Two of four SCO licensees deny their purchase

TechWorld ^ | 05 March 2004 | Robert McMillan and Kieren McCarthy

[cc2k]

05 March 2004

Two of four SCO licensees deny their purchase

Linux licence? What Linux licence?

By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service and Kieren McCarthy, Techworld

Click here for more information Two of the four companies that SCO has publicly named as having bought a licence from it to use Linux, have denied doing anything of the sort.

Both Computer Associates and Leggett & Platt have been held up by SCO as purchasing a $699 (£384) licence to cover the alleged SCO copyrights in the open-source operating system. But both have publicly stated that they have done no such thing.

The chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group, Sam Greenblatt, admitted the company had struck a deal with an investor in SCO over UnixWare licences and said that for each UnixWare licence bought, it was indemnified against a Linux box but he denied outright that the company had bought a licence specifically dealing with Linux.

Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."

The denials come the same day that SCO was forced to admit an email appearing to demonstrate that Microsoft had helped fund the group to the tune of $86 million was real. But, the company claims, the email does not show what people claim it does.

This same misunderstanding approach was used by SCO to explain CA's statement. SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said that CA had indeed obtained an IP licence for Linux in an email. “UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."

This hazy distinction angered CA's Greenblatt, who strongly objected to the portrayal of CA as a IP licensee for Linux. "To represent us as having supported the SCO thing is totally wrong," he said, before accusing the company's tactics as "intended to intimidate and threaten customers". "We totally disagree with [Darl McBride's, SCO CEO] approach, his tactics and the way he's going about this," Greenblatt added.

SCO claims to have copyrighted material within the Linux open-source operating system and has embarked on a dramatic legal battle to enforce them. Earlier this week, it expanded its lawsuits to include one of its own customers and a company using the Linux software and warned that it "will take and continue to take" legal action against Linux end users. The company sees itself as educating people about its rights in the same way that the RIAA - the US music industry body - has sued individuals in an attempt to prevent the free trade in copyrighted music.

However, one financial analyst said that the conditions surrounding the CA licence did not cast a favorable light on SCO. "I think it just speaks to the weakness of their case. Why could CA have not been convinced to take a licence without legal action," said Dion Cornett, managing director with Decatur Jones Equity Partners.

The other two companies that have been named as IP Licence for Linux customers are EV1 Servers.Net and Salt Questar. Both have confirmed that they did purchase SCO's licence.

[cc2k]

It's pretty bad when half of the companies you publicly announce as "customers" deny that they've bought your "product" (or in this case, "protection").

[Dimensio]

I've asked before and I'll ask again. What even gives SCO any right to license any part of the Linux kernel in the first place? Besides the fact that they've yet to prove any claims regarding their IP being in the kernel, the GPL doesn't let them do what they're trying to do.

[blowfish]

Not a lot of firms care to be associated with SCO in any way. It must suck to be an engineer at SCO these days, knowing that you're business model is now based on extortion rackets instead of technical achievements.

[the Wayne]

Yeah, SCO is a huge fraud. They're getting more and more desperate to keep giving the impression that they have a case so they can keep their stock price propped up until they can either: 1) harrass IBM or someone into buying them out, or 2) sell their options and make a fortune.

It turns out that none of their lawsuits now have anything to do with Linux. They keep stating it this way (MS's $$$ bought something alright) but it's all contract disputes with former customers and partners. Even the contract disputes are questionable. When IBM's done with them, there won't even be anything left to wipe off the floor.

[ShadowAce]

[steve-b]

It must suck to be an engineer at SCO these days

Hint: Update your resume to say that you "took time off to find yourself" or some such thing during the period of SCO employment.

[Salo]

Ping.

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[ThinkDifferent]

This is *hilarious*. I had a moment of concern when they announced the CA licensing that their strategy of extortion and barratry just might work. But I should have known better than to believe anything they say at face value.

[ThinkDifferent]

What even gives SCO any right to license any part of the Linux kernel in the first place? Besides the fact that they've yet to prove any claims regarding their IP being in the kernel, the GPL doesn't let them do what they're trying to do.

In a parallel universe where SCO's claims actually have merit, I'd think that you would have to pay SCO in order to legally run your existing Linux systems. However, neither you nor anyone else (including SCO) could copy or redistribute Linux. This is because you can only redistribute Linux under the terms of the GPL, which expressly prohibit requiring payment to use it.

[Golden Eagle]

$40 Million was a lot however they ended up giving it to them. If it was a lawsuit, then it's too bad this little company from Utah is having to resort to that but if your property is getting stolen, you don't have much other choice. What were the details of the case, if there was one, anyone know?

[isthisnickcool]

I wonder if some of the people that have been involved with SCOG/Caldera/Boise Inc. took notice of what happened at the Martha Stewart trial today?

[Nick Danger]

What were the details of the case, if there was one, anyone know?

I do. It took me about 25 seconds to find out. The Google knows everything. You should learn how to use it.

Let's just say that you might not want to make any more statements about the suit having to do with SCO, or with anyone stealing SCO's property.

[Bush2000]

It's pretty bad when half of the companies you publicly announce as "customers" deny that they've bought your "product" (or in this case, "protection").

Who would blame them: If they admit to it, they get DDoS'd by the Linux "community".

[Nick Danger]

Is this great or what? Most people in the computer bidness know "XFree86" as an X-Windows library that's used on all kinds of UNIX, linux, and even OS/2 systems.

Leave it to Microsoft to pretend there is no such thing, and to try to send people to a porn site if they search for it. Think I'm kidding? Try this yourself.

And to think Microsoft wanted to buy Google. They are obviously such sleazy, dishonest people that they ought not be allowed to offer any search engine at all. Or if they do, they should have to post a warning: "We do not run an honest search engine. We run one that steers you toward things we want, and away from things we don't like."

[flashbunny]

SCO doesn't have engineers anymore, just lawyers.

[Bush2000]

And to think Microsoft wanted to buy Google. They are obviously such sleazy, dishonest people that they ought not be allowed to offer any search engine at all. Or if they do, they should have to post a warning: "We do not run an honest search engine. We run one that steers you toward things we want, and away from things we don't like."

See, that's the beauty of having a choice, Nicky. Choose whatever works best for you.

[Golden Eagle]

So why did CA give SCO the $40 million? Had to be some reason. Not that you would accurately describe it, of course. I'm sure in your mind the whole event is inconsequential.

But I've got other more important things to do this weekend that worry about the fate of Linux. You guys can't even sleep at night, LOL.

[Golden Eagle]

What the heck do search engines have to do with this thread?

Can you go for 1 single post in your life without whining about Microsoft?

Go start a new thread if you want, there's always tons about Microsoft. I could care less. But dumping huge posts loaded with graphics that are completely unrelated to the subject thread is incredibly rude and annoying, for everyone not just me. Thx.

[Golden Eagle]

they should have to post a warning: "We do not run an honest search engine. We run one that steers you toward things we want, and away from things we don't like."

So you want to be linked to porn, and all that free music and software, don't ya Nick. You like all that dirty stuff, I can tell.