decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

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


User Functions

Username:

Password:

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

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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.


  


Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready | 702 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Sorry, I just can't help it ...
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

How many licenses
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 | # ]

They are Licensing Nothing Specific
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

I say buy it!
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 | # ]

The EULA...rimes with H...
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 | # ]

Breach of Contract
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 | # ]

Canopy Comments?...
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 | # ]

The crux..
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 | # ]

Tell Me About Indemnification Again, Please?
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 | # ]

From the HQ of SCO
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 | # ]

Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
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 | # ]

Absolutely Hilarious!
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 | # ]

    Indemnification pontification
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Internationally?
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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
    NDA ?
    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 | # ]

    Fundamental confusion - copyright versus patents
    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 | # ]

    Another SCO Job Opening
    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 | # ]

    What happens if you buy it????
    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 | # ]

    This is only to show they have a business plan
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Do SCO ship this license when they sell an OS?
    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 | # ]

    That's great
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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: 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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    In the EULA web page source
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    The license has a Part #... lol
    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 | # ]

    Is This Actually A License?
    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 | # ]

    They Don't say they won't sue
    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 | # ]

    Re: "SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN"
    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 | # ]

    SCO uncovers its IP
    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
    1. Only the parts of Linux oblect code that are sufficiently similar to SCO object code (but what have methods to do with it), or
    2. 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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Coherent, actually
    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 | # ]

    Credit Cards did you say?
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Isn't this fraud?
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Humor me
    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
    Illegal to reproduce EULA?
    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 | # ]

    Conflict of Laws Section
    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 | # ]

    My head
    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 | # ]

    It won't take a credit card
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    PJ, I wish you would use the version of the GPL that LINUS approves of vs the one you do!
    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 | # ]

    This Reminds Me of a Famous Comic Strip
    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 | # ]

    Question about severability
    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 | # ]

    shop.sco.com
    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 | # ]

    SCO Code of Conduct and Ethics - whoda thunk it?
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    I want one! How do I obtain SCO's Object Code?
    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 | # ]

    Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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
    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Wouldn't this apply...
    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 | # ]

    Nothing left to drink...
    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 | # ]

    Boy, I was worried there for a minute...
    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 | # ]

    $3 Billion is peanuts - SCO now claims to own z/OS and z/VM!
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Translation by Babelfish...
    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 | # ]

    Linux users still "infringing" with this "license"
    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 | # ]

    Pig in a poke
    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 | # ]

    It's a Lincense to Use OpenServer Libraries
    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
    I think they DID license something!
    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 | # ]

    I smell Kevin McBribe
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    "Option-to-buy" solely to show lost profits?
    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 | # ]

    Can I get
    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 | # ]

    Yes, comments are source code
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST
    See, for example, Literate Programming.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This is "pizzo" to me...
    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 | # ]

    "Warrants" + active dispute over ownership + electronic sales = wirefraud?
    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 | # ]

    shop.sco.com is now up and running
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    OT: Linux total cost of ownership is lower
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    PROVIDED YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD...
    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 | # ]

    So do I need a SCO License for my TiVo?
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    SCOX stock price gets poor reception to EULA farce
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Ownership? I can see the fnords!
    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 | # ]

    Kiss a frog
    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 | # ]

    Can't get through
    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 | # ]

    Does Novell get 95% of this license fee?
    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 | # ]

    Single Instance - No Virtualization
    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 | # ]

    Didiot, Enderle will be impressed
    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 | # ]

    SCO IP is ONLY...
    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 | # ]

    Omission in Job Requirements
    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 | # ]

    MONEY-MAKING OPPORTUNITY!
    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 | # ]

    Sorry PJ, I think you got it wrong ;-)
    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 | # ]

    Just buy a License for Solaris for $99
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    SCO FAQ and internal distributions of Linux
    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 | # ]

    "FUNCTIONALITY... SIMILAR TO"
    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 | # ]

    Sent to info@sco.com...
    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 | # ]

    Canopy
    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
    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    A Deep Business Question for Darl and Canopy
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Take a look at the FAQ
    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 | # ]

    All Your OS...
    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
    ...Job 'Oppertunity'...
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    MS-DOS, Windows and Unix
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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
    Suspicion
    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
    Eweek quotes PJ and links to this article
    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
    These people should be jailed
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST
    Hey, maybe this is part of the Mydoom plan.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Licence by Estoppel ? For everyone ?
    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 | # ]

    Property on the moon
    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 | # ]

    OT : Novell ships Nterprise Linux Services 1.0
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Developer salary a maximum of $2,500/year
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Would you trust SCO with your credit card number?
    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 | # ]

    OT: Today's Stowell spotting
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    OT - the kernel source code has disappeared
    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 | # ]

    OT: Dennis Ritchie (dmr) reads GROKLAW
    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 | # ]

    OT : SCOG extends invitation to it's earnings conference call
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    SCOicide: IBM countersuit
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Germany and Linux
    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 | # ]

    How can you pick a subset of laws?
    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 | # ]

    Who would buy such a thing??
    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 | # ]

    Summary: Data Protection Scam and Other Crimes
    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 | # ]

    SCO Linux available for 99 cents !
    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 | # ]

    How to watch Moglen?
    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 | # ]

    Indemnification from themselves
    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 | # ]

    What is the cost of this license?
    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 | # ]

    OT: Gateway & IBM
    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 | # ]

    SCO's marketing all wrong
    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 | # ]

    Be Afraid
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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
    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Buy a license, pull a SCO
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Quote from ZDNet
    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
    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Well I'm convinced - My license is in the post.
    Authored by: jaydee on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST
    No. Just Kidding... As usual

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Clarification on "Comments" request
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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
    EULA changed!!!
    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
    SCO announces "an enterprise-class operating system" -- SCO Linux Server
    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 | # ]

    I need a license in a hurry...
    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 | # ]

    Step Right Up, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Have Your Credit Card Ready
    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 | # ]

    CPU??
    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 | # ]

    GPL still apllies though...
    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 | # ]

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

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