|
|
| SCO Will Give Customers a Discount To Drop Linux and Use Any Proprietary Software |
 |
|
Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:06 AM EST
|
SCO isn't putting out press releases like it used to. Surely it wants you to know that it has cooked up yet another way to be loathsome to Linux. It will expand its licensing program (because it's been such a success, I'm sure) and now they will be "offering a migration path" so their customers can escape Linux and return to proprietary operating systems. Note the plural, please. Like, for example, Unix, even a competitor's Unix. Some say they mean Microsoft. Well, well. Why ever might they want to send their customers to Microsoft?
Here's what it says in SCO's 8K filed with the SEC on October 17: "SCO IP Licensing and Migration Initiative — In connection with SCO’s intellectual property enforcement effort, SCOsource, SCO has alleged that the Linux 2.4 and the upcoming 2.6 kernel contain SCO intellectual property. In an effort to offer marketplace solutions to these Linux-related intellectual property issues, SCO released a licensing program to offer Linux users a right-to-use binary mode only license, subject to certain limitations. In the coming months, SCO intends to expand the licensing program to include migration options for those end users who may be looking for alternatives to Linux. Over the past several months, SCO has had discussions with several major companies for the purpose of bolstering SCO’s intellectual property licensing and migration initiative." There they go again. Claiming the 2.6 kernel before they've even see what is in it. The Microsoft angle not clear enough for you? Let's take a look, then, at this article in Computer Business Review: "SCO would probably provide customers with financial incentives and discounts to migrate to SCO Unix, other vendors' Unix, and what he referred to as 'other proprietary operating systems' but probably Windows.
"'We are offering a migration path to other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux,' the spokesperson said. Incentives will be offered 'in the coming months.'" So, they will actually more or less pay you to quit using Linux, all you freedom-loving folks. If this story is accurate, they don't care what you use, as long as it isn't Linux. They are willing to even lose you as a customer and send you to another vendor, if necessary. Now, there's solid business thinking. Unless... nah, all those rumors can't be true, can they? I'd better not say what I'm thinking or I'll be deluged with email from Microsoft astroturfers, telling me not to say things unless I can prove them. So, let's just observe a moment of silence, everyone, and we can each entertain our own thoughts on what this might mean. I know *my* thoughts on this subject are thoroughly entertaining. Financial incentives and discounts. Who can resist? What is freedom in comparison with discounts? Give me discounts or give me death. Isn't that how it goes?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:32 AM EST |
Is SCO saying they will subsidize my purchase of MS or Solaris licenses?
Otherwise, how could they offer a discount on software they don't sell? Very
weird![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:37 AM EST |
"SCO isn't putting out press releases like it used to."
Maybe they are concerned about how their press releases are reading in court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:38 AM EST |
I seriously doubt they will do unless you are supposed to buy something of
greater cost than the discount from SCO.
If SCO is not getting revenue from migrations, then it can not be in SCO's
shareholders interest (and in a seriously different ballpark from some of the
other things that they have done which might not be in shareholders'
interests). What is SCO? A charity for Sun/MS/HPUX ?
So, if it's what its purported to be, I suspect it's availability will be
similar to the SCO Linux IP license.
Another reason, I doubt that they will do it is there are just too many ways to
game the system, and $50m will not last long.
e.g.
I have 1000 computers with Windows NT, I have 1000 with Linux, I need 1000 new
computers with NT
I migrate my 1000 Linux computers to NT. I then get 1000 new computers, and put
Linux on those. I put my new Linux computers in a subsiduary or something out of
reach of SCO's migration contract. Meanwhile SCO has just paid for part or all
of my new NT licenses. It's like printing money!
