Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Linux Users Reject SCO Offer
eWeek.com ^ | July 28, 2003 | Peter Galli

Posted on 07/28/2003 2:23:20 PM PDT by amigatec

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:58:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Many Linux customers have no intention of paying The SCO Group for a UnixWare license that would indemnify them from legal liability for using the open-source operating system.

SCO, which is suing IBM over Unix for more than $1 billion and which claims that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, last week said Linux users are also violating SCO's Unix copyrights, particularly now that SCO has registered a U.S. copyright for its Unix System V source code.


(Excerpt) Read more at eweek.com ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: darlmcbride; gnulinux; ibm; linux; ms; sco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Nick Danger
These are common, everyday things that everybody has in their NDA's... except this one.

How about naming a couple instead of just dropping a blanket statement on us?

Section 1 and 2 especially are by far the most important. Most of the rest is just further clarifying section 1. But section 2 is the meat, where they practically invite analysis of what was seen, and in no way prohibit that analysis from being released.

Responses from those that have seen it have varied from "very formadable" to "inconclusive". NO ONE has said anything like "absurd" or "unlikely", which somehow still seems to be the Red Hat et al position.

21 posted on 07/28/2003 8:02:40 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Thanks for the respectful post. I hope we can continue to discuss this as the gentlemen we are.

SCO will simply be bought out to solve the problem if IBM is guilty.

SCO has claimed repeatedly they do not want to be bought out. Assuming this is true (which of course it may or may not be), could the SEC prevent hostile takeover if the two parties are embroiled in a legal contest? I am not sure but doubt they would allow it.

I still say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the law when you can't tell if you are breaking the law until you are in a courtroom and have a judgement.

Certain laws are unfortunately setup to "gotcha" such as DUI laws as it is NOT against the law to have a drink and drive, although it IS against the law to have over a certain amount you may not be able to easily measure yourself and then drive. However that being said, I don't really see where it applies to this case? If IBM took code they had promised via contract not to disclose to others, then did, it would seem pretty open and shut IMO.

22 posted on 07/28/2003 8:11:24 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
One step further. IF this all ends with IBM buying SCO, but IBM/SCO still ends up receiving royalty payments for Linux 'licenses', what % chance do you rate the whole thing as a setup from the beginning?
23 posted on 07/28/2003 8:34:54 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
I can't see any reason for the SEC to stop IBM from buying SCO, especially if the goal is to open the IP under Linux and not close it. And, as the author pointed out, Red Hat could buy them if IBM couldn't.

As for DUI laws, one actually can test their blood alcohol using a device and they can evaluate their alcohol intake against their weight, etc. and make an educated guess. With IP law (and I'm not just limiting things to this particular case), it is often impossible, no matter how careful you are, to avoid illegal infringement. I don't think it is the same thing at all.

24 posted on 07/28/2003 8:40:54 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
With IP law (and I'm not just limiting things to this particular case), it is often impossible, no matter how careful you are, to avoid illegal infringement.

"wilfull intent" is where you really get the penalties though. IBM breaking out of the project monterrey, then announcing to a Linux expo crowd that IBM was putting Unix into Linux could end up being what really costs them should SCO win.

25 posted on 07/28/2003 8:45:34 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
I can't see any reason for the SEC to stop IBM from buying SCO, especially if the goal is to open the IP under Linux and not close it. And, as the author pointed out, Red Hat could buy them if IBM couldn't.

I'm not sure Red Hat could at this point, but again concerning IBM buyout, do you think they would just immediately GPL Unix? Saying no thanks to that potential diamond mine sitting there of unpaid Linux users could be very difficult to ignore, IBM is the 'original' evil empire, remember.

26 posted on 07/28/2003 8:48:47 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
If there is Unix IP in Linux, the owner, whomever it is, could charge a fee. The reason that wouldn't make a lot of sense (unless the fee is very small) is that it would make it less competative and that would hand Microsoft a more dominant position. If you want to consider plots or conspiracy theories, consider the payback that buying and releasing the Unix IP to Linux would yield after the Microsoft and OS/2 fiasco. IBM has no love for Microsoft (not only because of OS/2 but also because of Microsoft's strong-arm licensing agreements that IBM didn't really want to agree to).
27 posted on 07/28/2003 8:51:01 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
consider the payback that buying and releasing the Unix IP to Linux would yield after the Microsoft and OS/2 fiasco.

There is a potential payback, but only if IBM can help correct other Linux ailments such as lack of indemnity. Linux definitely has potential, but it remains a diamond in the rough that needs to be further polished which will continue to require signficant investment.

Unix on the other hand, is a Cash Cow in waiting (via other Unix income) ready to bear tremendous milk if the Linux users have to finally fork over some money for their wares.

I'd say it would be a tough call, but back to the SEC, I don't think they would allow the buyout unless IBM takes over rights and continues to charge for them, simply because IBM is the accused. Just a guess of course.

28 posted on 07/28/2003 8:59:51 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
If IBM did what SCO claims that they did and IBM's AIX agreement is as is claimed, IBM will wind up paying penalties, of course. The bigger question is how IBM will respond. As the author of the article you pointed to suggests, IBM could hurl patent suits back at SCO, Microsoft, and anyone else it wants in order to recover any money it loses here. And I do think the logical outcome still leaves IBM in control of SCO, either by buying it outright or taking over as part of a patent infringement settlement. It will be cheaper than paying the penalties and losing them.

