|
No Licensing Suspension |
|
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT
|
I know you've seen the reports, and I have too. I haven't published the story up until now, because I couldn't confirm it. When I saw it in the Inquirer, I decided it was time to call SCO. I asked if they would confirm or deny the report that the Linux licensing program had been suspended. The woman said, "I haven't heard anything about it." She asked me where I'd heard or seen this. I told her. She then said she'd heard that someone told her it was on Slashdot, but she couldn't find the story.
What does it mean? Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I'm taking it as a denial. First she said something that could be interpreted a couple of ways, and then said something that indicates one interpretation is that she wasn't completely forthcoming. But what I think she actually meant is that she hadn't heard anything about the program being suspended. Perhaps if I'd tried to get a license, I'd have gotten more information or even different information, but I would have had to lie to do that, and I won't do that. Until there is more than a Slashdot comment to go on, I consider it unfounded, and I think it would be unfair to SCO to spread this story.
Obviously, if I hear more, I'll let you know.
By the way, an alert reader sent me the part of the Wall Street Journal article that the Salt Lake Tribune cut: "It's not hard to imagine a comparable denouement this time. Microsoft has long warned that Linux is a ticking copyright time bomb. Naturally, it's delighted with the lawsuit. But those warnings could have a kernel of truth. It wouldn't be shocking if, scattered in Linux's millions of lines, there were other examples like the one seen by Mr. Taylor: incidental and easily excised. In fact, few pieces of software this big could survive the same sort of review.
"What if, thanks to SCO, Linux could rid itself of any such questionable lines, and end up with a court-issued seal of copyright approval? Then what would Microsoft complain about? And what would SCO's new business plan be?"
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Thank you for being careful, honest, and fair-minded. I realize you use humor
and sarcasm to make a point, this being a blog and all it's expected that your
opinion gets expressed. But what you have repeatedly shown is that you are
anti-FUD, no matter where it comes from. That is what keeps this site from
degenerating into a one-side namecalling affair where anything for "our side" is
cheered and anything for the "other side" is booed. Slashdot can be like that,
but I'm glad to see you taking the high ground and standing up for the
principles of truth and accuracy even when a seemingly easy target comes
around. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
My WAG is that the CSR that the /. caller talked to was confused and thought he
wanted to buy new copies of the Caldera/SCO Linux product, which *has* been
suspended. Some people on the Yahoo SCOX board also called and supposedly were
told that there was a backlog, and that someone would get back to them in a week
or so. SCO must be drowning in crank calls by now.
BTW, from http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=26922
--
"However, Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba, who visited with SCO
last week and took a look at its evidence of copying from the UnixWare kernel
into Linux, pointed out that many of those calls likely did not come from
companies interested in buying a license.
"'Some of those companies probably were leaving colorful messages that were not
necessarily that they wanted to engage in a license,' Skiba told
internetnews.com. '[SCO] even told me that probably a third of those customers
were calling to basically complain...'"
--
The Yahoo poster didn't give a citation for this, and I couldn't find one using
google -- anyone else seen this quote elsewere? bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
http://www.inter
netnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2245911 pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
PJ,
Drats, you beat me in posting a link to the
quote in question... D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
PJ, that article only tells us that Brian Skiba may be added to the list of
analists that could tell they saw two pieces of similar code... It doesn't
provide the "customers ... complain" quote.
Considering that the telephone number has been on Slashdot, I wouldn't be
surprised if there were 90% prank calls. I must admit that I made a phone call
to get some information too (and wasn't very serious in paying money for a
license that restricted my rights). MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Here is a link to the quote in question:
http://silicon
valley.internet.com/news/article.php/2247331
Paragraphs 9 & 10.
The article is titled "SCO Group Claims First Linux IP Licensee" and is dated
August 11, 2003 D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/08/sco.html?foo=SCO%20Group%20t
o%20Shoot%20Babies%2008-12 Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Z, And that tells us there are people with worse taste than McBride...
D. Nice find! MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Well, I was searching around the net last night trying to find if Canopy has
issued any offical statement on the lawsuit for the local LUG, and happened upon
Darl McBride's home telephone and address. Hehe, it was in the strangest place
you could imagine... I have no intent to post it anywhere, so please don't ask.