I then open a subsiduary
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:38 AM EST |
Dear Mr McBride, I use Mandrake at the moment and understand that this makes me
a criminal deserving the harshest treatment. Please help me become 100% legit
and migrate to real Unix. I am currently hesitating between AIX, Dynix/ptx,
OPENBSD and FREEBSD. Are you going to give me $699 if I make the move to
one of those? Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you very
much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:40 AM EST |
They are obviously running on fumes now. Offering a discount to use
other people's Unix? I wonder if this includes AIX? That is somebody
else's Unix....I think... : )
It is now completely clear that the months and months of repeated crack
use has now gotten to them. Just like any crack whore, you reach an
eventual point of no return and SCO crossed a while back. I suspect next
that they will eventually offer free gift wrapping on your newly purchased
SCO Unix license and guarantee delivery before Dec 24. If they keep it
up, pretty soon the only thing left for them to do is sell licenses in front
of Wal-Mart like the Girl Scouts sell cookies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:42 AM EST |
Utah is a small place, really.
SO - maybe SCO knew of the SuSE/Novell deal, or a rumor of such a deal, well
before we all did (somehow)?
By sounding so desparate to give away deals so soon... would be a sign to anyone
buying their stock as to what position they really think that they have. One
has to wonder why a company with such a solid IP position with regards to their
legal efforts has to DISCOUNT at all?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:43 AM EST |
Fewer features than Linux, and I get to pay for it!
It reminds me of the diner they tore down to put in a McDonalds. What a deal
that was.
I would get a coffee and a burger at that diner all the time, and the waitress
would pretend I could tell a joke for $1.50 plus tip. After McDs came, for the
same price I would get a burger with no veggies, lousy coffee, and if you flirt
with the waitress at the McDonalds, they throw you out.
At least I know that McDs has a better IP position.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:04 AM EST |
Isn't it strange that it is only noted in the sec filling
and not in the main stream press? just wondering
Ciao J
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mainstream Press - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST
- Mainstream Press - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 10:20 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:29 AM EST |
It will expand its licensing program (because it's been such a success, I'm
sure) and now they will be "offering a migration path" so their customers can
escape Linux and return to proprietary operating systems. Note the plural,
please. Like, for example, Unix, even a competitor's Unix.
Now
there's a viable business strategy. Offer customers a discount to use a
competitor's product. No wonder their stock prices are so high.
Are you
listening IBM? Maybe you'd be as successful as SCO if you tried something
like that.
Ouch, I think I hurt myself from so much sarcasm.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:33 AM EST |
IANAL, so I don't know (answers appreciated): Is this plan legal? I was
wondering about things like.
Emphasis added
§ 3
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14
Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods
of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in
commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or
contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or
other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or
resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of
Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the
United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate
upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee
or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise,
machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of
the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract
for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
See also, for CA for example,
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant15
.htm "UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT" specifically "Below Cost Sales" and "Loss Leader
Sales"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:39 AM EST |
Linux Migration Incentives Planned by SCO
By Computer Business Review"
>> However, a company spokesperson told ComputerWire SCO
would probably provide customers with financial incentives and
discounts to migrate to SCO Unix, other vendors' Unix, and what he
referred to as "other proprietary operating systems" but probably
Windows. <<
What does the [but probable] mean?
Does it mean including or excluding?
Next question: Has anyone been able to follow the money trail
through any of the front companies back to MS yet?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raiford on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST |
Were you suggesting that Microsoft may buy out SCO? Wouldn't that be
interesting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST |
Will they then also offer to pay their own customers not to use other open
software like Samba and Apache they have distributed with SCO Unix? The focus
of McBride's attacks have been not been just Linux but the entire idea of Open
Source. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:42 AM EST |
C'mon folks, in SCOworld, there is no scenario in which SCO pays you :-p
A somewhat more realistic interpretation of "Migration path with
discounts" would go more like this:
1) You already owe SCO money for their IP that you are using in Linux, 2) SCO
knows this was unintentional and says "Hey, we know you didn't mean to
infringe our IP, but you did. Since it was accidental, we'll charge you LESS
if you stop infringing our IP quickly by converting to something that does not
infringe our IP"
Basically extend the licensing that they were already doing:
$699 - Binary license
$599 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to xBSD within 6 months.
$499 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to HP-UX within 6 months
$299 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to Windows 200x within 6 months
The discount is to what you pay THEM, and does not affect what the other vendor
charges you for their OS.
(AIX would not be licensed under SCO's new licensing scheme of course...)
(IANAL and just a guess :^)
Jan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tyralf on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST |
Hi.
I thought I should write an insightful article about the SCO case and
proprietary software.
But since I got tired och reading that Rant halfway trough myselt I thought I´d
spare you that and just give you my conclusions..
The SCO case is built on three things:
Ignorance, Stupidity and.. Nothing else.
Ok I borrowed it from Douglas Adams, but it was just too good.. ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Rant.. - Authored by: Jude on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST
- SCO Rant.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 01:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST |
By the way, GOOD NEWS, no one has mentioned this before, but by stating
publically that it is the 2.4 and 2.5 kernels and NOT the 2.2 kernels, SCO has
eliminated the possibility of a vast quantity of methods, 'unix-like'
routines, from being SCO-IP property. In fact the 'concept' of linux, up to
2.2 is NOT being challenged, and in fact, has been CLEARED by SCO. I think this
has positive implications, n'est pa?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 10:05 AM EST |
SCO/Caldera's monthly 'estreet' partner pages make for interesting reading.
Sorry for the length and scattershot nature of this post, PJ, but lest we forget
and all that...
Remember the much-touted 4th ranking with their
VARBusiness
Annual Report Card - 2003?
It's time for TeamSCO to bring
home its report card! VARBusiness is conducting their annual report card survey
for 2003 and TeamSCO is included. The TeamSCO team is excited for this
opportunity because it helps us identify areas that we do well and areas that we
can improve.
Would you like to help us out with this and provide nothing
but glowing reviews? If so, please click on the following link to provide
your contact information. VARBusiness will review the information and use it for
recruitment use in the 2003 Annual Report Card Survey.
Um,
they were joking, right... right?
Back around SCOforum time they were
screaming to
show the offending code
to somebody, anybody, everybody... Too late, IBM.
Timing is everything, I guess.
You have asked for it and now
you've got it - the code at the center of the controversy. We have had dozens of
SCO partners and key customers plan an extra day to visit the SCO Briefing
Center in Utah around their trip to Forum. Because the demand is so high, we are
moving the Briefing Center to Las Vegas - the only place we will show the code
outside of Utah. Only at SCOForum 2003 will you be given the chance to see
portions of the copied code and hear from Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, about our
position on the IBM suit.
This is your opportunity to see and hear
first-hand SCO's proof of UNIX® ownership. We will show you everything we can
without an NDA, and for those requiring more specifics we will have an NDA Suite
available.
So... an NDA booth... wonder if Darl threw in a free
lap dance?
Ah, speaking of dances... SCO and Intel -- did they or did
they not Tango at SCOforum?
July,
2003
We're seeing partners from around the world signing up to attend
and sending email that shows their excitement for SCOForum and the information
and relationships they will take away from Las Vegas this August. So, who are
the sponsors that will be showcasing their solutions? Here they are:
*
Hewlett-Packard
* Intel
* Microlite Corporation
...
August,
2003
We're seeing partners from around the world signing up to attend
and sending email that shows their excitement for SCOForum and the information
and relationships they will take away from Las Vegas this August. So, who are
the sponsors that will be showcasing their solutions? Here they are:
*
Hewlett-Packard
* Computer Reseller News
* Microlite
Corporation
...
Ransom Love and Darl
high five each
other shortly after Darl takes the helm:
"We're very
fortunate to attract the talents of Darl McBride," said Ransom Love, co-founder
of Caldera. "It's obvious from his past experience and abilities that he will
help Caldera continue its technology and services leadership. Darl has my full
support and that of Caldera’s board members and employees. I look forward to
working closely with him in the future."
"Ransom Love is recognized as a key
thought leader and luminary in the Linux and UNIX(R) industry and working
closely with him will be a great opportunity," said McBride, president and CEO
of Caldera. "Going forward, UnitedLinux will be critical to the success of
Caldera. Ransom was instrumental in the creation of UnitedLinux, so it was
natural to have him head Caldera’s UnitedLinux operations. His leadership will
be instrumental to making UnitedLinux a standard in our
industry."
Darl
addressed his
troops
in August 2002, around the time he and Ransom were getting all giggly
with the back slapping and high fiving:
"I have been looking
for assets that we can leverage in the marketplace to gain maximum impact and
continue the Caldera tradition of excellence. My initial findings are very
encouraging and I wanted to share them with you at this time.
"Caldera owns
key intellectual property rights to UNIX(R), one of the world's largest, most
popular computing platforms. Brands that you may have heard of that derives from
our UNIX intellectual property (including patents) include UNIX SVRx,
UnixWare(R), SCO(R) OpenServer(TM) and Caldera(R) OpenLinux(R). We can and will
be much more aggressive in marketing and protecting these valuable
assets...
"Caldera has a market cap of around $10 million; Red Hat, our
number one competitor in the Linux market, has a market cap of nearly $800
million. Even with similar revenue and operating margins, Red Hat has a market
value that is 80 times higher than ours. It is my belief that Caldera is
currently undervalued...
Caldera completed and announced a stock repurchase
of 4,304,000 shares on July 22, 2002. Companies buy back their own stock when
they think their future prospects are good. We are bullish on our opportunities
in the marketplace and in our future stock price. By buying back almost a third
of our outstanding shares, we also removed the market overhang on our stock
which freed us to invite in a set of new, strategic investors that will help
drive up the value of the Company...
Ah yes. The shape of
things to come: IBM, Redhat, Stock pumping. I love it when a plan comes
together. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Interestinf Charles - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 06:19 PM EST
- Share buy back - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 10:15 AM EST |
Well, just out of curiousity, I wanted to see how true this was, so I grabbed my
license certificate for SCO enterprise server v5 (10 user license), and called
up SCO... or at least I tried...
After trying and trying, and finally getting a real person, it turns out that
much like the $699 licensing scheme, these aren't available yet, either that or
my company isn't big enough, seems its only really available for enterprise
customers, and suggested only those willing to switch to one of SCOs products,
although they didn't say so directly.
From the jist of the conversation, what little there was I got a rather odd
impression, which may or may not fit with whats been going on, but it's an
interesting angle no one has posted yet. Although I'm not a lawyer or anything,
or an expert in stocks or corporate business, just a guy with a big brain, SCOs
antics seem to suggest this may be the case-
all of this so far seems to suggest a "soft" pattern. so for the
conspiracy theorists out there (hey PJ, pay attention!) I have these suggestions
to explain their actions-
what if SCO really is actually trying to offer rebates to move to Microsoft
products and only Microsoft products? (I said "WHAT IF", that's not
a legally libelous statement).
So how would they do that? Well, Microsoft is apparently giving them funding?
What if that was to continue, if the "rebates" were to be sent to
the customer from Microsoft directly instead of SCO, or via SCO. Or maybe SCO
prints up Microsoft rebate coupons with SCOs name plastered on them.
What if the buy out they were looking for wasn't from Red Hat, IBM, or whoever,
but rather they were really planning on having Microsoft buy them out?
This gets pretty deep damn fast. I mean, think about it, for a moment, read the
threads connecting all this. Imagine this for a moment-
The SCO FUD machine does major pump and dump work so they make millions, a lot
fo these "profits" are given to Microsoft "investors"
(say they bought shares, whatever).
How about this? - For a certain amount of funding from Microsoft, SCO funds the
FUD machine, pumps stocks, does share shorting, selling as much as possible, and
agrees to pay Microsoft a portion of their "profits" from the
stock?
What if this is all designed as a pump and dump from SCO and Microsoft in
agreement with each other, to get as much cash as possible out of the stock,
funding SCOs executives and Microsoft "insiders" (cough -investors-
cough), for as long as possible until they wring every last drop of profits from
the FUD machine ?
Then, when it finally dries up, one of two things happens, the stock will
definitely crash, SCO just declares bankruptcy, and vanishes. Meanwhile the real
truth is they get a hefty retirement fund from the stock pumping, or they get
jobs at some Microsoft subsidiary where MS can say "no, its indirect, so
its not really us" or some nonsense?
Or Microsoft could buy them out, but I'm not sure about this, because of IBMs
lawsuit, which may throw a wrench into my suggestions, not really sure how that
tracks into their FUD machine exactly...
Just a set of thoughts I had.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 10:17 AM EST |
This is getting weirder and weirder. In fact, it's getting so weird that I've
developed a new theory.
SCO is not actually attempting to sue IBM or obliterate Linux. Because they were
going bankrupt anyway, SCO decided to destroy their company in an orgy of
performance art. The theme of this art is, naturally, the corrupting and
destructive nature of proprietary software and the effect of pro-MS chest
beating on stock prices - even if your company is otherwise useless.
Their next press conference will feature Blake Stowell presenting his views on
office software as interpretive dance while Reginald Houghton plays a sad song
on his violin.
Now that they've gotten a fifty million dollar grant I hear the climax of the
piece will feature the robots of Survival Research Labs, and the entire staff of
Junkward Wars. If they can get the judge to delay things long enough, the final
act will be scheduled for Burning Man in 2005. By then, naturally, we'll all
have been recruited. I'll play an evil clown and PJ will sing an aria.
Alex
---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST |
| ok, so what am I missing here? TSG is back talking about "intellectual property"
(whatever that is...) in Linux. But in their last motion to compel, and their
response to IBM's motion, weren't they saying that the only thing their case is
about is "confidential information", that is, not TSG trade secrets, not TSG
copyrighted, and not TSG patented, but created by IBM and classed as
contractually bound "derivative works" being transferred to Linux in breach of
contract - and, in fact, that confidential information has never been known to
TSG.
So if this is only a contract dispute, as they claim in response to IBM,
and in their own motion to compel, then there isn't any of their "IP" in Linux.
If there is any of their "IP" in Linux, then they can respond to IBM's
interrogatories. Can't they? So which is it?
Krill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 11:11 AM EST |
Maybe the "migration path" is like "pay us a partial fee (%
based on monthes still using linux) while you transition to another OS."
That way they can collect on users that are trying not to pay by switching OS.
Its NOT a discount, its MORE fees.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 11:33 AM EST |
| Newly appointed SCO board director gets a handshake and
45,000 shares worth
of "welcome to the club!"
That's worth well over half a million bucks at
current value.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST |
I guess the SCO Group is assessing that its threats to users did not work as
well as expected. The SCO Group did try to cripple Linux adoption and thereby
IBM's income stream through a campaign of FUD, but that did not work too well
either although a percentage of would-be Linux adoptees ot cold feet. The SCO
Group suffered a blow with HP's idemnification offer, and the latest
marketplace blow to the SCO Group has to be Novell's acquisition of SusE
leaving the SCO Group out in the cold. On top of that, the SCO Group is in
serious legal trouble. I believe that the noises that the SCO Group is making
about offering incentives to corporate buyers to drop Linux should be understood
in that context.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 01:07 PM EST |
YAYYYYY!!!! I wanted to get the latest OSX 10.3 (Panther), but was waiting for
the price to drop a bit. Now I don't have too!
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 01:09 PM EST |
| They'll pay me to quit using Linux?
Howls of derisive laughter,
Bruce!
They can have my copy of Linux when they pry my keyboard from my cold,
dead flippers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 01:42 PM EST |
Ya know,
I just figured out how the scumbuckets at SCO can 'legally'
claim their proprietary IP is in Linux.
It is.
Put there by Caldera, distributed under the GPL, and freely available to copy,
redistribute and modify pursuant to the terms of the GPL. Heck maybe there is
SysVr5 in there, put there by Caldera... yadda....