The fact that "SCO" distributed Caldera Linux also complicates matters greatly for them. The problem is that if their suit has merits, they really did have the right to put the IP under the GPL and the release of their own distribution may very well have done that.

Of course, as I said, IP law is too murky. We won't really know how this will turn out until it gets in front of a judge and we see all of the evidence.

29 posted on 07/28/2003 9:01:46 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
If SCO were smart, it would offer to indemnify Linux for $20 or $40 per installation and not $400-$700 per CPU. Of course I don't think SCO is being very smart about this.

This is where I think the GPL is problematic. If the GPL were not viral, it would be possible to mix AIX with Linux and keep the high-performance bits propietary and charge for them, leaving low-powered installations free. Of course it might be possible to do this with *BSD, which is where this will go next if Linux really does wind up in trouble. That will haul Apple into the mix.

30 posted on 07/28/2003 9:05:07 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
I don't really understand how the Red Hat spokesperson can say "We see no validity in their claims", when they themselves have outright refused the offer to view the evidence for themself?

BWAAA-HAAA-HAAA!!!

The non-disclosure agreement SCO wants them to sign says that they cannot say anything negative about SCO after seeing the source code.

In other words, the NDA says that if they look at the code, they have to agree with SCO.

31 posted on 07/28/2003 9:05:10 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
If the GPL were not viral...

That is a nonsense phrase coined by Bill Gates, just before he slipped SCO a boatload of cash so they wouldn't go bankrupt before starting their FUD campaign.

32 posted on 07/28/2003 9:07:40 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
I do think the logical outcome still leaves IBM in control of SCO, either by buying it outright or taking over as part of a patent infringement settlement.

I think that IBM will either buy SCO, or they will become partners again. I think that Linux users will one day for for Linux as well. That mostly assumes that SCO will win, but even if they don't, IBM is a greedy company that Linux users shouldn't trust, just like most M$ users shouldn't trust M$. But that's just business, doesn't mean you can't use their products, as I have lots of both companies products right here in my home (This is being written on dual IBM system running a version of Windows).

33 posted on 07/28/2003 9:11:11 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
If SCO were smart, it would offer to indemnify Linux for $20 or $40 per installation and not $400-$700 per CPU.

I agree, and think the price will be set at $100. I saw a link one time to an detailed article on a linux website that claimed WAY before this lawsuit came about that they had this plan and were going to charge $100 per. If it comes out $500 per, then it means either SCO thinks they have a slam dunk, or they are terribly out of money!

34 posted on 07/28/2003 9:14:08 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Should have said " I think that Linux users will one day pay for for Linux as well. "

Sorry,

35 posted on 07/28/2003 9:17:16 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
If I was a Red Hat customer, I would be concerned that Red Hat may actually be completely ignoring a potential problem of mine, and are possibly instead just trying to downplay the significance, which may be staggering, ie. paying twice for the same code, and still not be protected from it happening again.

Based on the reports of the SCO NDA, it sounds like Red Hat is doing the right thing. Why should they tie their hands in order to see the limited examples SCO is providing?

36 posted on 07/28/2003 9:26:36 PM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
If IBM did what SCO claims that they did and IBM's AIX agreement is as is claimed, IBM will wind up paying penalties, of course.

Aren't you overlooking the obvious penalties associated with IBM's use of poison gas, and the killing of millions of innocent women and children?

In watching the two of you go back-and-forth with all the various crimes IBM might have committed, I am stunned that you are leaving out the really important things. Assuming for a moment that IBM had Kennedy killed, there could be serious consequences. Or suppose that IBM planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?

It sounds plausible to me that Enron was their fault, too. Why worry about this puny SCO stuff when IBM is clearly the largest criminal enterprise on Earth?

Let's face it. It is only through the efforts of Bill Gates, the heroic American who steals other people's innovations and then sends shills into Internet forums to throw crap on other people, that we even know of these things. What horrible evil might still be hidden from us? Inquiring minds want to know.

37 posted on 07/28/2003 9:30:09 PM PDT by Nick Danger (The views expressed may not actually be views)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Well, if IBM did what you claim they did, IBM will wind up paying penalties, of course. 8-)
38 posted on 07/28/2003 9:38:24 PM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
In other words, the NDA says that if they look at the code, they have to agree with SCO.

I didn't get that out of the NDA, but you sure can't make any kind of persuasive argument.

39 posted on 07/28/2003 9:42:36 PM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
I agree with your point, perhaps "we see" should have better been phrased, "SCO has refused to show…"

Using the article you kindly linked to, the cause of your question:

my issue was with the Red Hat statement We 'see'..." when it fact they have seen nothing.

is mostly due to the secrecy of SCO. Contrast this with the published specifics of a similar IP suit against Microsoft.

Referring again to the article you selected:

"I asked a couple of times why SCO was being so secretive about everything. The answers were not particularly convincing. "
thanks very much for your reply.
40 posted on 07/28/2003 10:01:55 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson