM EST
If SCO is releasing Linux or any GPLed code under a different license, I think
this has changed from a civil suit to a criminal matter. They are attempting to
steal the copyrights and the code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It seems the last battle is coming
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 01 2003 @ 11:12 AM EST
SCO or Linux?
I do not think that SCO can still stand there after this legal issue.Who will
buy the UNIX copyright after that? M$?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 01 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST
Hmmm...kernel source still available at 11:00 cst 2003-11-01.

Suppose they forgot?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Linux Downloads for Customers Only 11/01/03 -updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 03 2003 @ 07:15 AM EST
Mon Nov 3 13:14:44 CET 2003

linux kernel can still be freely RPMS/ by anyone

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )