|
The SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux |
|
Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:36 PM EDT
|
I came across a screenshot I did in December of 2004 just now, and I thought you might like to see it, particularly because the link to the SCOsource licence for Linux announcement in a really early Groklaw article doesn't work any more. Just what was it that SCO offered to sell people, anyway? Was it a license for Linux or was it not? At the time, that is what they called it, and that's what the media recorded, as you can see from this article by Robert McMillan back on September 3, 2003. Even better, Jonathan Corbet at LWN reminds me that LWN ran the complete text in August of 2003. Here you go. Nowadays, as per the SCO Second Amended Complaint in SCO v. Novell, you'd be hard pressed to know it had much to do with Linux at all. But feast your eyes on this screenshot, my friends, for SCO's offering of: The SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux. Ta da!
And here's the date I snapped it, and the only change I made is I altered it to be a jpg, so I could make it narrower, and of course, I still have the original:
So, there we are. A SCO Intellectual Property License (whatever they mean by "intellectual property") for Linux. Not for Unix. For Linux. That's what the man said.
By the way, I think we know now what they meant by "IP" in that context. They probably meant methods and concepts, as opposed to actual code, doncha think? Anyway, that's what I think. A girl certainly has to work mighty hard to keep all the history straight.
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
Instructions provided; please preview your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The MPAA scattergun finally hit someone with money... - Authored by: Arker on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- Question about how long IBM has to respond - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Off-topic here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Question about the tSCOg vs. IBM - Authored by: lightsail on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Update on the AT&T phone story - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- Vigor has invaded MS's Zune!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- SCO: Three years of progress - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- News Pick: Stephen Shankland's article - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- Off-topic here, please - Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 08:09 PM EDT
- Browser Bugs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- Semaphores - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 04:59 AM EDT
- SCOSource and WGA - Separated at birth? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- "Nigeria orders first million OLPC laptops" - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- PJ - Please delete News Pick - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 11:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Assuming, of course, the unlikely. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
With hindsight, it would have been VERY useful for someone to have done a daily
crawl of the SCO site, signed it with a PGP key and deposited it with a public
notary. I'd be susrprised if the IBM team havent been taking dailing dumps[sic]
of the site and stroing them away from the very first day the litigation began.
Whatever, stuff like this is going to keep popping up and slapping SCO up the
head, its going to be fun to watch over the next few months as the circus plays
out the final acts. This is no ordinary circus we will be watching though ... it
looks like someone has tossed the clowns into the lions cage ;)
--
Redpoint[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Well, it would certainly explain SCOX' damage theory if part of SCOX' "control
rights" to IBM's inventions included being able to license them to third
parties.
Although, come to think of it:
If IBM can't disclose them to
third parties without SCOX' permission and SCOX can charge third parties for
using them, what is the difference between what SCOX is claiming and
"ownership?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BsAtHome on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
But were you actually able to buy such a license? Requests have failed as
reported here on Groklaw and only some corporate entities were "sold"
some licenses. And maybe only sold with PR value in mind, which backfired
severely.
---
SCOop of the day[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
... right after SCO comes out and admits their claims in SCO v IBM are not based
on ownership of the disputed IP.
Kinda makes one wonder whose stuff they were trying to charge people for using.
I'll bet I would face criminal fraud charges if I tried to collect money from
people for letting them use something I didn't own.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nice timing, PJ ... - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Bad move. - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Bad move. - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Bad move. - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Re: Bad move. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- and to pick another nit... - Authored by: pmichaud on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Again, let's look at the exact wording ... - Authored by: mickkelly on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 04:42 AM EDT
- Playing the devil's advocate - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:12 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
The SCO IP License for Linux has always been and claimed to be about offering a
proper SCO UNIX IP License for Linux users and is one element of the SCOSource
Initiative.
SCO has always been pretty straightforward and consistent about that.
