|
|
| Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready |
 |
|
Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST
|
SCO would rather you volunteer to buy their license online, so they don't have to risk going after you by mail or using threats, maybe... those pesky laws being how they are. Or maybe they hope to escape the bonds of the GPL this way. Or just maybe they are about to sue some folks, and they'll make them an offer they can't refuse: pay for a license instead of a lawsuit -- it's cheaper. It might have worked at one time, but after all the indemnification floating around, I can't see it. But it's up to you, gang. If you want 'em, you can have 'em. Licenses! Fresh licenses for sale! They accept credit cards. Do check the EULA, though. No indemnification. Eeek. Oh, and you have to agree to their expansive definition of what their code is made up of. And then there is that little matter of your firstborn. Or, you could take a look at the GPL, which they have available in its "unconstitutional" glory right here. Ah, the almighty GPL. I'm sure they love having to put that up on their site. And the reason they display it would be what, again? There is a job opening at SCO, in their PR department, as an intern. "Job Requirements: Excellent writing and verbal skills." Being a verbal smoothie would definitely be a necessity for that kind of work, and no doubt that happy intern will get lots of practical on-the-job training they can tell their grandkids about some day. Here's my version of their EULA. As you can see, they are obviously just horsing around. They start out pretending to be serious, but by the middle, it's slapstick comedy. I've rendered their jokes in red text, as well as points to note, like a red flag. My reaction is in blue. Then I've put the GPL, taken from their website, just for comparison, at the end.
***********************************************************
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE [There really is no such thing in the law. There is copyright. There are patents. Trade secrets. So which is this? They never actually tell you. Any contract lawyers out there care to comment on vague contract terms? Even in the definitions section, there is no definition for "Intellectual Property". The definition for "SCO IP" is that it means "SCO Intellectual Property". Hmm. A puzzle. How playful.]
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT
("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE
CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR
RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND
UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED
HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute
any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement. [This is the no peeking, no touching, give-up-the-GPL clause, none of that modifying it so it actually does what you need and want. Just sit still and behave, like a good, passive consumer, and take what they give you and like it, too. If you agree to this clause, wouldn't you essentially be agreeing not to peek at any kernel code at all at the moment, since we don't exactly know which lines are involved? And even if we knew what they were alleging with specificity, we don't know what the courts will rule, so why would we voluntarily give up GPL rights we already have? And pay for it too? I notice they don't stop using GPL'd software while they wait for a ruling. And they've been charged with continuing to distribute it, including the kernel, so what's the deal here? We don't hate the GPL. It's proprietary software companies who hate the GPL. It benefits the rest of us. And that phrase "under any licensing arrangement"... I guess that means forget about telling them they already released it to you under the GPL. Psst. I think they did, though. So do some folks in Australia. So do IBM and Red Hat.]
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO
Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The
Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You
and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the
COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following:
term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements,
restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled
by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal
productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail,
calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on
other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach
to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement,
or adaptation of Code. [Try that sentence using just one of the endings at a time, as in "'Method' shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, upgrade."]
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is
processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code
that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a
distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux®
operating system.
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its
UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license. [Say, what? By "intellectual property", you mean exactly what?}
"Software" shall mean the Operating System in Object Code format. [In their dreams. They are redefining the word software to mean not source code. How strange. It starts as source code. Software to them is binary CDs you buy in a box. Like detergent. Or bottled water. Then you use it for its intended use. Then you buy more. From them.]
"Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and
related system documentation,
including all comments and any procedural
language. [Huh? Comments are source code? I didn't know that. Procedural language...]
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs,
controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. [None of that dual booting, you pirates.]
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare. [This is where I got it. They're just horsing around, trying to come up with the worst license ever known to man since the founding of the world so nobody actually buys it. I can see the legal team rolling on the floor as each new phrase sprang to mind. "We'll say our stuff is both code AND methods!" "Oh, great one, I bow before you, sir. Hahahahahaha." "Wait...how about 'in literal and NONLITERAL form'?" "Oh, stop! You're killing me." "I can top you all. Take this: 'that is based on, developed in, derived from or IS SIMILAR TO any code contained in OR METHOD DEVISED OR DEVELOPED'." "Oh, that's rich! Stop! I can't breathe! So funny."
"Update" shall mean the updates or revisions in Object Code format of
the Software that You may receive. Update shall not include any alteration,
modification or derivative work of the Operating System prepared by You. [ "Heh heh. Take this: our victims.. er...customers can't update. 'Kay? They can only RECEIVE revisions in object code!" "Perfect! Ha ha ha. When there is a security alert, they'll be helpless and we'll bring them to their knees. We can send them revisions any time we feel like it. Maybe six months later, like Microsoft. Take it or leave it." (cough) (sputter) "Heh heh. I know. They have to raise their hand to go to the bathroom. No? Too much?" "No, no! We'll say it's implied in the license. Ha ha ha."]
GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and Obligations, SCO will
not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under this Agreement to be
in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or rights. [This is what you are buying. They won't sue you. An offer you can't refuse.]
SCO grants You and You accept from SCO, the following limited, non-exclusive
rights. This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any distribution of
software from SCO or any other third party. You are not granted any other rights
except for the rights specifically set forth herein. You acknowledge that,
subject only to the rights specifically granted herein, all rights, title, and
interest in the SCO IP shall remain at all times the property of SCO. The SCO IP
is protected by copyright, under local law and under international copyright
conventions. [This is an attempt, I think to squeeze around the GPL.]
Provided You pay the applicable license fee and complete the required
registration of the COLA, SCO grants You the right to use all, or portions of,
the SCO IP only as necessary to use the Operating System on each System for
which the appropriate CPUs have been licensed from SCO as designated on the
COLA, for the applicable server or desktop system. You must take reasonable
means to assure that the number of CPUs does not exceed the permitted number of
CPUs. The rights licensed by this Agreement are limited to the use of the SCO IP
in conjunction with the Operating System solely in Object Code format. Right to
use licenses for Desktop Systems are not usable for, or transferable for use,
with other Systems.
LIMITATION OF WARRANTY
SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. SCO does
not warrant that the function contained in SCO IP will MEET YOUR requirements or
that its operation will be uninterrupted or error free. [How can they warrant they have the rights when they don't know yet if they have copyright ownership? And they don't know -- although the rest of us may have a clue -- if the GPL will stand, in which case they just might not have any such rights. This must be one of those clauses you had to be in the room and hear discussed to know what they are thinking.]
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES
WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW,
CUSTOM, PRIOR ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY PARTY OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED. SOME STATES OR
COUNTRIES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE
EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS
AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE OR COUNTRY TO
COUNTRY. [What? No indemnification? A certain analyst who has no name might be interested to know about this. That's not a suggestion.]
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY [Good grief. None of that either?]
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, WHETHER
FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, BASED ON YOUR CLAIMS OR THOSE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF DATA, GOODWILL, PROFITS, USE
OF MONEY OR USE OF THE SCO PRODUCTS, INTERRUPTION IN USE OR AVAILABILITY OF
DATA, STOPPAGE OF OTHER WORK OR IMPAIRMENT OF OTHER ASSETS), ARISING OUT OF
BREACH OR FAILURE OF EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT,
MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT
ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERSONAL INJURY WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW
REQUIRES SUCH LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT WILL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY WHICH SCO MAY
INCUR IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU
TO SCO FOR THE LICENSE OF THE SCO PRODUCT THAT DIRECTLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE. [I take it if their software makes my house burn down, I get to sue if I am injured physically, although not for the house, just for my injuries. If *their* house burns down, or other difficulties arise, like they lose all their lawsuits and I find out they had no right to offer this license in the first place, I get my money back only if I find some way around this paragraph's exclusions of pretty much everything. They know you won't sue them for only what you paid for the license, anyway, which is why they limit their damages to that, because no lawyer would be likely to take the case. (Unless he uses GNU/Linux and just feels inspired by it.) It costs more than a thousand just to go to court with the worst lawyer in the country, so if the relief is $699, let's say, well, you do the law firm math.]
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR
INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION
MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
TERM AND TERMINATION
This license shall remain in effect until terminated as set forth herein. You
may terminate this Agreement, without right to refund, by notifying SCO of such
termination. SCO may terminate this Agreement, upon reasonable notice and
without judicial or administrative resolution, if You or any of Your employees
or consultants breach any term or condition hereof. [They mean, I gather, that they don't have to sue you. They just cut your air hose. You can't sue them, presumably, in their Wonderland, because you agreed to this clause. No refund it is.]
Upon the termination of this Agreement for any reason, all rights granted to You
hereunder will cease. [What about your obligations? That's not even going into the fact that they just told you they can drop you any time they please if they say you have breached and they don't have to sue you and thus prove your violation in court. ]
ASSIGNMENT
You may not assign, sublicense, rent, lend, lease, pledge or otherwise transfer
or encumber the SCO IP, this Agreement or Your rights or obligations hereunder. [When they say you can't share, they mean for life. Get over it. There's no free lunch. You can't get your money back from them and you can't get it back by selling the license on eBay either, I gather. You're stuck with the license for life and you might as well be buried with it. A desperate man might breach and hope to get cut off by SCO, but otherwise, it's with you, and only you, for life.]
MISCELLANEOUS
All notices or approvals required or permitted under this Agreement must be
given in writing. Any waiver or modification of this Agreement will not be
effective unless executed in writing and signed by SCO. This Agreement will bind
Your successors-in-interest. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State
of Utah, U.S.A.; excluding (i) Utah’s choice of law principles and (ii) the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. If
any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, in whole or part,
such holding will not affect the validity of the other provisions of this
Agreement. So forget some sleight-of-hand corporate passing of the license on to a merciful corporate friend in a "Reorganization Agreement" and don't try dying and leaving your license to your kids and think that they can sell it on eBay either. If they try any funny business, SCO gets to drag them and your corpse before a Utah firing squad. Don't forget your firstborn.
So, how do you like it? They have to threaten to sue to get customers to take such a wonderful license as this? Surely, now we'll all buy one. No? What do you want? Egg in your beer? I didn't know SCO had such a sense of humor. But this was great. I bet if you tested my immune system, you'd find it rocketed upward. Nothing like a good laugh. When you are ready to be serious, reread the definition of "Method" and then the "Unix-based Code" definition and put them together in every possible combination. And just for comparison, here's the GPL, taken from SCO's website, so you know what your choices are:
*****************************************************************
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
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.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
Copyright (C)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:02 AM EST |
Dear SCO
I would very much like to pay you for a licence to use your INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY in binary form. Unfortunately I am in a quandry - it seems that I have
received a copy of THE COMPLETE LINUX SOURCE CODE with my Linux operating system
- probably as a result of an unscrupulous supplier. I am worried about the
liability I am exposed to as your licence does not seem to cover the access I
have been given to THE COMPLETE LINUX SOURCE CODE.
My problem is I am a developer, and even if never read THE COMPLETE LINUX SOURCE
you might accuse me of copying your ideas into code I might write in the future.
Indeed, you might be tempted to claim all my work as a derivative works of the
Unix Brand.
Please tell me what I can do to avoid this pitfall - or am I tainted for life?
If the latter, can I sue distributers of THE COMPLET LINUX SOURCE for projected
loss of earnings and damages?
Yours in hope
*.h[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Loss of Earnings and Damages - Authored by: gleef on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:22 AM EST
- OT: Where's Judge Wells? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST
- I'm confused - Authored by: rand on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: fmouse on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:34 PM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST |
I've signed mortgage papers with less legal mumbo-jumbo.
Come to think of it... how is this different than a mortgage? If you don't
make your payment, you may eventually have the law (sheriff McBride) knocking at
your door.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Extortion - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:21 AM EST
- Extortion - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:48 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Newsome on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST |
| I thought COLA was the comp.os.linux.advacacy group lol!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: creysoft on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:14 AM EST |
I can't decide which angle they're going for. The most blatantly obvious
thought seems to be that they want a price tag attached to every copy of
Linux. In other words, they want to get paid insane licensing fees for
software that somebody else wrote. Brilliant.
OTOH, the Letter to Congress still intrigues me, especially with the Hatch
connection. This license could be ammunition for that - NOBODY is
going to buy a license like this voluntarily. Then they can point to their
'olive branch' and say that the subversive pinko liberal commie open
source terrorist hackers won't cooperate with them, we're all just out to
destroy the economy, and open source software shouldn't be legal.
Maybe they want both. -_- *sigh*
---
Fear th3 Platypus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tomas on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:17 AM EST |
| Since SCOsource insists that any software that has touched anything UNIX or
UNIX-like, or is even similar to anything that has is
theirs:
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that:
(i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use,
functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is
similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv)
UNIX System V or UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on
or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
I may send as
payment an envelope of blank white paper cut to dollar bill size that has
touched genuine money ...
That should be sufficient to purchase my
very own SCOsource License, shouldn't it? [best innocent look]
Whatever they
have in their air in that building can't be legal ... ---
--
Tom
en.gin.eer en-ji-nir n 1: a mechanism for converting caffeine into designs. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST |
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation
controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal
productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail,
calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients
on other systems.
Note that this means that you cannot
run X windows on the system, since technically a window server
provides the service of "showing a window to the user" for clients on the
same system or on other systems! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's worse than that, I think. You can't share a file either - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:34 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Trepalium on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:50 AM EST
- "*Other* systems" - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:52 AM EST
- Worse still. - Authored by: davcefai on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:03 AM EST
- Worse still. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:26 AM EST
- Worse still. - Authored by: Alastair on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Jeetje on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:11 AM EST
- X, NFS, samba and ssh - Authored by: darthaggie on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:05 AM EST
- Drop the netowrk service and noone gets hurt - Authored by: rand on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Even worse: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:23 PM EST
- Does this mean that M$ has agreed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:25 AM EST |
Just one quick question:
If i have a router, using Linux as the operating system, do i need a license for
that one too ? And what about hardware which i'm not sure of ?
I might end up with a whole bunch of licenses ! Where's my creditcard ?
---
A 699 license ? Is that the US variant of the Nigerian 419 scam ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codermotor on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:28 AM EST |
Read the license very carefully: they are licensing only their "IP",
whatever that is. They don't say one word about where that IP is contained. They
use virtually none of the explicitely defined terms after those terms'
definitions.
Folks, TSG is not licensing an operating system
here, certainly not Linux. The following definition seems to preclude
that:
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation
controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal
productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail,
calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on
other systems.
In fact, even TSG's own OSes don't qualify under that
definition.
A careful reading reveals that TSG is offering to sell nothing
but the limited right to use its intellectual property - which is not itself
defined. It doesn't preclude using Linux, BSD, OS X or any other non-TSG
operating system. Where does this EULA even mention a single TSG OS for crying
out loud!
Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and
Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under
this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or
rights.
Where in that sentence is a computerized anything
even mentioned? Let alone an operating system - desktop or otherwise -, object
code or source code.
It's another bag of air just like their court case
so far. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roman_mir on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST |
By giving no warranties, I guess, they leave their customers open for all kinds
of lawsuites by Linux kernel programmers who released their copyrighted
materials into Linux under GPL.
This 'licence' takes away your
freedom to do anything within the OS itself but it also takes away your freedom
to design and implement (or debug etc.) systems that are similar to
theirs in any way. You know, there is a lot of software that is in someways
similar to the OS but is not OS - various servers, daemons, drivers etc., so
they are taking away your freedom to ever work on software with this license,
and these are the people that argued that the GPL is 'viral'?
GPL and
Free Software is not a threat to capitalism, TSG and their licences are. TSG
has devised an impossible to accept license, why would they do this? If you buy
this from them, you are leaving yourself open to possible lawsuites left right
and center, noone in their right mind would buy such a ridiculous thing. This
is all hot air designed to pump the stocks up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:34 AM EST |
Hi PJ, Thanks!
Reading the Black & Blue & Red all over version was even more fun then
slashdotting tsg. So, how could class action start to kick in?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:45 AM EST |
Love your sense of humour Pamela! Thanks for the laugh, or should I be thanking
SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:47 AM EST |
I'm sure you could then sue to learn what you just purchased was, but then again
IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:49 AM EST |
They put this up so that all the people scared of a lawsuit can pay a few
hundred dollars per machine and immunize themselves from having to pay their own
lawyers thousands of dollars to put up a winning defense. To some it is worth
doing this even if you know SCO is in the wrong.
When they start suing end users, they will soon be met with a class action and
possible joinder to one of the existing suits, probably Red Hat. The Defense
Fund will have to come into play. There would also be an injunction tried to
make them stop this action until they actually prove something.
The EULA states the following definition:
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed
under
UNIX System V or UnixWare.
(I hope this quote above is fair use and not infringement.) This definition is
grossly overbroad since it says that any code or method in its literal or
non-literal functionality that is even similar to any method in any Unix system
V or any derivative or licensed code therof is Unix code. I can't wait to find
the legal parameters for the "similarity" test. Does similarity prove
derivation? I guess they have to claim ancient unix and BSD. It all has similar
stuff. We ought to get these SCO people to work on the undeciphered
Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm sure they will come up with something.
The response of everyone should be that it is Linux not Unix code until SCO
proves otherwise. There is also the GPL. Call the defense fund and defer to the
existing lawsuits. Scream at your congressman and the FTC also.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Infringement - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:01 AM EST
- Infringement - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:36 AM EST
- Reverse Engineer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST
- The EULA...rimes with H... - Authored by: codermotor on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST
- The EULA...rimes with H... - Authored by: JohnPettigrew on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:38 AM EST
- Injuct NOW! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST
- Injuct NOW! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
- The EULA...rimes with H... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:34 PM EST
- Stealing the rights to BSD code. - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST
- Buying a license would seem to have the opposite effect... - Authored by: jmcdonald on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:53 AM EST |
| IANAL, but it seems to me contradictory for a contradictory for a contract to
contain language saying to the other party "you can't sue us if we break our end
of the contract". I mean, that's like saying that the contract only applies to
you, not to me, in which case it doesn't look like a contract
anymore. Couldn't they just say, instead, "We can terminate this contract for
any reason whatsoever?"
Also, how common is it for a contract to have a
clause in it saying "You can't sue me for breaking the contract"? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Debrihmi on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:56 AM EST |
Does anyone know if The Canopy Group has uttered anything about this whole
fiaSCO? This mess has made me research any investments I make with a liberal
helping of paranoia.
;)
---
~
People want to be free..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST |
This I believe is what it will come down to:
"Source Code" shall mean the human-readable form of the Code and
related system documentation, including all comments and any procedural
language.
[Huh? Comments are source code? I didn't know that. Procedural language...]
I reckon their whole arguement will revolve around the fact that some error
codes and comments are either very similiar or identical.
The code itself the functional code will be different.. but they won't care
about that.. I reckon they'll say that because the comments are the same, that
this is considered a smoking gun.
Senectus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sumairp on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST |
Dear Laura,
Can you please run by me again just how Indemnification by Proprietory Software
makers is superior to GPL Open Source Software?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST |
Overheard in the boardroom.
The Executives gather in an overexcited 'flock'.
'Mine ... Mine ... Mine ...'
Credit to "Finding Nemo".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: torkn on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:31 AM EST |
Having been following this evolving story from across the
Atlantic, enjoying the exquisite way stories and comments
are presented by Groklaw, I just wonder when the SCO
people will have to face a criminal charge of extortion. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: grahamt on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:47 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:41 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: RLP on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Extortion? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST
- Extortion? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:31 AM EST |
Absolutely hilarious! The contract itself, enhanced with your insightful
comments, PJ, is truly a masterpiece of contract legalese.
Thank you, PJ. Thank you, SCO.
We love you, PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:33 AM EST |
SCO License:
"[..] IN NO EVENT WILL THE AGGREGATE
LIABILITY WHICH SCO MAY INCUR IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXCEED THE TOTAL
AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU TO SCO FOR THE LICENSE OF THE SCO PRODUCT THAT
DIRECTLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
[ [..] They know you won't sue them for
only what you paid for the license, anyway, which is why they limit their
damages to that, because no lawyer would be likely to take the case. [..]
]"
This is identical to the Microsoft license in that
their liability is limited to what you paid for the software.
Why ...
this is unscrupulous. How could any company put the entire indemnity
burden on the end user? Darl even questions this himself.
Hmmmm.... hmmmm... (pacing pensively)
wasn't there a certain "analyst" from a certain, um,...er, "group" that, even to
this day, sings the SCOsong of indemnification? That person has been awwwwful
quiet lately... (has Massachusetts been snowed in, or somethin'?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: leguirerj on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:34 AM EST |
I would sure hate to have publicly stated support of SCO. After reading this
crap, any SCO supporter would feel like a fool. This even shows how draconian MS
EULA is. Talk about taking away any freedom a consumer has and giving nothing in
return in exchange for hard earned bucks.
Maybe the SCO boys are really on the side of GPL and Free Open Software. This
EULA just shows how reasonable the GPL really is for consimers and how
restrictive some shrink-wrapped EULA's really are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:41 AM EST |
In the page License
page they clame that linux is a illegal derivate " of the UNIX® operating
system". So they claim that linux is a derivate of SCO unix.
That is
strange. They claim a couple of header files and some stuf thay maybe came from
Aix and Dyinix.
You can't claim that Linux is a illegal derivate from their
UNIX operating system if it contains a few 'stolen' header files. Even if IBM
contributed things like RCu and SMP illegal to linux, that has nothing to do
with SCO unix.
Or am i wrong?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:50 AM EST |
| I've always thought that SCO was going to have problems selling these licenses
legally in some of the countries they have threatened to sell them in, and this
would seem to be a way around this. It would also seem to be a way around the
fact that "The SCO Group (UK) Limited" seems to be in receivership according to
Companies House, so they
probably can't take new business even if you want to give it to them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UK CH data - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:54 AM EST
- UK CH data - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:37 AM EST
- Internationally? - Authored by: BsAtHome on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST |
PJ, just thinking if someone actually purchased a 'license' could they then use
SCO methods and sue before the last light goes out at Dead End Lane?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tempting, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:16 PM EST
- Don't Buy It! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Fruny on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST |
| Is that the license they wanted you to sign an NDA before they'd show it to
you?
If so, I feel ... robbed.
Anybody else feels the same ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST |
SCO writes in their EULA:
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare."
It is really kind of shocking that lawyers of the stature of Boies don't seem to
know the difference between Copyright versus Patent Law - or worse I expect are
willfully and obviously trying to exploit ignorance regarding the matter.
Here they seem to be laying claim to a patent i.e "...Method that: (i) in
its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii)..." without specifying the patentable concept or idea.
This may very well mean that all other operating systems, including Windows may
be unknowingly voilating SCO's "special patents".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:15 AM EST |
From http://www.thescogroup.com/company/jobs/
Requisition#
40235
Job Description:
Design and develop systems-level
software for
Linux and provide systems support by performing the
following duties:
Ehhr????
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:17 AM EST |
Since I have little legal experience and just try to get a grasp of these
charades thanks to Groklaw, can somebody please elaborate on the consequenses of
buying a license? Specifically, what if a CEO thinks he is clever by buying a
few licenses just to be on the safe side? What happens when The SCO Group looses
the case but stays out of bancrupcy and the CEO then wants to significantly
increase the number of Linux installations? Has he agreed to keep paying SCO
money no matter what the outcome of the trial is?
I suspect the answer is that you will be a lot better off by *not* admitting
that you owe SCO money (which agreeing to the terms would imply), but wait for
all the legal issues (SCO / IBM / RedHat / Novell+SuSE) to come to a conclusion
first. I believe this is what even analysts (Gartner?) have said also. That
should be shouted loudly to press and CEOs/CIOs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:25 AM EST |
the only reason this is being posted now is because they are going to argue that
their business has always been planned for this scenario. Its another attempt
at gaining sympathy from the judge and to show that they are working hard at
making this painless for their clients who are ready and willing to do the right
thing and support SCO. You watch, i wouldn't be suprised if they don't have
some lacky's proclaiming how proud they are to support this benevolent company
for protecting the rights of the software industry. Darl definitely has become
a man who is full of himself over his previous smoke and mirrors lawsuit that
was in his favor. you know what happens to people who get all full of
themselves?? they come crashing down! in a big way. Everyone associated with
SCO had better be prepared for a big fall! I have faith in the legal system, and
when this case is going to prove that resounding legal decisions can be made
when everything is exposed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:31 AM EST |
So, now that I have paid AUD$600 for my new Motorola A760 Linux mobile phone, I
have to pay SCO another US$699(approx AUD$850) for a license to use it?
I wonder what Motorola thinks about this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: azrael on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:46 AM EST |
I believe SCO or canopy assocaited companies (eg LinuxWorx?) are selling open
source software or full linux distributions.. do they package one of these
licenses in with the sale? If so, doesn't that mean they are distributing GPL'd
software under additional restrictions.. which is specifically forbidden by the
GPL? Does this open up a further avenue to sue SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:55 AM EST |
Being unfamiliar with US law, I was wondering whether anybody could do this ?
You see, I have an idea - I will put up a page offering binary only licenses for
Microsoft products. All their products contain my Intellectual Property, so I
should be able to make quite a bundle right ?
I am glad to see that in the US, the concept of Free Markets is alive and
well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seantellis on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:56 AM EST |
Best sig I've seen in a while.
---
Sean Ellis (sellis@geo-removethis-cities.com)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:59 AM EST |
the Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net) is reporting that if you click on the
"buy" link, credit card at the ready, you are directed to
shop.sco.com, which they report as being still down due to the MyDoom virus.
Assuming all this to be true, is it possible that SCO thought about that? I
mean, it couldn't possibly be that they don't actually want people to buy the
licenses, could it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:39 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:48 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:10 AM EST
- SCO-shop down...to track damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST
- Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Put up the virus themselves? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 12:46 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Alastair on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST |
It's proprietary software companies who hate the
GPL.
Actually it's only some proprietary software
companies that
hate the GPL. It's also worth remembering that there are people
in the Open
Source community that dislike the GPL and would rather that
everything was
licensed under less restrictive BSD-style licenses. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:17 AM EST |
"Many customers have expressed concern about using Linux since they have
become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of
the UNIX® operating system."
what does many equal to the sco? 1 (M$), now for my interesting question, let's
suppose they collect monies from the
effort. Do they have to turn over money to novell under the agreement? I
invision this is equal to selling plots of land on mars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nattt on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:17 AM EST |
meta tagged -"scosource, intellectual property, ssvl, sco system v for
linux"
I like the "sco system v for linux" - is that what they think they're
selling? This
must be the first case of someone selling a software program you don't
actually get! Although I still can't get to the SCO shop to buy my little piece
of
history. Although, it's referred to as an EULA, therefore it must be an EULA for
something. When we buy a copy of some software it comes with an EULA, but
with SCO you can just buy the EULA it would seem!
And Iove this bit ""Operating System" shall mean ... that is a
distribution,
rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux® operating
system."
So not the actual Linux operating system itself - it must be rebranded, or
distributed, or modified or derived from it. Does that mean Linus doesn't
need a SCO EULA because he has the original copy of Linux?
And in the text at the bottom "Linux is a registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the US and other countries", which I find hilarious as I'm sure
someone pointed out that SCO should be recognising the trademark here on
Groklaw just a couple of days ago.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST |
What a crock!
I think they forgot to include their "option" of being
able to change the conditions of the "license" any
time they wish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beekster on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:25 AM EST |
Just to see if it was up, and to give them either server load, and/or the hope
that people are interested, I started down their "buy a noose" path.
Their eula/license page concludes with:
"* Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the US and other
countries
® UNIX and UnixWare are a registered trademarks of The Open Group in the US and
other countries
SCO Part Number: AE00048P000"
Almost fell off the chair...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:30 AM EST |
This abomination calls itself a "license" but I can see three things
which it might be.
1. A license to use software.
2. An contract granting the right to use software in return for various
restictions (i.e. an EULA)
3. An agreement not to sue in return for various restrictions.
IANAL, nor am I an American, so I don't know much about American law apart from
what I read here but here is how it seems to me:
The "license" clearly binds the recipient in a number of ways. This
would make it an agreement, not a license. This leaves options 2 and 3 above, or
perhaps a mixture of the two.
So, is it legal? Ask a lawyer. If I were asking a lawyer my questions would be:
1. Is it legal to call something a license if it isn't?
2. Is it legal to sell the right to use something which is not actually being
provided by the vendor and which may not even exist in the context in which it
is being sold? In essence, is it legal to sell a "pig in a poke"?
3. Is it legal to sell an agreement not to sue when no grounds to sue have been
demonstrated? In essence, what are the defining characteristics of a protection
racket and does this meet them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jm493 on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:38 AM EST |
Provided You comply fully with this Grant of Rights and
Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO IP licensed by You under
this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual property ownership or
rights.
It doesn't actually say that they will sue if you don't
have a license, or that they won't sue (for something else) if you do have a
license!!!
So ... they want us to pay all this money just to give SCO a
warm fuzzy feeling?
This Agreement does not include any rights
to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any
licensing arrangement.
They aren't claiming to take away any
rights, just not grant any more rights.
That's OK, I already have another
license, the GPL, that allows me to use, modify and distribute Linux in source
and binary format. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:43 AM EST |
PJ, you questioned whether they can do this at all, since they may not own the
copyright. But isn't "THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN" basically *only* the
right of not being sued by SCO? They can surely grant that, can't they?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:52 AM EST |
Something very interesting is happening when you start expanding the definition
for "SCO IP" in the "SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux": let's
start:
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included
in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under
SCO’s standard commercial license.
We take the definitions for
"UNIX-based Code" and "Object Code" from the same document and
get
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in
any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal
expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based
on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code contained
in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare®, or
(v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System V
or UnixWare; in the Code that results when Source Code is
processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer format
licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard commercial license.
Repeating
expansion of definitions until done:
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO
intellectual property included in any computer programming instructions or the
human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure,
modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of
computer programming instructions that: (i) in its literal or non-literal
expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii) is based
on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any computer programming
instructions contained in or the human or machine methodology for, or approach
to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement,
or adaptation of computer programming instructions devised or developed in (iv)
UNIX System V or UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on
or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare; in the computer programming
instructions that results when the human-readable form of the computer
programming instructions and related system documentation, including all
comments and any procedural language is processed by a software compiler and is
directly executable by a computer format licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license.
This requires some cleanup and
reformatting:
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property
included in any computer programming instructions or the human or machine
methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade,
de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of computer programming
instructions that:
- in its literal or non-literal expression, structure,
format, use, functionality or adaptation
- is based on, developed in, derived
from or is similar to
- any computer programming instructions contained in or
the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure,
modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of
computer programming instructions devised or developed in
- UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or
- any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare
in the format of computer programming
instructions that results when the human-readable form of the computer
programming instructions and related system documentation, including all
comments and any procedural language is processed by a software compiler and is
directly executable by a computer as licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license.
As usual when SCO writes something official it
seems to mean something different every time you re-read the text. Do they mean
to license
- Only the parts of Linux oblect code that are sufficiently
similar to SCO object code (but what have methods to do with it), or
- Only
provide an object code license (but this isn't SCO's standard
license).
The following sentence puts SCO's claim into
perspective:
The SCO IP is protected by copyright, under local law
and under international copyright conventions.
Aha, it is only
copyrights, so we can remove all the methodology claims from the
license:
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included
in any computer programming instructions that:
- in its literal or
non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation
- is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to
- any
computer programming instructions contained in
- UNIX System V or UnixWare®,
or
- any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX
System V or UnixWare
in the format of executable computer programming
instructions as licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard commercial
license.
It is still not clear to me what code the license exactly
covers, but it seems to involve literal copying of binary code... Anyway I miss
the relevance of the ABI-header story here.---
MathFox gets rabid from
SCO's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST |
You have to admit that it is exactly what you would expect from someone pulling
a con. You pay then for a slim chance that they wont sue you. You actually get
nothing for your money.
It sounds very much like the old protection racket. No?
Pay us and we wont beat you up (in the court).
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:08 AM EST |
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach
to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement,
or adaptation of Code.
PJ says: [Try that sentence using just one of the endings at a time, as in
"'Method' shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to,
upgrade."]
I read this as meaning, "'Method' shall mean the human or machine
methodology for, or approach to, design, [blah, blah] of the Code."
Tortuous, but not stupid wording here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RevSmiley on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:23 AM EST |
Forget the whole ball of worms of TSCOG group selling what they can't/won't
prove they claim to own or why they "own it." Forget this abortion of a
"license." They have no concept of the risks of taking credit cards on online.
They also could be in line for wire fraud if they are selling what they don't
own "online." (Last time I checked I was using interstate telecommunications
when I was using the "internet".)
For those who don't understand how
SCO can easily lose money on this. (People who take credit cards online already
know how.) People might just say "charge it" then contact their credit card
issuer and "cancel it" due to suspected fraud (they don't own what they are
selling) or any other darned reason they feel like. The charge backs would take
all profit out of what they planed on making on licenses. They actually
would cost TSCOG as you have to pay for the happy circumstance of dealing
with a charge backs. This money comes directly out of your bank account. You
have no control over it, if it doesn't come out you will not be "accepting
credit cards" Your merchant account will be shut off. When it comes to credit
card issuerers the customer is always right and the merchant takes it in the
seat of the pants.
I wonder how the analysts will spin this bit of
rocket science and planning perfection? Imagine the ./ effect but with credit
card charge backs for a second.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:34 AM EST |
| "'Code' shall mean computer programming instructions."
So, this
license offers no indemnification against tSCOG's claims against errno.h (and
all the other header files). The .h files generate no executable code, so
they aren't "computer programming instructions". They are merely crib notes,
which make it unnecessary for the programmer to remember, for example, what all
the error code numbers are and type them in explicitly every time one occurs in
the source code. I guess I could edit the source code and replace all the
offending mnemonic references with the appropriate numbers, but darn! That's
against the license, too! What's a good, law-abiding customer supposed to do? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:34 AM EST |
Those of you who're more intimate with the law, please answer this question for
me:
Isn't this fraud?
How come SCO can get away with licenses to sell *nothing*? Only in the US it
seems as well, not in germany, not really in Australia.
Isn't there any law which tells them to hold their horses while the ruling is in
progress?
Suppose companies fall for this and buy online. Then SCO looses the lawsuit and
goes broke. How are those companies going to get their $$$ back?
This has fraud written all over it.
And I bet the shares will go up again come monday...
Cheers,
Andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:39 AM EST |
> SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS
> GRANTED HEREIN. SCO does not warrant that the function
> contained in SCO IP will MEET YOUR requirements or that its
> operation will be uninterrupted or error free.
Since they grant you the 'right' not-to-be-sued, and the right to use their IP
(of which there may be none), SCO doesn't technically grant you any rights that
aren't theirs.
Pretty smart.
- Erwin
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jeetje on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:56 AM EST |
| Brilliant prose. First SCO states:
You may not assign, sublicense, rent,
lend, lease, pledge or otherwise transfer or encumber the SCO IP,
this Agreement or Your rights or obligations hereunder.
And
then:
This Agreement will bind Your successors-in-interest.
It goes
to show they still have a hard time figuring out which company they actually are
after the Cladera reshuffle. ;^)
It all seems like a lot of FUD to me,
except for one part:
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS,
INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW, CUSTOM, PRIOR ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY PARTY
OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF
THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND
DISCLAIMED.
So, if you've already got indemnification by Novell but want to
be on the safe-side by buying this waste of trees from SCO, you end up throwing
your indemnification to the winds, n'est-ce pas?
The whole license seems to
be concocted so you will actually be unable to ever work in the IT-business
again once you have bought it, even if SCO terminates the license after one day
(the obligations will still be in effect), for the mere sum of maximum $699
as 'aggregate liability'. In my opinion, that constitutes a curse. }:( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Humor me - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
- Humor me - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- Humor me - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:11 PM EST
- sins of the father... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:45 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: msquared on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:57 AM EST |
This amusing EULA document is itself copyrighted material
owned by SCO. Is it legal for Groklaw to publish this EULA,
especially a modified version?
Maybe if PJ first buys a EULA then Grolaw could use this
valuable SCO IP (the EULA itself) but only in object form.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST |
Most contracts provide a section stating which contract laws will govern the
interpretation of that contract. I don't think I have ever seen a contract then
go on to exclude that state's choice of law statutes itself. Very strange and
IAAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:28 AM EST |
is not ready to deal with this type of illogic this early in the morning.
After reading the stupid SCOX EULA twice, with PJ's delightful comments, I still
can't wrap my brain around it.
Kudos to those of you who can. I guess there is such a thing as being too
logical.
Well, off to work I go where the most 'illogical' thing I have to deal with
today will be co-workers that still don't know how to create a new folder ... in
any OS.
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:39 AM EST |
| At least, it wouldn't for me. Has anybody else givin this a try? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST |
It would be interesting to see a comparison of their previous Linux license.
http://lwn.net/Articles/43085/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST |
From the SCO code of conduct: HERE it says:
Although sales are the
lifeblood of any organization, we market our technologies, products and
services
fairly and vigorously based on our honesty, creativity and ingenuity
and the proven quality and reliability of our
products and services. Serving our
customers effectively is our most important goal--in the eyes of the
customer
you are SCO. In our dealings with customers and suppliers,
we:
...
