Posted on 07/21/2003 6:07:30 PM PDT by amigatec
SCO is giving the "tainted" Linux users out there a way to clean up their filthy ways via a licensing program that will begin in the coming weeks.
After dolling out threats of legal action, SCO has called on enterprise Linux users to come forward and pay for code the company claims to own. The legal zealots at SCO reckon Linux has grown up too fast by nicking technology such as support for large SMP systems from its copyrighted Unix code. SCO plans to start calling Linux customers this week, asking them to pay up or face the consequences.
"Following the distribution of our letter to the Fortune 1000 and Global 500, many prominent companies using Linux contacted SCO to ask, 'What do you want me to do?'," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, in a statement. "Today, we're delivering a very clear message to customers regarding what they should do."
Well, it's not all that clear of a message. SCO says the pricing terms for a license will not be announced for weeks. The suspense continues.
SCO's sudden burst of courage comes after it received U.S. copyright registrations for Unix System V source code. The company had been waiting to make sure all its legal bits and pieces were in proper order before kicking off its Linux licensing business.
IBM has been SCO's main target up to this point, but now the company wants to attack all the dirty, open source users out there.
"Today, we're stating that the alleged actions of IBM and others have caused customers to use a tainted product at SCO's expense," McBride said. "With more than 2.4 million Linux servers running our software, and thousands more running Linux every day, we expect SCO to be compensated for the benefits realized by tens of thousands of customers. Though we possess broad legal rights, we plan to use these carefully and judiciously."
Doesn't that put your mind at ease?
After making "no contribution" to the 2.2 Linux kernel, large vendors began dumping hundreds of Unix files into the OS in the 2.4 and upcoming 2.6 Linux kernels, according to SCO. This code has made it possible for Linux to run well not just on the two processor servers where it got its start but on eight, 16, 32 and 64-way boxes.
SCO is demanding that enterprise users pay for this SMP technology, but why?
There are but a few Intel-based boxes that size in existence, and IBM, the main target of SCO, does not even scale to 64 processors as of yet. Linux is most often found on small systems or on clusters of servers. The number of customers benefiting from this Unix code is quite slim.
Still, Linux customers of all shapes and sizes are to pay for all the bells and whistles in the code. SCO says home users and small-time players aren't on its immediate legal horizon, but contaminated corporate users need to fess up.
"We have a solution here that gets you clean," McBride said, in a conference call.
SCO suggests that the dirtiest players of all are companies such as IBM and Red Hat that let users purchase Linux without providing an OS warranty. SCO continues to put pressure on IBM to help its customer base out and take on the Linux IP costs.
SCO also added a little pressure to Linus Torvalds. Up to this point, SCO has been attacking IBM on contractual issues which left Torvalds out of the fray. With the new copyright claims, however, SCO says Torvalds may come under attack.
"As of today, it is a different game," McBride said. "We are not saying Linus created the problems, but he inherited them."
SCO claims it has a well thought out plan for licensing the Unix IP but remains reluctant to provide any details on the costs a business may face. The lack of information here leaves a nasty air of intrigue hanging over the matter, and we think SCO should speak up sooner rather than later. ®
That is a false statement. Why are you telling us something about yourself that is not true?
I have some perspective on IBM's strategy (although I do not work for them). It is this. If there is a single OS, say Linux, that runs on Intel, AS/400, RS6000, and the mainframe -- then common server software (ideally, from their perspective, WebSphere) can be run from the department level server to the division level and the corporate data farm level.
From a customer's perspective, this is a good thing. Their IT people can learn a single broad skill set (J2EE) and leverage it for the whole organization. Their licensing of package software (ERP, CRM, supply chain, etc.) is simplified. And this is the market IBM is going after. It is not about the desktop where people who used to push paper now use the MS Office suite of apps. IBM doesn't really give a damn about that space, because Intel has the low end chipset market, and Dell and HP are the ones selling into that space. IBM has ceded that ground. They want everything above that.
That is what is going on. And yes, they want the consulting dollars because guess what -- ERP, CRM, and SCM (supply chain) all require big consulting efforts to install, configure, and integrate. IBM's deal is they can offer a combined project deal that includes services, hardware, and software for less than a deal where a consulting firm, a hardware vendor, and a software vendor have to get together and work out a deal to win the work. Yeah, it doesn't work for IBM all the time, but it works often enough that they are surviving and growing while other consulting firms and hardware vendors are going down.
IBM bought Price Waterhouse, Arthur Andersen had to sell their Business Consulting unit to KPMG (now BearingPoint), EDS is barely hanging on, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young is trashed. The only real contender remaining standing against IBM Global Services is Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting), although Deloitte is still hanging on. But Accenture is going downscale, hiring lots of 2 year degree and certificate people and shipping a ton of work to India. And on the hardware side -- look at Sun. Are they going to survive? Time will tell but it doesn't look good for them. And is HP going to keep making higher end servers or just do PC's and printers? I would say IBM's strategy has been pretty good so far.
Remember The Barkto Incident
http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html
The GPL has 'teeth'... Evidence = 'Because MS hasn't stolen GPL code'? LOL! More likely, they just don't want to pollute their products with amateur free crap.
When a GPL license holder shuts down Red Flag's website and gets a cash settlement, come back and then we'll talk. Until then, GPL looks like nothing more than an appeal to the 'honor system'.
It is not about the desktop where people who used to push paper now use the MS Office suite of apps. IBM doesn't really give a damn about that space, because Intel has the low end chipset market, and Dell and HP are the ones selling into that space. IBM has ceded that ground. They want everything above that.
Agreed. That's why Danger's fantasy about the desktop app business on desktops in Munich sounds like the latest in a long line of money-losing ideas in the Linux business.
One constant over the last twenty years is that low-end, commodity hardware (running windows or linux) is pushing its way upward toward the server market. How do you think IBM plans to compete with that type of hardware?
I agree completely. I assume you're referring to Red Flag Linux.
I am not, I have been here for a LOOOOOONG time. Possibly even back till when Clinton was first elected, how long has FR been online?
Just because you don't remember me doesn't mean I haven't been here Danger. I lurked for some time, then created some name I already forgot. But my picture has even been posted on this site as a "front line troop", after it ran in newspapers across the country.
Anybody accusing me of being a liberal just further show how ignorant their arguments are!
Keep telling yourself that... While the market drives towards clustering of commodity hardware.
Not distributing all the source for Red Flag Linux.
And you can give up the "I was only joking about Christians" already.
Your statement that you have been here since around 95 is not true. This more recent statement, "Possibly even back till when Clinton was first elected," is also not true.
Why are you telling us things about yourself that are not true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.