No Tada as if you discovered something new is necessary there, PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- reading skills lacking - Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- Much ado about nothing, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Consistent??? - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Much ado about nothing, PJ - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- Please define... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Look again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Look again - Authored by: argee on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- Look again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- We'll see about that - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Preposition problem - Authored by: Matt C on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Hahahahaha You guys slay me - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Much ado about nothing, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Hmmm... today's pages say: - Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- I can see a troll by daylight. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 09:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Quick before it disapeers... get some print screens of what they have now
;-)
SCO's site [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
The language in the screenshot PJ posted "unauthorized derivative
work" sounds very much like a claim of copyright infringement with there
being actual code copied from something that SCO holds the copyright on into
Linux. Legal speech may be fuzzy, but that particular phrasing sounds very like
it means copyright infringment and a claim of actual copying of code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Just got to thinking about this. Even supposing SCO had a
contract that required IBM to keep Unix methods and
concepts (whatever that is) secret, does that:
a) Allow SCO to breach that secrecy by selling those
methods and concepts in Linux? Linux is open source and
publically viewable after all, so whatever is in Linux is
viewable by all.
b) Allow SCO to sell software copyrighted by others
(Linux) in breach of the copyright owner's license and
keep the proceeds? Think what would happen if I decided
to sell a 10 user license of MS Windows that allows users
who own Windows to make 9 extra copies and install those
on bare PCs for a payment to me of $100. It is in breach
of the Microsoft's copyright and EULA conditions of
course, but so is SCO's sale of a proprietary license for
Linux. It is exactly the same thing - I am changing the
copyright owners licensing terms for a fee, without the
permission of the copyright owner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Software Piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- INCORRECT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT
- Software Piracy - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Software Piracy - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Software Piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Software Piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 10:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
From SCOG's Investor Relations page.
Dated "LINDON, Utah, Aug 11, 2003"
"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this
program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for
Linux," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager,
SCOsource, SCO's software licensing division. "This Fortune 500 company
recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is
found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate
license from SCO."
At that time I worried that they were in the right!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
A blast from the past. Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
TSC advertises, even now, a license for Linux (see for example here).
This licence appears to have sold NOT ONE copy to an individual, despite the
efforts of a number of people to buy one under any terms.
How is TSG going
to explain this in court? The public statements are unambigious, yet despite
extended efforts by a few people, NOT ONE license has been sold to an
individual.
If we are to believe TSG they had every right to sell such
licenses, but when faced with eager customers they refused to sell.
When a
company acts to minimise legal exposure rather than maximise profits you have to
wonder about their legal position.
--- If you love some code, set it
free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jws on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
I noted that screen shot version of the IP page mentions that people with the
2.4 kernel are covered. That is also effectivly a date as there were a lot of
people on 2.2 kernels, not to mention all the way back to Linus' debates with
Tannenbaum and then writing the first kernel.
So what about all that previous effort? Not covered? Not infringing? The
current page that another comment person found whic is about IP omits that, so
maybe SCO noticed that the 2.4 reference dated them.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/license_program.html
I read the license text that Corbet captured, and it mentions Linux in this
sentence which is the most important about Linux:
2.3 ... "SCO grants Company the right to use all, or portions of, the SCO
Product only as necessary to use the Linux Operating System on each Linux System
for which the appropriate CPUs have been licensed from SCO." ...
It excludes recieving any source or object, but simply says that the agreement
means that SCO will not consider "Company" to be in violation of SCO's
"Intellectual property ownership or rights"
I don't see that that says they still won't sue you. There is a requirement
that the "Company" operate only on designated number and type of
CPU's.
I would also read the agreement to be a problem if one was also using SCO, as it
"superceeds" all other agreements between SCO and the Company, which I
would wonder if it affects those licenses.
I did not make the link above clickable, as SCO has renamed or altered links in
the past, perhaps due to referencing pages from this or other sites. Copy and
paste it, sorry.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
I thought it might be useful to read up on some background information relating
to copyright infringements. Since both Novell and TSG went through a flurry of
copyright registrations a while back, and since we appear in the TSG vs IBM case
to be looking at either copyright and/or trade secrety style violations, this
seemed like a good idea.
Here's what I found so far - some of it might
be useful background reading. First on copyright :-
The U.S. Copyright
Office has this rather
interesting page on copyright infringement, which gives some insights into
steps a court can take to remedy copyright infringement. It's interesting to
note that this doesn't really address software copyright infringement [i.e. the
genie-out-of-the-bottle problem].
For a comparison only, the UK has a
very similar set of guidelines, which covers in more detail the process a
potential plaintiff should consider de
scribed here. Obviously there are subtle differences, and the UK link is
interesting in as much as despite the fact that looks very impressive and
authoritative, it doesn't actually claim to be, and does not have a
".gov.uk" domain registration.
If you do follow the link to the US
Copyright office page, I urge you to scroll down and read the section about Limitations on
liability relating to material online. Now it would take AllParadox or
another Groklawrian to be able to give us a full interpretation of where the law
stands with respect to IBM's alleged publication of copyrighted material, but I
did like this piece in particular :-
(iii) Identification of the
material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing
activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and
information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the
material.
All of which suggests to me that before this case even
got to Court, The SCO Group were obliged by copyright law to approach IBM and
ask them to "remove" allegedly offending material from public access, but more
importantly to go to IBM with enough detail to enable IBM to identify and remove
the offending material. Some chance! Now, we could debate back and forth the
degree of success that IBM [or any other party] might have in the conduct of
such as request in this case, but I think the more interesting point is that The
SCO Group clearly failed to obey the correct and due process of the law before
seeking legal relief. Not being a US citizen and therefore not familiar with the
minutae of her laws, I can't say with confidence, but if I'm reading this stuff
correctly, this could easily become the basis of a Lanham Act counter-claim by
IBM. [ Duh! groan all our US readers collectively...]
Seriously,
though, with IBM repeatedly asking, through the Court, for The SCO Group to get
specific, and with the Copyright laws of the US clearly demonstrating the the
allegedly infringed party should first request the alleged infringer to cease
such acts, IBM have 3 years of Court motions to show that The SCO Group have
deliberately failed to follow the law. Somebody - please - tell me that Judge
Kimball can dismiss any and all copyright claims with
prejudice...
Anyway, time to go and do some digging on contract
violations, non-disclosure agreements and "methods and concepts"...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
August 5th 2003:
http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=115527
Headline: SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
Subheadline: SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
Now what was it that they were denying again?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
They never said they had a mountain of methods and concepts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
I am just checking if I understand correctly.
SCOG has stated 293 claims of "allegedly misued material". Each of the
293 claims might use a different legal theory isn't it? Each of them has to be
shot down individually based on the specifics of its theory, isn't it?
Of cours if we can bundle a group of them based on some similarity, they can be
shot down as a group. This is what judge Wells did. SCOG objected to shooting
down these claims, arguing the theory relevant to these claims.
This does not mean the claims not shot down by judge Wells are based on the same
theory. They can still say they own IP in Linux based on these other claims.
Do I understand it correctly? I am just trying to make sense out of this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
A girl certainly has to work mighty hard to keep all the history
straight. Especially when someone keeps trying to change history
when it is inconvenient.
Cheers
Dave
--- Quietly implementing
RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
Yup.... every day it looks more and more like string theroy to me. 11
dimensions, but not sure which one we're in at the moment.
I am not a lawyer, physicist or mathemetician, so I don't understand String
Theory just about as well as I don't understand these SCO suits. That's MY form
of negative knowledge!
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
no text [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
The original Dear Linux
User letter is still up on SCO's Caldera site.
In this letter we are
identifying a portion of our copyright protected code that has
been incorporated
into Linux without our authorization.
I am not a 'C' programmer, but I
do know a header file when I see it. SCO is offering a binary only
license for using the IP in a header file.
In addition, neither SCO nor
any
predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that
the copyrighted
code in question could be used or distributed under the
GPL.
Is that Caldera in the web address the same as the
Caldera on a Linux distribution that I have beside me?
Finally, what
is that word Sincerely at the end of the letter supposed to
signify?
Even more finally, I now have Ubuntu running on my main computer
complete with all bells and whistles. It does everything but make the coffee, do
I need additional
hardware for this, or will upgrading from totem-xine to
kaffeine be sufficient?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
SCO has apparently now switched it's claims from "concepts
and methods" to
coding style. Apparently IBM's contract
with AT&T prevents IBM from
using similar coding style ot
talking about it.
SCO shares glimpses of
alleged IBM Unix misdeeds
In one case regarding software
"semaphores"
that control when computing resource availability through
a
locking mechanism, "IBM developer Tim Wright expressly
told non-IBM Linux
developers about locking techniques
"that are not currently used in Linux,"
then stated that
"the classic coding style in Dynix/ptx is..."
followed by specific source code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
Re-reading some of the SCO pages regarding their SCOSource Program
, a couple of things caught my attention:
8. Why doesn’t SCO
just simply publish this code so that it can be taken out of Linux if it is
indeed infringing? And why do you require a non-disclosure agreement to view
some of this infringing code?
...SCO has confidentiality clauses in
all of our contracts with more than 3,000 licensees that specifically state that
this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published this UNIX
source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.
20. Why does SCO require an NDA to be signed to view evidence of
UNIX System IP in Linux?
...SCO is obligated to protect this source
code, both to preserve its value to SCO and its shareholders, as well as to
prevent devaluation of the source code that it has licensed (at considerable
expense) to many customers.
And recalling a Blast from the Past
from Ransom
Love:
Indeed, at first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's
code, but we quickly found that even though we owned it, it was, and still is,
full of other companies' copyrights.
The challenge was that there were
a lot of business entities that didn't want this to happen. Intel [Corp.] was
the biggest opposition.
I can see how, if I were a UNIX licensee,
I might feel that Caldera's announcement of putting UNIX code into Linux would
seriously devalue (such as it is) what I paid for "at considerable expense".
Could some UNIX licensee(s) have pressured Caldera about this, and, recalling
IBM's references to moving AIX code into Linux, Caldera decided to deflect the
pressure? Could that be the reason Love was out and McBride, someone with a
history of litigation, was chosen to replace him?
Maybe that is why
they are continuing with this seemingly lost case, if IBM doesn't destroy them,
someone else will destroy them for "not protecting the assets", both of
licensees and shareholders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
SCO try to find the code, they didn't say they didn't have to find the code,
they didn't say they didn't have to prove they owned it. It seems they were
sincerely trying to find the code as IBM compelled them. Now they seem to
change their tune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Love the line "Due to the limitations of the GPL"
I am loving that businesses are so frustrated with the GPL
It is an honest and open license and is pretty straightforward and has no
limitations in my view.
But then when the lawyers and coporations get a hold of it it all the sudden has
limitations.
The IT world is changing folks and corporations better get a clue stick and
start embracing because "the truth happens".
SCO and microsoft I hope both die a slow and painful death and we can use them
as an example to other slimeball companies who want to mess with the GPL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
By the way, I think we know now what they meant by "IP" in that
context. They probably meant methods and concepts, as opposed to actual code,
doncha think? Anyway, that's what I think. A girl certainly has to work mighty
hard to keep all the history straight.
I've been thinking
about this statement, and I don't think that this is exactly the case. We're
looking now, from the jaded view of a hackneyed legal strategy based upon
contracts not copyright. It's my understanding that even if SCO won this
contracts claim, all of the rest of the world who is unbound by these
agreements would not be affected, unless they could also prove that these
Methods and Concepts are somehow also copyright-bound. I believe that their idea
when they published the statement that PJ quotes here is that they actually did
own that millions of lines of code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
From the SCO
Intellectual Property Protection FAQ
Can I see the IP
License before I purchase it?
Yes. The SCO IP license can be
viewed prior to purchasing from the SCO web site at
www.sco.com/scosource.
I've loocked all over the site and can't find
the text of the licence
I also thaught this was fun from the
description page
Licenses must be registered at
www.sco.com/support/registration/ in order to be activated.
SCO is
offering introductory, promotion pricing until October 1, 2003. Customers who
are interested in purchasing the SCO IP license for Linux should contact their
SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800 726-8649 for further
Information.
The introductory, promotional pricing available until
December 31, 2003 is as follows:
A client license for a single user
desktop system is $199.
Server
Licenses
RTU SCO IP in a Linux Distribution
Promotional License Fee
With 1 CPU
$699
With 2 CPUs $1,149
With 4 CPUs $2,499
With 8
CPUs $4,999
Each Additional CPU $749
So what
happend to all the staff that where supposed to maintain the web site :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
From the screenshot: "These customers unknowingly received illegal copies
of SCO property..."
I love it! How do you receive illegal copies of SCO property? Have they
copyrighted the blueprints for their headquarters, and then their
"customers" unknowingly received copies of SCO's headquarters?
I guess this is coming from the company that called the GPL "illegal",
so it wouldn't surprise me if they think that copying property is in any way
illegal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|