Never mind that the way they describe it is misleading and
dishonest, and (if the post re: the Clayton Act holds)
completely illegal.
Josh Clayton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 01:54 PM EST |
SCO has alleged that the Linux 2.4 and the upcoming 2.6 kernel contain SCO
intellectual property
Has anyone else noticed that SCO has changed
from using the word "discovered" to "alleged".
Does this mean that SCO
is concerned about suits alleging false statements in SEC filings?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see the http://scosource.com
website [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is both! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 10:19 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 02:06 PM EST |
" There they go again. Claiming the 2.6 kernel before they've even see
what is in it. "
Why can't they have seen it? Everyone else can easily enough look at the
source. ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Douglas on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST |
If SCO only get 5% for each UNIX license it sells (95% to Novell) then if they
act as distributers for other propriety systems they could get a bigger %
commission and offer a discount as well as increasing their marketplace.
MS could then claim they are in competition with SCO over selling MS products -
the Munich competition shows how large a profit margin there is. MS could afford
to give SCO a 40% discount to compete against Linux, rather than MS exposing
itself as it did at Munich.
---
As a Safety Critcal/Firmware Engineer, everything I do is automatically
incorrect until proven otherwise. (This is the only aspect of my work that my
wife under[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST |
This tidbit caught my eye:
During SCO’s upcoming fiscal year, SCO
intends to roll-out major upgrades for its two UNIX operating
systems.
Do they actually have any programmers left? Or are
these just good intentions? Can the SEC hold you to your
"intentions"?
Hmmm...tin-foil-hat theory: "Psst...you investors,
yeah, you. We own Linux (*wink*) AND we're going to upgrade Unix (*wink,wink*).
Do whatever you think best."
---
#include "IANAL.h" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Cool, now I'll be able to get a cheap copy of Irix 6.5 for the surplus Indigo2
in my basement (already looked on edonkey for it).
Anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ra on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 03:15 PM EST |
I really suggest Groksters register and read the latest Lyons Forbes article.
www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html
This article describes SCO strategy for contacting companies about Linux
licenses.
It's not my call whether or not they have crossed the line for Lanham Act
violations but I think this is the time to let all 50 attorney generals plus the
SEC know about this.
I will be sending email and snail mails to all 51 as soon as I get the language
together. Anyone care to contribute a first draft?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 03:16 PM EST |
Strictly OT for groklaw, but in context.
I see SCO have just released a notification of problems
with OpenSSH on OpenServer. When was it the rest of us
dealt with this - 2 months ago ?
Timely as ever I see. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 03:25 PM EST |
Hmmm, I thought they weren't threatening to sue anybody, and those 1500 letters
weren't threats of litigation. Isn't that what they said in the Red Hat case?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/fo/20031106/bs_fo/5797da4499
d3f424b70cac76d4ffa384&e=3&ncid=1817
"They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a
lightning rod for us," says Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive.
McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from
being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights.
"It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't
want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, Boy,
this free stuff sure is cool,'"he says.
...
Earlier this year it sent warning letters to 1,500 big companies and claims some
have signed up, though it won't name any. "We're ahead of plan,"
Sontag says.
...
So what if the studios tell SCO to take a hike?"We're going to force
people down a path,"McBride says. "They can choose licensing or
litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay,
we'll say, Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first.' I'd be
surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 03:34 PM EST |
Just an interesting note. On SCO's site presently when you try to check out any
links to the Linux Kernel Personality it just takes you to the home page. Think
they could be worried that some one will discover that they copied and
distributed Linux code as part of Unixware?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST |
I have put a lot of thought into why SCO might be developing this new migration
program.
IMHO SCO's program is likely to be too small to affect IBM in any worthwhile
way. An IBM offering combining software/hardware/services presumably could be
repriced to make the migration offer unattractive... and if IBM were seriously
worried about losing an account - IBM do have the option of offering other
operating systems to that account which would make the SCO issue irrelevant.
IMHO SCO's program is likely to be too small to generate noticeable difference
for Microsoft or say Sun. Search for "reverse bounties" in google,
and you'll see another reason why MS might not want to take such a big risk of
being involved in this kind of program for such relatively "small
potatoes" return (or if you prefer, similar behavior in MS's past
suggesting that they might d it again - although I don't buy it on pragmatic
grounds that MS were careful to keep past reverse bounties secret - this would
be highly visible). Also a problem with this type of theory, is what's in for
SCO/Canopy - it's not entirely obvious (unless we're assuming quite a bit more
of MS/Sun license purchase revenue in future, at a faster rate than previously,
as, remember SCO have needed the previous license purchases with minimal actual
costs to keep their financial results in the black).
Therefore IF the article is correct (a big IF), and IF SCO don't change their
story before rolling out the program (another big IF)...
I would opine it must be aimed at Red Hat.
Red Hat gets their revenue from support. So if SCO spreads chunk of the $50m
around various Red Hat customers to stop being Red Hat customers, that cuts
RH's support revenue, right? And we know SCO evaluates themselves agains RH
(see Renaissance papers). And SCO's money is presumably enough to have a
noticeable effect on Red Hat?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 04:50 PM EST |
Three BSD's for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven Linux Distros for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine Proprietary Unices for the Mortal architectures doomed to die,
One Unix for the Dark Darl on his dark throne
In the Land of Mormons where the Shadows lie.
One Unix source tree to rule them all, One Unix source tree to find them,
One Unix source tree to bring them all and in the darkness bill them
In the Land of Mormons where the Shadows lie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 05:03 PM EST |
This article has enough
ammunition for RedHat's case against SCO to go ahead on its own.
Darl
is quoted as saying that they are likely to sue someone before the end of the
year, so how can SCO possibly deny that RedHat's customers are not in any danger
of being sued? It sounds like a direct threat, just that the actual end customer
is not specified -- but even then, it is clear that the studios are possible
targets.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see the
http://scosource.com website [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 05:22 PM EST |
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7239&mode=thread&order=0
---
-----
For a few laughs, see the http://scosource.com website[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 06:35 PM EST |
Again, who in their right mind will ever, EVER do business with SCO again after
their total abuse of both open source and the GPL, not to mention their contempt
and disdain for 1000's of dedicated programmers who own copyright in the Linux
software.
Some dinosaurs were so large that it took some time for nerve messges to travel
from one part of the body to the other. SCO is similar: the body is dead but the
brain has yet to accept the fact. It makes one wonder if Darl McBride will tell
everybody what I think is the truth: SCO does not have a 'snowflake's chance
in hell' of ever resurrecting a viable business.
After all, would you make a binding agreement with SCO given that it has:
totally reversed its ethical stance on its previous business interests,
denigrated and attacked the foundation of that business - the GPL, and then as a
direct consequence of those actions, damaged its own partners in what was United
Linux ?
I know I'd be walking away from them.
---
LamingtonNP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 06:57 PM EST |
So if I understand this correctly:
I tell SCO that I want to migrate away from Linux to, say, MS Windows. They'll
then subsidise my purchase of the license for the new OS? What is then to stop
me going back to Linux, given that it would be highly illegal for them to demand
I sign any document promising not to use it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:09 PM EST |
Now, std IANAL disclaimer, but doesn't this sound a whole like like Antitrust?
I mean, if you accept their blatherings at face value, anything that looks even
remotely like UNIX is their IP. So wouldn't this be clearly a malicious
attempt to destroy a competitor for no good of the marketplace? ... "We
are offering a migration path to other operating systems that have a stronger IP
basis..." Isn't this, vendor lockin, the very foundation of antitrust?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:18 PM EST |
| by gary north
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:24 PM EST |
<i>Claiming the 2.6 kernel before they've even see what is in
it.</i>
Uh, did I miss something? Are the source tarballs for the 2.6 kernel test
releases not really 2.6?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:37 PM EST |
ok. let's just say sco does have ip in linux. and let's say they can bypass
the gpl and charge for it. neither are likely true, but just humour me here. now
let's say that they expect scosource to be their future revenue stream.
just pretend all of that is true, factual and on the level. say it's possible
and what sco is honestly planning on.
how in the fuck does this latest move make any sense even in that nightmare
fairie tale?
"here, you folks have violated our ip, we plan on continuing to charge you
and, oh, by the way, here's some money to buy our competitors products so you
won't have to pay us anymore."
is it any wonder that sco never took the unix world by storm in over a decade?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:38 PM EST |
Some new filings from IBM have shown up: a second motion to compel and
memorandum of support:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html
---
-----
For a few laughs, see the scoource.com website[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 07:39 PM EST |
Actually I think you've kind of missed the point
You buy back stock for under $1
Then, a year later, you issue it at say approx $17 (possibly as convertable
series A stock)
It's like printing money![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, November 07 2003 @ 08:00 PM EST |
All that they mean by...
'We are offering a migration path to other
operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux,' the spokesperson
said. Incentives will be offered 'in the coming months.'
...is that
they are going to offer operating system vendors a license which then will allow
their customers to avoid paying the $699 apiece. Hence (in SCO's fantasy
world) it will be cheaper to migrate to a SCO-licensed O/S than to stay with
Linux.
It's just what a normal business would do, if a normal business
suddenly discovered it owned all the operating systems in the world. Why make,
sell, and maintain your own software when you can sit back and collect license
fees for others'?
(IANAL but I am a businessman.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 06:49 AM EST |
Darl McBride
The SCO Group
Lindon, Utah
Dear Darl
McBride
A proprietary Operating System? Of course, I've always had a
hankering for Big Iron.
Yes, now you come to think of it, Linux really
isn't all that good -
not when you consider the alternatives.
I think a
fifteen-way cluster of Z990s with z/VM with a source code
license, with
source code licensed z/OS and VSE/ESA running as
guests, would be fine, just
fine, wouldn't you agree?!?!
And of course, I was forgetting, thirty
32-cpu Alphas running
OpenVMS
for the terminals for me and my friends.
I mean, I have to have a serious games machine, don't I? If I
don't,
everybody'll laugh at me. And that takes
serious IO to
control all the
remote control aircraft and spacecraft and
fully-armed
robots that one needs to play DOOM in a
totally
satisfactory and convincing manner; and once
again,
thanks for offering to pay for their purchase.
Linux'd never fit the bill,
would it?
And once again, thanks for the offer, and I take it that once
having
declared my intentions to take up your offer in good faith, you
have established for yourself contractual obligations towards me
and
cannot now refuse to carry them out. And I gave my full
postal
address when I applied for the Free Unix Licenses, so you don't
have any
excuses, do you now?
I've never owned a mainframe before - and I owe it
all to
SCO! When do I get them delivered? And you will be a good
corporate citizen and pay for their delivery, won't you?
Wesley Parish
---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching
back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states
of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 09 2003 @ 12:45 AM EST |
Thanks to Microsoft's deal with Nvidia for XBox, drivers for their graphics
cards and chipsts will never become a standard part of Linux or other Open OSes.
Thus requiring special downloads of halfass drivers and the accepting of a crapy
license that no one ever reads. And if you don't use RedHat or SUSE, then you
also get the joys of kernel recompile, and console based system configuration.
oh yea! but even that dosen't work most the time anyway. [Only gurus need
apply] didn't i pay for the f'n hardware?
Get'n about time to pull out my "billy" stick; there's a rich brat
that needs a beat'n.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11 2003 @ 05:42 PM EST |
| Heheheheh... Will they pay me to move to OpenBSD? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 09:22 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 12 2003 @ 08:10 AM EST |
I keep wondering why people are not talking about the fact that Microsoft Owns
SCO... or at least they used to.
I'm not sure what the current
ownership status is, but back in the mid 90's when Microsoft was looking for a
way to hedge their bets, they bought SCO lock stock and barrel.
They
never did much with the company, but none-the-less they did own it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