Although, I am curious enough that I plan to drive past his house (seeing how I
live in Salt Lake and all). nexex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
Now even attorneys are speaking out in the press against SCO (and this one from
a firm who include intellectual property as one of their specialist areas) http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html
a>
One point that is of interest is that he doesn't mention the issue of the act of
copying to run a program not needing a license suggesting that probably isn't a
clear cut defence even in the US. Any end user who buys the SCO license is
relying on that clause to avoid them infringing section 4 of the GPL (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...). If IBM wanted to know who the licensee is they could
probably put forward a case that SCO and AN Other were conspiring to violate
IBMs copyright and hence require SCO to identify their co-defendant. Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
I made a call to SCO to inquire about their license. The women I spoke with
assured me I would be transferred to a available sales person, as in talking to
someone, what I got was voicemail. I left a message with my email address and
received a short email. I replied with a couple of questions and wanted them to
send me a copy of the license, they have not replied. They don't seem very
interested in selling anything if they are not answering! Chuck[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Other SCO stories
http://ww
w.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588381531.html
http://www.th
estreet.com/_yahoo/tech/software/10107725.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
Adam,
Though his site is primarily focused on Microsoft, Lewis Mettler, Esq. has had
some interesting commentary on the SCO Group in the last couple of days.
http://lamlaw.com/DOJvs
Microsoft/WrapAndFlow.html D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Check out this story. SCO is a "Linux software vendor giant." I think we'd
better all write them a letter... I sure did. Hopefully they'll post it soon.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
If you wish, you may file a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) at: https://rn.ftc
.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01 Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Oops!! Sorry to reply to myself. Here's the URL:
ht
tp://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=91854&mode=thread&order=0 Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Lawyer speaks
href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.htm
l">http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html
a> quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Lawyer speaks
href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.htm
l">http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html
a> quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Lawyer speaks
href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.htm
l">http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html
a> quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Canopy wins against CA! More $$$ to keep sco afloat
http://biz.yahoo.com/d
jus/030812/2248001491_2.html Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
ht
tp://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20277173,00.htm
"Invoices will be dispatched in the next weeks or months," a company
spokesperson told ComputerWire on Monday.
Recipients will include the 1,500 enterprises which were served warning letters
by SCO in May. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Relevant to the Center7 judgment against CA for $40 million, it looks like
Canopy already arranged in Q2 for money to flow from C7 to SCO. Check out the
SCO's 10Q.
Apparently SCO will act as Marketing agent for C7 software and collect sales
minus a royalty passed on to C7. As part of the deal, C7 already gave SCO an IOU
for half a million dollars, which was not realized last quarter, but will be
booked as the money arrives.
<On April 30, 2003, the Company and Center 7, Inc., ("C7") entered into a
Marketing and Distribution Master Agreement (the "Marketing Agreement") and an
Assignment Agreement. C7 is majority owned by The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"),
who is the Company's principal stockholder. Under the Marketing Agreement, the
Company was appointed as a worldwide distributor for C7 products and will
co-brand, market and distribute these products. The Company will pay C7 a
royalty on all products sold. Under the Assignment Agreement, the Company
assigned C7 the copyright applications, trademarks, patents and contracts
related to Volution Manager, Volution Authentication, Volution Online and
Volution Manager Update Service (collectively, the "Assigned Software"). As
consideration for this assignment, C7 issued to the Company a $500,000
non-recourse promissory note, secured by the Assigned Software, due on April 30,
2005 with interest payable at a rate of one percent above the prime rate as
reported in the Wall Street Journal.>
<During the time the Company was developing the Assigned Software, it had
expensed all amounts for its research and development efforts. As a result, at
the time the promissory note was executed, the Company had no recorded basis in
the Assigned Software. Because the transfer of the Assigned Software was to a
related party in exchange for a promissory note, no gain will be recognized by
the Company until payments are received.> Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
I'm wondering whether what we're seeing here - the oil deal, the C7 deal, the
Vultus thing - isn't a form of damage control. From where I'm sitting, it looks
like SCO REALLY screwed up when they went after IBM. It's very clear that when
McBride & Co. started their lawsuit, they didn't have a clue. All they really
knew was that their company had lots of UNIX IP, but they didn't know their own
history, they didn't understand the history of UNIX and Linux, they didn't know
what they owned and what Novell owned, and they clearly didn't understand the
damage Caldera's release of the kernel under GPL could do their legal case. In
fact they just plain didn't understand the GPL at all.
Now they're in deep water. If they go to court they'll get creamed. If they
admit they're wrong, the stock price goes down and the shareholders will destroy
them. If board members sell too much stock or engage in any funny business, the
SEC will come calling. By now even people as dense as McBride and Stowell must
know they're in serious trouble. So what to do?