-
require clear and precise communication in our
contracts, our advertising, our literature, and our
other public statements
and seek to eliminate misstatement of fact or misleading
impressions;
-
reflect accurately on all invoices to customers the sale
price and terms of sales for products sold or
services
rendered;
---
SCO: All your linux are belong
to us.
ME : In your dreams Buddy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordmhoram on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:13 AM EST |
So, if "COLA" is "Certificate of License Authenticity",
anyone want to hazard a guess as to what "COCA" might be? (Maybe
"Certificate Of Certificate Authenticity"?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST |
PJ,
You are always linking to the version of the GPL that does not have Linus's
preamble.
IS it misleading to not include the preamble, for LINUX?!
For folks that are new to all this, isn't it better to show them the more
application developer friendly version of the GPL?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: resst on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST |
Are you sure this license isn't the brain-child of the evil Catbert and the
"pointy-haired" Boss of the Dilbert comic strip fame?
This reads like some of the twisted corporate logic that Scott Adams weaves into
his beloved strip. Isn't it sad to see that now a member of corporate America
seems to be using this satirical comic strip to develop policy and ultimately
user licenses?
(BTW, thanks to Scott Adams for Dilbert. It is a delightful insight to the
coprorate politics that many of us deal with day to day. Hence, we can
identify.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rongage on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST |
This is a question obviously aimed at the lawyers out here in Groklawville....
First of all, is there much practical difference between a contract and a
license?
From the so-called License...
SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.
Now, from my somewhat limited understanding of contract law here in the US,
isn't a contract considered a single entity? Thus, if any part of the contract
falls down, the entire contract or entity falls down unless a right of
severability is pronounced within the contract - allowing the
"defective" part of the entity to be severed or removed from the body,
allowing the remaining part of the body to survive?
Since there is no right of severability expressed or claimed, the contract falls
down if any part of it falls. Since they obviously do NOT have any right to
relicense the Linux Kernel, the above statement is obviously incorrect. Since
that one phrase falls prima facie, the entire document becomes null and void.
Please let us know just how far off center I am with this thinking. Thanks!
---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST |
returns: HTTP/1.0 503 Service Unavailable
... and I think it will remain unavailable into the foreseeable future. The
moment they open the doors, the lawsuits will flood in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jayfar on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:33 AM EST |
Imagine my disappointment that their store site wouldn't load last
evening,
denying me the opportunity to be the first one/sucker on my
block to use Linux
legally. But then, as my eye wandered from the
immobile progress bar, the
'legal' link grabbed my attention so I took a
sidetrip to that page. What did I
see there? Well, I'm sure I was among
the last to notice it, but really, why
would
anyone think that sco would have a Code of Conduct
and Ethics (pdf), just like a real
company?
Figuring which parts of it Darl and minions are in flagrant
violation
of (and subject to dismissal for) is left as an exercise for the
reader. Gee,
maybe not a matter for the courts after all; SCO HR should be able
to
clear up the whole mess in-house. %-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:34 AM EST |
"This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or
distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing
arrangement."
Despite appearances, this sentence does not say "You are forbidden to look
at the code." It says "This Agreement does not give you the right to
look at the code." Or to push it a bit further, "You might have the
right to look at the code, but not because of this Agreement."
So far as I can see, this sentence does not preclude the possibility of your
securing the right to look at the code from some other license -- such as a
separate source license, or the GPL.
Scott McKellar
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:35 AM EST |
"SCO and Mardon Healthcare Information Systems Form Strategic Alliance to
Service the Rural HealthCare Market"
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=129280
Hmmm. Don McKeny. Why does he and Mardon show up on the SCO's China site...
can somebody with the language skills translate the link below, please:
http://www.sco.com.cn/new/030609.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:42 AM EST |
Complete Rubbish, but very amusing!
As an IT Manager, if I hadn't already decided long ago never to source any
products from sco (or any company that ever employs one of their execs) this
would definately tip the balance.
When will this farce end?
I had previously read many other posts on here that mentioned sco 'smokin crak'.
At the time I thought that that was perhaps a little too personal and
distasteful. However, I must admit that I am now thinking along similar lines.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
"This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or
distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
"
And at the same time, they claim that any "derived" code is theirs.
And they claim that Linux is clearly derived from Unix.
So in other words, I've never in my entire life seen a license sold to keep you
from using something. They're basically saying Buy our license so we can keep
you from using Linux.
what the hell?
It's the most rediculous thing I've ever seen!
Oh and BTW, If a clause in a contract or agreement is against the law, just
because you sign and pay doesn't mean it becomes applicable or enforceable. For
example, it's been tried before and some people still fall for it, but if you
owe a company money, and you pay by check but you add on the check "last
payment, paied in full", If it's not the total amount, you still owe the
money. It's illegal to write that and then claim the the person agreed to the
terms just because they cashed the check. Know what I mean?. Or if in a Gym
locker room there's a sign that says "Not responsible for lost or stolen
objects". Well if it can be proven that they were responsible guess
what...they are. It doesn't matter what the sign says.
So here we have SCO claiming that they're not responsible for anything that
happens in court so if they lose or it's proven that there is no SCO IP on this
planet they claim that they owe you zip. Well that an illegal commercial
practice, it's fraud. It's like selling realestate on the Moon, or the brooklyn
bridge, or a piece of land in Florida real cheap. Legally, either there IS IP
somewhere and if it's proven it's not theirs then they have to refund you. Or
there is NO IP and then it's just plain Fraud.
This seems to me like a whole lot of legal mumbo jumbo to say. " We call
this a license. You buy this in case there is SCO IP somewhere on the planet
that you might have touched. This license does not permit you to use the IP(see
par. 1), it just says we won't sue you if you did...(see last part.)"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST |
[Disclaimer: Assuming all other points submitted are valid, how does one
comply?]
I'm taking a different tact. Let's say I've actually purchased the license. How
do I GET the object code for which I'm licensed? How do I know the object code
is the same as what I've been licensed? Does this mean I need a specific
distribution to comply? I have a strange feeling that perhaps the object code
may vary from distribution to distribution, and architecture to architecture.
And, SCO, what if I've compiled Linux from source from S distribution? How can I
be sure I'm in compliance?
It's interesting to note that I have already received a license to DISTRIBUTE
(GPL), but (apparently) not a license to USE.
I have one other thing. SCO is now violating the GPL. It can no longer
distribute Linux. I know that has been brought up before, but now it's clear
cut. SCO is now unlicensed to distribute Linux, and whoever is in charge of
enforcing the GPL needs to stand up and enforce it, or else the GPL is
worthless. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST |
Sorry, folks. It'll never happen. Way too much liability for the credit card
companies in this scam.
Even the BSA won't touch this stinking heap, in spite of the fact that the
ubiquitous R. Duff Thompson sits on the board of SCOX.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BSA? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST
- Vampires - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:54 AM EST |
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in
its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license.
I read that to mean that you are buying
only the right to buy something from SCO. You cannot go to Redhat or SuSE. In
buying it from SCO you have to also get a SCO Commercial License. So you pay
twice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:00 AM EST |
"YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT"
Yeah, is it just me
who fail to see the SCO Group defining its IP with specificity anywhere within
their agreement? And speaking of the value of their warranty:
"SCO does
not warrant that the function contained in SCO IP will MEET YOUR requirements or
that its operation will be uninterrupted or error free."
I definitely
liked the irony of their CYA section, which essentially states that their
licensees have little to no recourse. The section starts with: "SCO WARRANTS
THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN" [my
italics]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrzagar on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST |
SCO seems to have an interesting definition of "Desktop System".
According to SCO, a desktop system should not provide network services to other
computers...
I'm sure Microsoft would be glad to hear that Windows98 was a server-class
operating system. Because once you turn on printer and file sharing, it would
no longer be a Desktop system now would it?
I've noticed several other companies who are having problems with this as
well...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: C. Appleton on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:14 AM EST |
It would seem that this clearly crosses the line of false advertizing and trying
to sell something that doesn't exist.
What is the buyer buying? At least with the folks from
Nigeria it was pretty obvious that it was a scam. My guess
is that SCO will get some takers, especially from those with
more money that brains.
---
GNU/Linux - The OS of CHOICE.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darthaggie on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST |
| ...to most every operating system sold over the last 20-30
years?
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i)
in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality
or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar
to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX
System V or UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or
licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
Maybe they plan on
suing some Windows users?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: converted on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST |
First I had to watch out for the SCO koolaid but now I have to watch for the SCO
Cola too, and I'm not so sure that the bottled water is safe either.
"I am not a demographic! I am a human being!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:30 AM EST |
Sheesh. I thought, all this time, they wanted money for me to use Linux.
Turns out they are selling a right to use this "SCO IP" (Squip? Scoo
ep? Well, however you pronounce it...).
Boy, $699 for their "SCO IP". That sounds expensive.
Lucky for me, I'm not using any of their "SCO IP", whatever that is.
I notice there is some code in the Linux kernel that they have the copyright on,
but this must be something different because they already gave a license to use,
modify, and distribute that code under the GPL.
Does anyone know what this "SCO IP" is? And how you pronounce it?
(Sssssss coup?, shoo-eap, Shaip?)
Oh well, never mind. What's next?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST |
Granted most people here are likely saying "What is z/OS and z/VM?"
Well, they are the operating systems which run IBM largest mainframes. The
"eServer zSeries" mainframes. Both z/OS and z/VM contain
"UNIX" functionality. If SCO's UNIX is so "viral" as they
claim in:
<quote>
“UNIX-based Code” shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or
non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or adaptation (ii)
is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii) any Code
contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare®,
or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed
under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
</quote>
Then they obviously "own" both z/OS and z/VM. If so, then US $3
billion is chump change.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alastair on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST |
Huh? Comments are source code? I didn't know that.
Procedural
language...
Yes, comments are source code. They may not
have an impact on what
the program does, but they are important as an
aid to human
understanding of how the program works.
BTW, to avoid any
misinterpretation, procedural in this
context is a technical
term…; it refers to a particular type of
programming language, in which
the programmer provides instructions to
the machine in the form of an explicit
series of steps. The opposite would be
a declarative language, where
the programmer specifies the
result that they want, usually by declaring
functions, relationships, or other
rules, and the interpreter or compiler
infers from the specification how to
arrive at the result.
For example,
in a declarative language, you can usually obtain a list of
prime numbers by
specifing the property of primeness somehow… in
Haskell, for instance,
you might write
primes = sieve [2.. ] where
sieve (p:x) =
p : sieve [
n | n <- x, n `mod` p > 0 ]
which basically says
that the infinite list of primes is the result of
applying the function
sieve to the infinite list 2, 3, 4,
…, where the result of
applying sieve to a list p, x0, x1, …
is just p followed by the result
of applying sieve to the
list of all n from the set
{ x0, x1, … } where
n divided by p
has
a non-zero remainder.
Note that the
Haskell program declares the nature of a prime number,
rather than telling the
interpreter (or compiler) how to compute one. When
executed, the actual steps
used by the Haskell implementation may not be
what you might expect; perhaps
the most obvious thing is that, like many
other declarative languages, Haskell
supports lazy evaluation… that is,
it tries to defer computations for as
long as possible. That's why you can have
abstract entities like infinite
lists.
In contrast, implementing this in a procedural language, to
achieve the
same effect you would need to explicitly tell the machine how to
implement
the sieve algorithm, which would take many more lines of code.
Additionally, a naïve implementation in a procedural language may very
well have worse performance than the above implementation in
Haskell!
You may ask whey we don't use declarative languages for
everything, if
they're so powerful. There are a variety of reasons, ranging
from the simple
fact that procedural languages are very popular through to the
fact that many
declarative languages make it awkward to interact with the user.
Also, some
people have difficulty writing programs in declarative languages,
whereas
issuing instructions is something just about anybody can manage
:-)
FOLDOC is quite a
good place to look-up definitions of computing terms (like “
procedural
language”) in case anyone is interested. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thoreauputic on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST |
Just thought I'd run a few sentences through Babelfish a few times to see if
they made any more sense... You be the judge... ;-)
"NIX-based code shall mean...)
In order to mean a method "in order to be what or it puts a foundation
and" code Yoo nik su it does with password,: (i) is not inside it bowl
expression and -, structure, stay, use, the function or letter regulation puts a
foundation on the internal which develops and with password and above (ii), from
to derive and or what is it does to be the beginning of history (iii) it
includes,, or Bang Bub Eun (this v) Yoo nik su system v plan one it developed or
or (v) what is in internal and and inside the UnixWare? If it changes, Yoo where
the day when it derives is permitted above nik su or it put a foundation in the
lower part of system v of the UnixWare."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST |
Note that the so-called license explicitly does not include source code; and we
have seen in other places that SCO believes that a large number of vital headers
files belong to them.
So, anybody who compiles any non-trivial program under Linux (including Linux
itself) would not be covered by this "license" from SCO. You'd be in
exactly the same position you are now -- well, except with a little more room in
your wallet.
I can't believe that even one person would sign up for this.
thad[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST |
You know, this seems to be a pig in a poke. You are buying a pig, but the
farmer doesn't show it to you, just shows you a bag that wiggles around.
The other thought was of the contract that was being read in "The Running
Man". And I think the reaction of Arnold was the appropriate one for this
one as well.
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST |
Dr. Stupid points out in an earlier comment that if you buy this license, you
can (probably) use your Openserver library binary code on your Linux box.
Recall that SCOG has claimed that your Openserver license does not itself permit
this (a debatable claim if you dual-boot Linux on a properly-licensed Openserver
box.) In its ammended claims, SCOG has accused IBM of inducing SCOG customers to
migrate to Linux using this technique.
SO, SCOG wrote a license that their PR machine can claim is an "end-user
Linux license," but when someone attempts to nail them, they can show that
it a useful license after all. It's not their fault that some dumb Linux user
though they needed this license for any purpose other than running Openserver
libraries.
In the broader context, what SCOG is doing is wrong. It is so wrong as to be
evil. No matter how they attempt justify themselves by bizarre interpretations
of obscure contract clauses and points of law, anyone who steps back and looks
at the larger picture can see evil people doing evil things. Why can't the
judicial system react to this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:32 AM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST
- It's a Lincense to Use OpenServer Libraries - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST |
IANAL, so I might be wrong, but I think they accidentally licensed the use of
their trademarks in the following sentance.
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its
UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license."
If the word "UnixWare" is included anywhere in the Object Code,
they've promised not to sue you for using it if you get the license. Someone
*please* explain to me how I'm totally off base here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Insanity runs in the family, so "they" say. We all know what kind of
lawyer K. McBribe is since we saw his arguments in earlier court appearances, I
was thinking that this license must have been written by him, with Darl's input.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:20 AM EST |
Has anyone actually checked out the SCO site to purchase a license? shop.sco.com
appears to be dead...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST |
Is it possible that in SCO-think the BUY NOW! page being down is a way to show
the judge the calculateable damages they were missing in their slander of title
suit?
"Judge, you will note that x-number of POTENTIAL LICENSEES visited our
website in order to purchase licenses, unfortunately, due to the acts of a
certain Evil Open Source Community, they were unable to purchase..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST |
fries with that? Or will they claim my condiments as
'derivitave'?
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
| See, for example, Literate
Programming. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST |
Hi Groksters,
this "license" reminds me the sicilian mafia definition of
"pizzo": this word, for who's not from Sicily, was inventend by Don
Vito Cascio Ferro, a mafia boss transferred to New York at the beginnings of
last century, to request an hefty "tax" for dealer protection. If
those dealers didn't pay were In Peril, so that was one of the more efficient IP
protections applied.
In fact, the phrase used by his business unit, extorsion racket division, was:
"fateci bagnare u pizzu" (literally: "let us soak our
mouth", always for who's not from Sicily). The society was at that time
known as the Black Hand; there is no need to say, I guess, that their activity
was illegal.
Now, IANAL and all the usual disclaimers, but I think this license would be
deemed illegal and null here in Italy, because almost every paragraph contained
there would be deemed as a vexatory clause in front of a judge (maybe it's an
European Union norm, not so sure), even if you had signed it using your blood.
Are there similar laws to protect customers in the US? I really hope so.
By the way: I know for sure that the Italian branch of the SCO Group was trying
on December 2003 to evangelize business level users here in Italy, to show them
the infringement (not alleged, according to them) of Linux: they were organizing
hotel meetings with not so much meat, a lot more smoke, without showing any code
to my knowledge. They asserted that the Group would sue a big user (a bank,
according to their presentation) inside two months (i.e. February).
And now, the usual compliments to PJ; I read Groklaw even twice a day. I hate
Beautiful, but I'm addicted to this site almost since its origin. :-)
Best wishes,
Antonio
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:00 AM EST |
Sorry to borrow some concepts from earlier posters, but this seems rather cut
and dried. These folks are trying to engage in interstate commerce by selling
something the ownership of which they are in dispute with several other parties.
Seems as though they're begging for more trouble.
Or is this a way of legitimizing the the dispute itself?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pyro on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST |
I've seen it! They do actually have a webserver there! Given that it may be
slashdotted / groklawed soon, I'll grab the contents of the front page and put
them here:
PAID UP SCO IP LICENSES
Paid Up SCO IP
Licenses provide the license holder with unlimited rights to use the terms and
conditions granted with the SCO IP License agreement
SCO IP Paid Up
License - 1-CPU - $699.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - 2 CPU -
$1,149.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - 4-CPU - $2,499.00
SCO IP
Paid Up License - 8-CPU - $4,999.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - Additional
CPU - $749.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - Desktop (Note: CPU Licensing is
not applicable to Desktop systems) - $199.00
ANNUAL
(RENEWABLE) SCO IP LICENSES
Annual SCO IP Licenses provide the license
holder with annual rights to use the terms and conditions granted with the SCO
IP License agreement. At the close of the one-year license term, the license
holder has the option to renew their Annual License or to acquire a Paid Up
License
SCO IP Annual License - 1 CPU - $149.00
SCO IP Annual
License - 2-CPU - $249.00
SCO IP Annual License - 4-CPU -
$539.00
SCO IP Annual License - 8-CPU - $1,079.00
SCO IP
Annual License - Additional CPU - $159.00
SCO IP Annual License -
Desktop - $49.00
I went through the process of trying to buy
an annual desktop license until it started asking me for credit card info. Nice
to see that they're offering annual licensing though: I want to give them
more and more of my hard-earned every year so that I can have less rights than I
am already entitled to.
---
Back off man, I'm a computer scientist [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bmschkerke on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:02 AM EST |
You must take reasonable means to assure that the number of CPUs does not
exceed the permitted number of CPUs.
I understand the CPU part.
I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the "reasonable means." SCO expects
their licensees to exercise reasonable means to prevent license violations yet
they feel they can ignore such reasonable means themselves?
This goes
back to the "SCO distributed Linux as Caldera." "Your honor, SCO believes that
distributing Linux as its primary business did not entail a requirement to
understand the license that allowed us to distribute and change the code that we
sold. SCO exercises all reasonable means to ensure we were distributing our
product in a reasonable fashion."
Even better is if SCO does win this
case do they believe that all copyrights under the GPL revert to the public
domain? I don't believe they will - most things don't default to the least
restrictive if the current version fails; they revert to the more restrictive.
If that happens SCO will be forced to stop distributing almost every one of
their products while they gut the "formerly" GPLed code out. No more
compatibility with Microsoft, no more web server, no more file system
compatibility, nada. Rewriting those items would take years or licenses from
the groups involved.
And I'm pretty damn sure that the groups involved
aren't going to give a license.
Finally I can't see how SCO considers
the GPL to be any different from any other license. Most licenses have clauses
like the above, restricting the user in what they can do before they can use it.
Most have a clause along the lines of "...you may not reverse engineer,
disassemble, or otherwise look at our product in a manner that we do not
specifically approve of." How is that different from "...you may reverse
engineer, disassemble, edit, recompile, change, or otherwise make modifications
that we do not explicitly approve or know of but you must distribute the source
code of your changes along with the binary form of those changes if you
distribute them at all."
They're both forms of empowerment for the
copyright holder and their political and economic beliefs. They are both
restrictions on use. I just can't.. boggle.
One of the things that
does make this entire lawsuit silly is the above similarity. A lot of open
source and free software advocates are against software licenses (aka click
through licenses) in general because of their ambiguity and the ability of the
publisher to "sneak" in malicious phrasing that the average end user would never
be able to understand. These licenses have been blasted by free software and
open source advocates because of that. Yet here we're in a catch 22. We can
either prove the GPL to be valid and enforceable, or we can find it
unenforceable for a variety of reasons. (Question: What happens when the GPL
fails because software licenses, in general, are not valid?)
I know
that several cases have upheld software licenses recently in various
subcategories but I don't believe the validity of the license itself was ever
attacked. And this entire paragraph and prior paragraph depend on a belief
being held that the incredible number of people who have settled because of the
GPL have done so erroneously.
This whole situation just seems stupid.
On one hand I am quite happy to see the GPL (and specifically, IBM pushing it)
being tested in court. I believe it will win, at least according to everything
I can understand. On the other hand the free publicity for SCO and the millions
they are making in controlled selloffs make me ill.
I am not a lawyer.
I'm not a paralegal. I'm a fat computer geek.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:06 AM EST |
I find the wording of your final phrase, "...so you know what your choices
are:", jarring. No one has any choices in this matter. If you distribute
Linux, you must do so only under its license. You cannot substitute an
alternate license from some other party.
I think I know what you meant -- you were writing from the perspective of the
clue-challenged prospective user. I just wouldn't hint that they have licensing
choices.
-AIB.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:07 AM EST |
By now we all know that total cost of ownership is a central theme in MS ongoing
campaign of FUD against Linux.
So it is interesting to see what real users say.
Firstmonday (www.firstmonday.dk) carry an article about a survey re FOSS in
tertiary educational institutions in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Here is the url
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_2/glance/index.html
Some key findings:-
1) 84 % experienced reduced TCO
2) 87% received equal or better support
3) 68 % stated that support requirements are not higher.
Which just goes to show that the best antidote to paid analyst studies are some
real life examples.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating, a growing database of real life
success stories would be a most potent weapon in the struggle against MS FUD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Well, well, well.
Here's an interesting thought for everyone to
ponder.
A case could be made that, by offering this license, SCO is
violating the
terms of the GPL. Which means that anyone who has GPL'd
software
which is distributed by SCO can sue SCO for violating the GPL terms.
(Since
they are so vague as to not say which of their "IP" is covered, it can
refer to
any portion you want. And, incidently, this means I am in that group,
although only for a few hundred lines at most.)
I find myself wondering
if that's what SCO wants to happen.
Thoughts, anyone [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:11 AM EST |
Why buy in US dollars when you can buy your SCO linux license for 1,937 yen at:
http://sco.com.cn/prices/SCOsource.html
Be sure not to click on the bottom leftmost link that leads to:
file:///D|/Contact%20Us.html
Guess they need to get a new webmonkey for their overseas operations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:20 AM EST |
I have read it, but I don't understand it.
Please define what SCO
Intelectual property is, and where it is in my Linux kernel (currently
2.4.21).
If I read it but don't understand it, I cannot in good faith accept
it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bap on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
It's running linux after all. Of course it's also acting as a server since it
sends video streams to my tv, which is in violation of the SCO license... Oh
the agony! What's a poor TiVo user to do???
-Bruce[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Its all as clear as mud now .
This move by SCO is probably the second part of a verry misguided strategy .
The first part being the recent reports of SCO's immanent sueing of end
users,the second part being this opportunity for endusers to spare themselvs the
legal wrath of SCO's litigation machine.
I cant believe they actualy thought that the money would come pouring in, LOL.
Their actions are starting to reek of a dark and disturbed form of insanity.
--waltish
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST |
The SCOX price has been declining systematically all morning. It is now down 5%
(to 13.10) with nary an up tick on higher-than-typical volume.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST |
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i)
in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use,
functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or
is similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed
in (iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work
based on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare.
Under
what possible legal theory does SCO think they can claim rights to methods,
structure, functionality or use similar to Unix in someone else's work? SCO
owns no patents to System V or any other form of Unix to the best of my
knowledge, and IIRC copyright law explicitly excludes all protection of
methods, functionality, structure, ideas and such like.---
What goes
around comes around, and it grows as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST |
| IANAL, but assuming that the owner of a derivative work is it's author whether
or not it infringes copyright (any lawyers like to comment?)
SCO is not
licensing the code added to Linux by anyone other than
themselves:
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property
included in its UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by
SCO under SCO’s standard commercial license.
Now that might
refer to the whole SCO Unix code base, but it doesn't. SCO do not own any part
of Linux except the parts that they themselves have written. The other parts are
still owned by the original authors. If the world "its" was removed then it
would read as only licensing Linux distributed by SCO, with the word "its" it
applies only to code owned and distributed by SCO. So what does SCO
own?
SCO's definition of ownership appears to be the same as ours; SCO owns
code that they have written.
McBride: The Transcript of Oral Arguments
Friday, Dec. 5
IBM owns the
derivative work. We don't contend
anything to the contrary.
The authors of GPL'd work
are at liberty to release it under any other licenses as well. This license may
be redundant, but it does not fight the GPL. If it also gives access to
libraries not released under the GPL then it might not be worthless.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST |
Interesting -- load this sucker up in a text editor (or just sed it), replacing
"IP" with "GF" and "Intellectual Property" with
"Slimy Green Frog". There doesn't seem to be any difference in what
you've bought.
Pucker up.
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST |
| If I hit "continue" on this page, it
turns out to be a broken link. Has anyone successfully navigated to the payment
page?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Can't get through - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: old joe on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST |
This is a license to use Unix Sys V and Unixware code in Linux. Right?
SCOG has identified two ways this code might have got into Linux
* via the API files
* Via AIX, Dynix and Irix derivative wotks
Both of these relate to Unix Sys V not to Unixware so this license relates to
Unix Sys V. Right?
Doesn't this mean SCOG have to pass the payments to Novell then get 5% back (and
they have to pay the credit card processor out of that 5%)?
Does the asset purchase agreement say something about Novell aproving any new
license?
Where is the APA anyway? I can't find a copy in the database.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST |
controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
This
means to me they're saying you can't run VMWare, Netraverse, bochs, Tarantella
(maybe someone would be interested in this exclusion? Say OldSCO/Tarantella?) or
Usermode Linux or any other virtualization of an operating system on Linux. This
would also do bad things to an IBM mainframe running several (hundred?)
instances of Linux at a time. This isn't the worst clause of the license, of
course, but by itself is egregious enough!---
SCO delenda est! Salt their
fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
| And Skiba will raise the SCO target price to $150. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST |
The SCO IP is protected by copyright, under local law and under international
copyright conventions.
OK, so the SCO IP is ONLY protected by
Copyright, not Patent.... veeery interestink.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rodrin on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST |
| I noticed that there was a word accidentally omitted in the requirements for
that job opening. Instead of, "Job Requirements: Excellent writing and verbal
skills," it should read, "Job Requirements: Excellent creative writing
and verbal skills," judging by the license anyway.
We really are sure this
license is not a clever parody drawn up by IBM employees, aren't we? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST |
Quick, IBM, buy a license! Then, sue Visa for $50 billion under their
"Buyer Protection Plan", demanding indemnification from SCO!
ROTALMAO
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST |
I don't think it's about buying their license: it's the clause that says you
can't sue them if it doesn't work out for you. Of course, you might still go
after Visa, but what do Yarrow and Darl care about Visa (except that he'll need
one when they leaves the country?)
Anybody who thought there was a shred of truth to their claims must now have
black and blue marks all over their butts from kicking themselves. Only a moron
would buy SCO now - oh, wait, maybe one already did? ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:33 PM EST |
You can get a license for Solaris from Sun for $99 for commericial use or free
for developer and educational use.
That way you actually get a real working product.
Why would you want to buy one from SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST |
Ok, assuming I'm extremely gullible and buy the license.
Unfortunately for me I belatedly realized the kernel I'm
currently running happens to have a locally exploitable vulnerability. I
UPDATE using the latest binary kernel rpm for my distribution
(none of that kernel.org stuff, SCO said "no" to that). I then find SCO &
Associates (legal arm) had used my registration information to use a
DMCA/RIAA type ISP monitor to see I'd
downloaded an UPDATE (pirating "SCO" software). Now they
threaten to sue for BREACH OF CONTRACT unless I buy a
NEW $699 license to cover my UPDATED "SCO
IP". When will it ever end? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:56 PM EST |
I think that this is my favorite part:
"This Agreement does not grant a right to receive any distribution of
software from SCO or any other third party."
So I can license the software, but if I don't already have a copy I can't get
one without breaking the agreement. By buying the license I am admitting that I
am a theif and have been stealing from SCO. Also because I am not allowed to
receive any software from SCO or from anyone else, I cannot receive bug fixes or
any other updates because I am forbidden to receive distributions of this
software from anyone including SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vtleslie on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST |
There are some real good tidbits in the FAQ at:
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html
My favorite answers the issue of whether you can customize and redistribute
within your corporation. The short answer: no, switch to another OS.
-----
30. I am a member of a corporate IT staff (developer) and I distribute a
customized Linux OS to internal data centers. What license do I need to
obtain from SCO?
Each system that runs an operating system that contains SCO IP needs to be
licensed. The SCO IP License is the vehicle that SCO is offering to accomplish
this. SCO doesn't offer any license that grants the right to ship SCO IP in
source form as a stand alone product, or as part of any other product, either
internally or externally. SCO cannot license its source code for use with Linux
because SCO's UNIX source code licenses are incompatible with the terms of
the GPL. To protect its rights and the rights of our existing UNIX licensees,
suppliers and licensors, SCO cannot condone licensing or distribution of our
source code under the GPL.
31. If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in
house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of
correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as
a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?
Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink
wrap, off the shelf version of Linux and purchase the SCO IP license or switch
to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider
outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO
understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating
alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome
for end users.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Jesus! That is EVERYTHING! This could mean any code that so much as prints a
character to a screen or read/writes from/to memory, or does ANYTHING that UNIX
does. By their definition, they own virtually every binary based operation on
the whole planet since the beginning of time. Seriously, I read that sentence
and those words simply screamed out at me. Talk about overly broad
definitions......
I have a term for the kind of people who think this way.
INSANE CLOWNS! That is how I shall think of SCOG forever more.
And if I were an attorney in any case having anything to do with SCOG, I would
present this "License" as evidence to the judge, even if it had
nothing to do with the case and I knew that it wouldn't be admitted, just so I
could get the judge to read it and understand just how messed in the head these
folks really are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
To whom it may concern,
I have read the terms of your
license for Linux users, and I need some clarification.
The license
does not specify which portions of the object code belong to you. I need to
know this in order to determine the feasibility of removing or replacing your IP
in my copies of Linux.
I am aware of the list of ABI headers that you
have claimed to be infringing. If this is your only claim to Linux IP, then I
will not need a license as I can easily rewrite those headers. If you are
claiming other portions of code, then perhaps I can rewrite those files as well,
or build a reduced version of Linux without your code.
Buying a license
without investigating other routes to compliance would be foolish. I am
therefore requesting a list of all Linux code for which you are claiming
ownership.
Thank you for your time,
A commercial Linux
user
I'll keep you all posted on their reply. Don't hold your
breath.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
I filed today a FTC complaint against 4 Canopy companies that sell Linux,
because none of them tells you that after paying them you have to go and pay
another branch of Canopy. That's missleading advertisement in my book. I
encourage others to do the same.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Canopy - Authored by: pooky on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Go for Center7? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:45 PM EST
- Canopy - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST
- Oh, yeah, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 01:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
From the GPL:
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
From:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
It's in the second part of paragraph 0 under terms and conditions for copying,
distributing, and modifying.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST |
I know there is a set of business laws that govern the behavior of two child
coproations each claiming property and there behavior with the parent company
and the courts..
But what set of business laws cover Canopy's and there child corproatiosn that
seem to be using or infringing on SCO Group's copyright(stating sco's claim but
not believing it by far)???
Question Two is has nay Canopy corporatiosn received the dreaded sco warning
letters? and if not , why not?
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haegarth on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Phew. Unbelievable.
Funny thing is, most people (unlike you, PJ) don't care to read EULAs that
thouroughly, which is why most of the people I am aware of don't know about that
'I'll come over to your house, rape your cat and smash your harddisk to bits
without any liability'-clause from the Windows XP EULA.
Well, SCO's version is much better indeed.
Still, I don't know if I'm up for a laugh here, thinking of 1984 back when I
read it last time...
No, I must admit: the impertinence found herein makes me mad like hell. Alas,
the document ist far too long for most of the CEOs in the world to be read or
even understood (sorry, no offence ment, just my personal observations). Maybe
you should introduce a CEO section here at groklaw (with condensed versions of
your articles)...
---
Where do you want to SCO today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
The SCO
Intellectual Property License for Linux FAQ is worth looking at. Although
it's not part of the licence, some things worth noting:
16
Will SCO sue me as an end user customer if I don't buy a
license?
SCO must protect its UNIX intellectual property and
copyrights. The company would prefer to do this by offering a license to Linux
for commercial purposes. If a customer refuses to compensate SCO for
its UNIX intellectual property found in Linux by purchasing a license, then SCO
may consider litigation.
...
24 Does everyone who uses Linux need a
SCO IP License?
All commercial users of any version of Linux
need an SCO IP License.
25 Do I need a SCO IP license if I am running
Linux on non-Intel/Intel compatible hardware? (i.e. RISC)?
Yes. All
commercial uses[SIC] of Linux need to be properly licensed, regardless
of hardware type.
So the only thing I can glean from this is that
the licence covers commercial users. Does that imply that the licence doesn't
cover non-commercial users? Not that it states what constitutes a commercial
user, nor whether non-commercial users need a licence.
And one I really
like:
45 I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a
license?
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license if you are
only running a fully licensed version of BSD.
What
qualifies for a fully licenced version of BSD? Presumably one for which you've
already bought a copy of the SCO Interlectual Property licence... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST |
| So basically, what SCO is claining is that they own every Operating System
ever created, including Windows, *BSD, OS/X, JME, and whatever OS the Cray
computer runs, because they all contain features similar to those found in
SysV.
This guy wants Bill to be his serf.
---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- All Your OS... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: The_Pirate on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:59 PM EST |
Hm. It seems that a lot of people feel like they've been attempted robbed.
If i sideprocess that information with the text of the 'job opening':
"There is a job opening at SCO...Job Requirements: Excellent writing and
verbal skills.", then i am somehow led to imagine a text output like this:
"Put all you monies in tiz plastik bag, and dont tots the burgler
alrm!"
Am i giving away their marketing concept?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST |
| All notices or approvals required or permitted under this Agreement must
be given in writing. Any waiver or modification of this Agreement will not be
effective unless executed in writing and signed by SCO.
Isnt this
the same language in Novells contract that SCO is denying as being
legal? ---
only the soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
Is _this_ the first product of the SCO _SOURCE_ initiative? Providing no
delivery of anything at all, but no rights even to look at any of the source,
provided you can get it from somewhere else?
What's next? SCO brand dehydrated water?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
Since SCO says that anything "... similar ..." to Unix is their IP,
does this
include MS-DOS and Windows?
MS-DOS and Windows use Unix like things such as file handles, tree-
type directory structure and dozens of Unix-like system calls (check the
MS-DOS run-time library reference published by Microsoft)
lvteacher[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
The FTC would be interested in a scam such as this, so I filed a complaint
today. I wonder if action will be taken, or will the U.S. Government continue to
neglect it's mandated duties?
I would encourage other Linux End-Users to file similar complaints to:
http://www.ftc.gov
Let's give a concerted effort to stop this fraud !!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Post the link - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 02:03 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
I find this highly suspicious, to be honest. Just two days ago there was a
Slashdot article about SCO where I mentioned that SCO has never actually been
selling their "license". Some people have documented their attempts
to buy one from SCO only to find that the people at SCO don't ever put them
through to the right person or they're told to leave their name and phone number
and someone would call them back. Darl told everyone last fall to call in and,
when the license was available, you could get one.
Back to my article, SCO has never been selling the license. Instead, they've
been claiming that the license is on sale and taking advantage of the fact that
mainstream journalists will take anything they say at face value and never call
their bluff.
So, now they're putting some fluff on their web site about buying a license, but
mysteriously, the actual "buy" link doesn't work. It didn't when I
tried it yesterday, either.
To take this a step further, I do web sites for a living. It would take me
under an hour to put together a site where someone can pay for a license and
download the license itself. There's nothing special about it.
So why is it that SCO, who's been claiming to have a license for sale since the
middle of last year, just now is getting around to actually letting people buy
it online? Forget the fact that you still can't actually buy it online for a
minute. Doesn't it seem strange that a software company with an existing web
site never thought to put their only remaining product for sale on that site?
Particularly given that the product is nothing but a file download (from the
programming point of view)?
Let me reiterate and make this clear: I don't believe that they're actually
going to sell it online, either. The press is starting to sniff around a little
bit and notice that they've not sold too many. Again, the clueless journalists
just regurgitate SCO's claims, but even their own claims are that they've sold
only a few and can't disclose the buyers' names.
I'm surprised this little online gambit wasn't met with a press release.
Nevertheless, perhaps it's just meant to help keep the notion afloat that
they're selling licenses. I agree with what someone else said here, they'll
probably claim a DOS attack is taking it offline. And then some other problem,
etc.
I still think they're afraid to actually sell the license because, when they do,
it'll open them up to litigation due to the fraudulent nature of the
transactions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suspicion - Authored by: PM on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:23 PM EST |
There are two stories on Eweek.com.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1533423,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1536663,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wow. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
I have been lurking for a while and am awaiting my password after registering.
But I can wait no longer.
First, this site has earned my respect for the efforts of PJ and all of the
others who put their time into analyzing and inspecting the various documents
that are produced in the process of the many lawsuits that SCO is involved in.
Great work, and I really enjoy the commentary and explanations of the vagaries
of the U.S. legal system. Now on to my comments.
Just exactly what would a person be buying if they purchased this "IP
License"? A promise not to sue?
That is extortion (not a new observation, it's been made before about the SCO
Group's activities). One thing I have noticed though, is the need to buy this
"license" even if one has purchased one of the old Caldera Linux
versions.
That is in direct conflict with one of my recollections (which may be faulty).
Seems to me I remember Stowell or "D-Mac" saying that Caldera and SCO
customers would be indemnified. Perhaps I have that wrong, but it seems to me
that this conflicts with the language of this highly intrusive EULA.
The part I like best is "No Refunds". If and/or when someone takes SCO
to court for selling a fraudulent license, my prediction is that a court would
take a very dim view of this.
I fervently hope that the day comes soon when these guys (the SCO
"executives") will be wearing stripes and banging a tin cup against
the jail-cell bars. The clear abuse of the legal system demands that they be
dealt with swiftly and severely.
This whole thing gets more amusing/angering/appaling every day.
- kb9aln[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST |
The "BUY" buttons working now... wish I had 699... so I could sue em
for fraud
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST |
Hey, maybe this is part of the Mydoom plan.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST |
IANAL. But. Suppose arguendo that there is some SCO IP in Linux. There may be a
licence by estoppel if it would be unconscionable for SCO to be permitted now to
deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, they have allowed or encouraged
others to assume to their detriment - ie, that the code was unencumbered.
This obviously applies directly to any purchaser of SCO Linux, and arguably to
anyone who got a copy off such. But could it apply also to the whole Linux
community? since SCO and their predecessors in title clearly (knowingly or not)
did not complain of the use of their purported IP in Linux for many years.
For example. Any evidence that anyone at SCO, or their predecessors, was aware
that Linux used some of the same ABI constants as UNIX, would tend to indicate
constructive neglect of the issue. This would support a case for inferring the
existence of a licence by estoppel to use SCO's purported ABI IP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: javajedi on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:07 PM EST |
| Though a bit off topic I thought this might be interesting. In many posts I see
SCO's claims as being as rediculous as "selling property on the moon". I
thuoght for amusement purposes it might be interesting to my fellow Groklaw
readers that there is indeed a company that does just that! And you can buy an
acre of lunar land for alot less than the SCO license (around $30 dollars)
:) The other interesting point I might make is that it would appear that this
company The Lunar Registry actually
likely has more legal rights to sell acreage on the moon than SCO has to sell
Linux licenses! :)
---
The Matrix is real... but i'm only visiting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:13 PM EST |
| [That's not a typo - Novell routinely uses N for their products].
Details at
Novell's Shift to
Linux Starts Well
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:33 PM EST |
"Mom sues RIAA members for racketeering."
Ref: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35663.html
Well damm .. Isn’t SCO pulling the same thing here?
“Either buy our license, or we sue the pants off you ... Period.”
Someone warm up the RICO Statue lawsuits against SCO Gang!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST |
"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."
OK taking these numbers at face value, they spent just over $10 million on
research and development last year, and they have 4000 developers.....
Therefore 10,000,000 / 4000 developers (assuming all went to salaries)... means
that they paid an average of $2,500 per employee. Assuming that even in India
it costs more than that per employee, they must be hiring developers in
sub-saharan africa :p.....
OR ARE they counting in the 4,000 developers the people who program in the Open
source community in that number?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
SCO said:
SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS
GRANTED HEREIN. SCO does not warrant that the function contained in SCO IP will
MEET YOUR requirements or that its operation will be uninterrupted or error
free.
PJ said:
[How can they warrant they have the
rights when they don't know yet if they have copyright ownership? And they don't
know -- although the rest of us may have a clue -- if the GPL will stand, in
which case they just might not have any such rights. This must be one of those
clauses you had to be in the room and hear discussed to know what they are
thinking.]
PJ,
This one slipped by you. They warrant that
they are empowered to grant you the right to not be sued by them. That's
all. That's the only "right" the license grants; everything else is either
redefining terms or taking rights away.
They're con artists. They make lots
of noisy distractions so you won't notice how badly you get taken.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
I wouldn't, and if I can't trust them with a credit card number why would I buy
any sort of licence from them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5163508.html
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the online ordering site was launched to make
compliance easier for companies that haven't been contacted individually by SCO.
"We want to make the licenses more accessible to any business that's
interested," he said.
P.S.
Just a thought - Blake, if you're reading, have you noticed that your friends
Chris and Darl have been a bit quiet lately as the legal case has gone more
pear-shaped. Please judge for yourself, whether
(a) you might somehow end up lined up as the fall guy
(b) whether Darl McBride, Sean Wilson and Chris Sontag, might consider you
expendable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: javajedi on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST |
| I just noticed something as I re-read the license along with the commentary by
our beloved PJ. In the following section of SCO's license... "SCO does not
warrant that the function contained in SCO IP..." (emphasis mine)... so
it is only a single function that they are licensing to you if you buy their IP
license? Darl, PLEASE tell me which FUNCTION this is so I can simply avoid
using it altogether! :)
---
The Matrix is real... but i'm only
visiting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST |
The kernel source code 'kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm" that was on the
SCO server on Feb 18, 2004 has disappeared.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:28 PM EST |
http://cm.bell-l
abs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
Dennis refers to GROKLAW
and our charming Pamela Jones on his own home page.
Well I always knew he
had good taste! ---
JJJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:40 PM EST |
| Headline :
The SCO Group Extends Invitation to Join Its First Quarter 2004
Financial Results Conference Call
Details Here
---
T
oday's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: betheball on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
First posting, so bear with me...
I've been following this case for many months now, and I think I must be missing
something fundamental... If SCOG has to send all the licensing revenue they
take in on SVRX licenses, and they get back a 5% administration fee, how can it
possibly be the case that that SCOG owns the SVRX copyrights? If, in fact,
Novell had turned over all the copyrights to Caldera at the time, then how could
Novell lay claim to licensing revenue? How can you charge a fee to license
something which you don't own? (Either Novell or SCOG better come up with a
good answer to this one...)
I'm SO confused!
E[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beam-me-up on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST |
""UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare."
Now most of the "Methods": in SYS V, have been around since the
inception of Unix, so how does this effect the codebase derived from the
"Ancient" Unix Source that Caldera released previously under the
"BSD Style" Licence or from BSD Unix ?
"_is similar to_" Much of the above code would fall into this, What
about Code based on the Single Unix Spec, that would definatly be similar to
"Methods" used in System V, How about Minix? again very
"similar"...
The definitions in this (cough Cough) License, seem to cover anything that even
resemble System V..
Maybe the Open Group should have a look at this.....
---
Beam Me Up Scotty, There no Intelligent life in SCO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The open group, BAH - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
- The Open Group - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST |
Wouldn't SCO's attempts to collect monies under this license be considered
racketeering?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST |
Didn't SCO's counsel recently tell the Judge that it was "impossible"
for them to prove exactly which lines of code were copied into Linux?
It sounds to me like they are selling a license to something that they have no
evidence exists.
This does, of course, omit "derivative works", but I'm confident that
the usual copyright definition will be used.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
SCO must be committing suicide. They still distribute the linux kernel, but
in their own words,
"SCO's source license agreement directly conflicts with
the GPL."(http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST |
OK...
So you can buy these licenses with Amex, Visa, MC and Discover.
How do these guys feel about people using their merchant facilities to sell
property that's actually being contested in two concurrent law suits?
Merchant agreements with credit card issuers are normally fairly strict about
the basis on which you can sell things using their facilities, perhaps we should
talk to some of these issuers about these sales?
You might not have direct consumer protection in the US, but the agreements that
bind SCO here might be worth looking at.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST |
It appears as if the German Finance Ministry Division have chosen Linux in this
story.
Just though it'd be of interest...
(Not on Intel chips BTW) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DWalker on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST |
The license says: "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Utah, U.S.A.; excluding (i) Utah’s choice of law principles and (ii) the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods."
So they want Utah's laws *except* for its choice of law principles (whatever
that is). Can you do that?
I wonder why they are disclaiming a UN convention. Maybe that UN convention
says that you have to know what you're selling.
Let's see, I want my agreement to be covered by some of Utah's laws, a few of
Arizona's, and some from the Cayman Islands. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST |
Who would buy such a (what is this anyway)?
It looks like they don't actually want to sell any but just give the pretense of
selling licenses. What lawyer would reccomend to a client that the client should
buy such a license?
It boggles/bobbles the mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST |
The SCO Group is effectively scamming Linux Users with a variation of the "Data
Protection Scam"
http://www.goog
le.com/search?q=%22data+protection+scam%22
Check with your local
"Better Business Bureau" if this is in violation of local Fair Trade Acts and
Unfair practices Acts.
1) The SCO has already effectively granted all
downstream users of the right to use the Linux kernel under the terms of the Gnu
General Public License (GPL).
Since 1994, both Caldera ( which only changed
its name to The SCO Group in 2003 ) and the Santa Cruz Operation ( The original
SCO which changed its name to Tarentella ) have accepted, profited from and
redistributed copyrighted source code from hundreds of developers under the
terms of the GPL license.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
The SCO Group has failed to put forward ANY substantial legal theory why
the SCO Group should not be obligated to abide by the terms of the GPL.
http://www.fsf.or
g/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear.html
Linux Users already have a license
-- the GPL.
The SCO Group is pulling a scam selling unnecessary licenses
under terms that directly violate the SCO Group's obligations under the General
Public License (GPL).
2) It is a criminal offense to claim, with
fraudulent intent, that you have a copyright if you do not. The SCO Group does
*NOT* hold the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Novell has *NOT* transfered
the title for the works that the SCO Group fraudulently filed for copyright in
2003 when the title has not been transfered. Novell claims it has the right to
hold the copyright. The SCO Group do not have the right to sue anybody for
violation of copyright works without the assent of the title holder.
3)
The SCO Group claims the right to sue for work in standard UNIX and POSIX
interfaces that AT&T and Novell granted full rights to use royalty free in
perpetuity for the ISO, ANSI and FIPS federal standards.
4) The SCO
Groups contract claims against IBM and others based upon the AT&T lisense in
respect to rights of so called derivative works is in direct contradiction to
evidence presented to the SCO Group by Novell.
5) The SCO Group though
the press and SEC filings, has bolstered the share price of the SCO Group based
upon demonstrably false claims to the contrary of above points 1,2 and 3. The
SCO Group CEOs and legal agents were notified by Novell and IBM *before* making
these false claims and presenting them as fact. The actions of the SCO Group
must be in violation of several SEC regulations.
The SCO Group is
effectively scamming Linux Users with a variation of the "Data Protection
Scam"
http://www.goog
le.com/search?q=%22data+protection+scam%22
Check with your local
"Better Business Bureau" if this is in violation of local Fair Trade Acts and
Unfair practices Acts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST |
| Here
.
And once you have this, you get a free SCO IP licence, according to the
SCOsource website. Why pay more! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Matt C on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST |
This is decidedly off topic, but could someone explain how a mere mortal like me
could see the webcast of Eben Moglen at Harvard?
I was unable to get a Real Player going on my Linux box, so I switched to my old
W98 (I'm not kidding). The Real Player I installed there said a software update
was required...then it said "There is no software update to support this
content" Details... "RV40"
I am reminded why I don't use this crap, but I'd really like to see the
show...ideas? Time is of the essence[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST |
As many have already pointed out, SCO is not selling
licenses for a product. They are simply asking you pay
them so they won't sue you, without specifying the grounds
for the implicitly threatened suit.
Isn't there a law against a company offering
indemnification from their own lawsuits? Where I come
from, we call this a protection racket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
What would the TCO of this license be?
Conceiveably it could be huge, maybe millions because of the limitations that it
could bind its licensor with??
What might the line by line TCO implications be?
For users?
For developers?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: McDeavitt on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:31 PM EST |
| www.InternetNews
.com
"Network security issues and business continuity concerns are
driving mid-sized companies to take the leap and upgrade their operating
systems," Ludwick said. "This is the year of OS migration, many businesses have
to decide now how they are going upgrade their systems."
I'm not
personally a big Gateway fan but its nice to see such a prominently visible
company opening their eyes to the real future. The future of OS
choice. ---
He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well
be suspected of doing everything for money.
--Benjamin Franklin [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdt on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:44 PM EST |
SCO misses the target by offering licenses online.
The people that
really want to buy a license want a good-looking manuscript which they
can frame and put on their office walls.
In short, SCO would sell more
licenses if they marketed them as uber-geek t-shirts or as IT executive toys.
We might even buy one as a momento for PJ ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmichel on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST |
The shop.scogroup.com site now works. And they have a veritable smorgasboard of
"licenses" to buy from.
Didn't go any further than adding a bunch of stuff to the cart. I didn't want
to taint myself to badly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST |
I'm wondering who drew up the license. Was it Kevin McBride or was it a hired
attorney from Boies, Schiller & Flexner or Hatch, James & Dodge? I find
it hard to believe that a hired attorney would even help create a ridiculous
license like this while their client is involved in lawsuits over ownership of
the "IP," whatever that is. I think it almost had to be Kevin
McBride. Or does an attorney have to do what their client asks, even though it
might be unethical or illegal? Does the lawyer face any liability?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Kevin?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 01:36 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: vk2tds on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:41 PM EST |
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
Under this definition, my GPU (Graphics Processor) is a CPU
My keyboard controller on the PC is a CPU
The processor on my HDD is a CPU.
And my Pentium M processor is a CPU...
Good thing I am not running LINUX on my laptop, else I would need a four CPU
license.
[And, yes, LINUX does run on my HDD and my GPU... I would be laughed out of
court if I told
someone that LINUX was not running on my HDD, when it just booted from it ]
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that:
(i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use,
functionality or adaptation
(ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to
(iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in
(iv) UNIX System V or UnixWare®, or
(v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under UNIX System
V or UnixWare.
I love the "Method Developed in" and "Similar to"...
I suspect that both of these claims would be thrown out of court. I have
developed a lot of
programs "IN" Unix System V. I am sure that everyone on this list has
too... Under my reading they
are claiming ownership of the lot. Under the "Method Developed In"
they are actually probably claiming
much of the unix kernel since it was probably developed under a System V
environment.
And I am not sure that they can claim "Simialr to". Copyright does
not copyright an idea. It copyrights
an EXPRESSION OF AN IDEA. Ideas are patentable. And patents need to be
registered. And Enforced. I would
suspect that a patent would be unenforcable since SCO has not previously
attempted to encforce on. Of
course the copyright and patent acts are screwed up so who knows...
SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES
WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE,
WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW, CUSTOM, PRIOR ORAL
OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY PARTY OR OTHERWISE
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS)
ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED.
Seems to me that a narrow reading of this discounts what they have just said in
the same document...
Darryl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST |
Purchase one SCO license.
Run absolutely any software you can aquire.
If anyone has a problem with it tell them the SCO license allows it and it's
their problem to prove it does not.This may involve attempting to prove what SCO
is licensing. :)
Bullsh*t and delay with other SCO tactics readily available online.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST |
What we are witnessing here is the evolution of SPAM into a new entity properly
termed SCAM: the intrusive demand for an irrelevant license.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 01:57 AM EST |
"SCO has declined to reveal how many businesses have purchased Linux
licenses, but the activity is believed to be minimal"
In FUD speak minimal means zero
Even ZDNet is toning down their support for SCO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quote from ZDNet - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:29 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 03:18 AM EST |
"COLA", eh? More like a "Damned Irritating and Entirely Toothless
Certificate of License Agreement", or "DIET COLA". And just like
diet cola, it leaves a nasty aftertaste in the mouth...
Given this company's track record, the fact they've now notched up credit-card
scamming to their list of acheivements doesn't surprise me in the least.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ism on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:31 AM EST |
SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED
HEREIN.
If I buy this license and it turns out that TSG is not
empowered to grant me the rights they claim, how easy would it be for me to sue
them? And how many would need to buy this monstrosity to raise a class act
suit?
Though of course after it turns out that they have no rights there
is probably not going to be a lot of money left to quarrel over. Could we sue
Canopy?---
-ism [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jaydee on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST |
| No. Just Kidding... As usual [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:58 AM EST |
| If a comment contained the words "within it" within the SCO
files and you agreed to the licence, Within being a concept - does it mean you
would not be able to use this on your webpage any more, or any other text
document? or in verbal language?
Does it mean any comment inserted within a
SCO-owned file would make it unsuable in the common communication?
Does it mean
that this is the end of the English Language as we know it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:33 AM EST |
Let's start a criminal investigation! So sad that I am not able to do this as
SCO does not sell their licenses in Germany. A license to be killed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST |
Checked out the orders form for 8-CPU licence.
Apparently, you can only buy 99 of them max. Don't know what this means if you
have 100 of them...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST |
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
I didn't have to read all of this, but I did. It appears to me that to claim IP
and promote certain licensing practices would first require that the producer of
such a license be in a state of authority over the matter. I do not see SCO
being in any state of authority over this matter in any form of the word. I
would also dare to say that to produce such a license would require a commitment
by the company to produce proof that they had obtained a legal means in which
they could provide such a license or service. This is considered a standard
business practice. I find it difficult at best to believe at this point that the
company itself obtains INTELLIGENCE in such a form that it could produce a
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE.
If we are to pay for such a license, then please produce proof of IP or even an
ethical intelligence level if you might. If this works for SCO, then by their
own justice and ethics, we may all pick any current product in any market,
create a site and promote it's distrobution, and sue to keep such a right to
promote our product until it's proven that we do not have any ownership rights.
Maybe the SCO trade should be read as such....
"Our current IP rights far exceed any law known in any country. At SCO, we
have the power to claim what is rightly ours and will protect what we have until
proven we have no rights established in any form. We are innocent until proven
otherwise and are now in the process of suing for our rights and ownership of
other products we know nothing about and had no stake in creating.We will
succeed.We will not stand nor tolerate anyone or any nation claiming that we
have no rights and will sue continuously until someone says we do." -- Darl
McBride
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST |
Your Shopping Basket Your Shopping Basket is a place where all items you are
considering buying are listed. Software packages will appear in your shopping
basket as you choose to buy them from various pages. You can now continue
browsing the SCO Web site, or follow through with your purchase. A secure server
is used to process your transaction!
Quantity Name SKU Each Total
SCO IP Annual License - 1 CPU LA530-0001-CC1 $149.00 $14,751.00
SCO IP Annual License - 1 CPU LA530-0001-CC1 $149.00 $14,751.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - 2 CPU LA520-0002-CC1 $1,149.00 $113,751.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - Desktop (Note: CPU Licensing is not applicable to
Desktop systems) LA520-DT00-CC1 $199.00 $19,701.00
SCO IP Paid Up License - 1-CPU LA520-0001-CC1 $699.00 $69,201.00
Sub Total $232,155.00
Tax will be calculated when you complete your order. Tax $0.00
Shipping will be computed when you finalize your order. Shipping $0.00
Total $232,155.00
Any changes above should be verified by pressing 'Recalculate' before
clicking on 'Finalize this Order'.
Software License Return Policy:
All sales of SCO IP software licenses are final and are not refundable or
returnable
Well. A couple hundred thousand dollars later and the SCO site would not even
work to take me to checkout. What a hokes and scam. As mentioned above, the
store cart doesn't even work properly. For crying out loud SCO, I could have
configured a store cart for you that at least worked for the cost of just a few
licenses.
What a scam.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Working cart - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST |
Now it contains the word Linux! Wow!
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/SCOIPLicEULA(Feb17-04).pdf
and
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What change? - Authored by: DK on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 03:44 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:34 PM EST |
According to the 19 November 2002 Product Announcement available at
http://www.mpasystems.com.au/NEWS/sco/Linux40_release.pdf, SCO was prominently
involved in putting together SCO Linux Server, "an enterprise-class
operating system". This seems to be at odds with SCO's contention that
Linux could not have become "an enterprise-class operating system"
without IBM's alleged contribution of SCO's IP to Linux and the resultant injury
to SCO.
If, according to SCO, Linux is not enterprise class without SCO's IP, than it
would seem that one of the following should be true:
1. SCO Linux Server was "enterprise-class", included SCO's IP, and
SCO was aware that they were selling a product with their IP. IBM is certainly
not responsible here--SCO's IP was already in Linux.
2. SCO Linux Server was "enterprise-class", included SCO's IP, and
SCO was UNAWARE that they were selling a product with their IP. IBM is not
accountable for SCO's stupidity.
3. SCO Linux Server did not include SCO's IP. This would put SCO in the
position of claiming on one hand that Linux is "enterprise-class"
without SCO's IP (otherwise the announcement is fraudulent), and claiming on the
other hand that Linux is not "enterprise-class" without SCO's IP for
purposes of the IBM suit. SCO cannot have it both ways and the former is in
their own words. Therefore any alleged contribution of SCO's IP to Linux would
have minimal impact--Linux was already "enterprise-class" according to
SCO.
In any event, it seems that SCO's proprietary Unix products were being devalued
by the very "enterprise-class" Linux operating systems SCO was itself
attempting to market. SCO then was inflicted upon itself the very damage it is
alleging to have suffered due to IBM's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST |
| A latrine, in my native language, is known as kakkas, sometimes pronounced
KUX. Hey, sounds like it is running on a UNIX-like operating system. May
be I should buy a SCO License for it before my next use. Once there, may be SCO
license (printed) is useful for something else too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST |
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is
processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code
that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a
distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the Linux®
operating system.
"SCO IP" shall mean the SCO intellectual property included in its
UNIX-based Code in Object Code format licensed by SCO under SCO’s standard
commercial license.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its
literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functionality or
adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is similar to (iii)
any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv) UNIX System V or
UnixWare®, or (v) any modification or derivative work based on or licensed under
UNIX System V or UnixWare.
I'm no lawyer by a long shot and I'm not a programmer. I am using this logic in
explaining this.
SCO says that "object code" are machine instructions; correct? Their
(SCO's) IP is based on "object code" (not source code). The next line
implies that any "procedure" that a machine uses to accomplish a task
is IP of SCO as long as UNIX V and Unixware has similar "machine"
instructions. To me this implies that as long as a machine process anything
similar to a way that was written by SCO (in this case or anyone else, past
present or future) then it is in violation. Meaning any trick or process that a
programmer uses to make a function work would be included as falling under this
agreement as long as it is "similar". That would include any OS or
program that works in a similar way.
Let me put it this way; I'm typing this on a keyboard and the hardware is
sending and receiving machine codes to the computer. The OS processes these
machine codes and passes it up to itself and to the application through an API.
There has to be similar ways that all machines, with certain processor types,
process tasks. Some things have to occur in a certain way because of physical
and logical rules. SCO implies they own these rules as well (based on this
logic).
That is to say I'm already in violation simply because all machines and OSes
have similar basic functions based on design.
Is my logic sound or is this a result or a poor interpretation? Or is this right
along the lines that SCO intends?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chameleon on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:55 PM EST |
I hope they are not serious with a definition like this:
>>"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
Therefore any server type installation will have to take into account such
things as memory controllers, GPU's, Northbridge controllers and who knows how
many processors on the various NIC's/RAID boards installed.
Funny you know, I thought that CPU had been properly defined a long time ago,
apparently not.
---
Amateurs built the arc whilst professionals built the Titanic. Charles Faulkner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
According to http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/license_program.html
"The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property
contained in Linux, in binary format only. End users who purchase this license
will be held harmless against past and future copyright violations based on
their use of SCO’s intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions
on the licensed system. These licenses will not provide any rights to the SCO IP
in source code form or any rights to distribute SCO IP with the Linux Operating
System in binary or source form. These issues cannot be covered by the SCO IP
License due to conflicts with the GPL License."
Note the last sentence. Are they conceding that they cannot "license"
the source code, because that is already covered by the GPL? In which case it
would be perfectly legal for me to obtain any copy of Linux that does not
include blindly downloaded <b>binaries they have licensed</b>, but
has recompiled them from source code GPL'd to the max...? That's basically all
Linux kernels then, since they are all compiled from source code in the first
place surely...
It sounds like they want to sue people who downloaded/bought <b>binaries
from them</b>, lol!! Their own customers only!!
SCO: Who wants a market share anyway...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