The answer is simple. SCO has to look for for a new gig. They use their current
"high" stock price and notoriaty to make some good deals and acquire some small
companies that look like they might have potential. After a couple months of
shopping, SCO will be a company that doesn't really need UNIX at all. I wouldn't
be surprised to see hints of that in the next SEC filing, something that reads
more or less as follows: "Rather than depend on revenues from Linux and the
lawsuit against IBM, we're diversifying so we can continue to serve the
computing community. We believe that this significently decreases the risks
associated with owning our stock."
Six months from now we might find SCO limping along at five dollars a share with
a herd of little web-service companies in tow, having settled their lawsuits by
putting all the UNIX stuff (which they don't need anymore) under the GPL, and
showing off a dozen more contracts like the ones we've been discussing
recently.
Frankly, I doubt the current SCO board has the brains to pull something like
this off, but if I were them and had just learned that my IP nuke was gonna
fizzle...
Well, I'd give it a try.
Does anyone else think that's what we're seeing? Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
I think:
The plan is to take assets out of SCO
SCO gives C7 these Volution products
C7 gives SCO a $500,000 promisssory
SCO pays interest on the $500,000
SCO also sells C7 products (presumably including Volution, but this isn't
clear), but doesn't keep all the revenue, some of it pays as royalties to
C7.
I don't know if C7 has any other products that SCO might want to, and will be
to, successfully sell, but as 2 of the main ones would likely be aimed at Linux
shops http://www.center7.com/us/products/
a> I think it might be hard for SCO to.
In other words SCO sold off ownership to a bunch of their products for $500K
promissory, and by having to pay some royalty on these products if they continue
to sell them, they have cut their net profits (if there were any) on these items
in future.
However, it may help SCO in one way, which is that they may be able to cut their
staff, by no longer having to maintain these products. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
The reason they did this, but might to cut staff - or it might be because they
know it's a lemon and don't want to sell it any more - or it might be because
they desparately needed the $500K now, even if it cost them later in
royalties. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
The reason they did this, but might to cut staff - or it might be because they
know it's a lemon and don't want to sell it any more - or it might be because
they desparately needed the $500K now, even if it cost them later in
royalties. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
The reason they did this, but might to cut staff - or it might be because they
know it's a lemon and don't want to sell it any more - or it might be because
they desparately needed the $500K now, even if it cost them later in
royalties. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
The reason they did this, but might to cut staff - or it might be because they
know it's a lemon and don't want to sell it any more - or it might be because
they desparately needed the $500K now, even if it cost them later in
royalties. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
The Canopy
Group (ie: SCO) gets $40 million from Computer Associates. This should
ensure they have plenty of money to sue the living shit out of the Linux
community for years to come. Lins Zechesny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
Sorry, missed the previous posters links. Please delete my last post and this
one! Lins Zechesny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
> The answer is simple. SCO has to look for for a new gig. They use their
current "high" stock price and notoriaty to make some good deals and acquire
some small companies that look like they might have potential
While I think Bench gave hints in the press before Vultus that they were looking
at acquisitions...
I think they would know about any potential Vultus might or might not have had -
as they were in the same building even before buying them, and both Vultus and
SCO were largely Canopy controlled.
I won't post any skeptical remarks about the best possible acquisitions and
partners, just happening to be other Canopy companies.
Would SCO buy more other companies with stock? That'd be fine for SCO, but it
would be risky for the other company. Even if SCO were to win $3bn from IBM -
they could still be bankrupted by IBM's counter claims, plus there's Red Hat. anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
Sure, if IBM kept the suit going. Let SCO acquire a bunch of companies and GPL
their UNIX code and their troubles with IBM and RedHat might evaporate, assuming
that SCO is smart enough to negotiate things first. (Big Assumption.)
And do understand that I'm not totally married to this idea... It just seemed
like an interesting thought that might explain some of their behavior. Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
re: I think: The plan is to take assets out of SCO
What this makes me think of is the fact that Canopy is pulling all the strings.
So maybe it realizes that SCO is going to get clobbered in the lawsuits and have
to pay huge damages that SCO would have to sell off all its assets to pay for,
and so Canopy decided to move all the assets possible out of SCO into other
companies it owns and convert SCO into a hollow shell? david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Hey guys, SCO just pulled the plug at IBM's AIX.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030813/law050_1.html
Read all about it, expect SCO shares to rise again(?) Clint C.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
Here's a neat take on the legal theory of "avoidable damages" referring to a
tort case
(which of course includes the SCO lawsuit against IBM):
http://forums.zdnet.c
om/group/zd.Tech.Update/it/itupdatetb.tpt/@thread@18292@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@arti
cle@18292?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1
IANAL, but this seems to pretty much roast SCO's chestnuts for refusing to
identify the allegedly offending code. Steve
Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|