SCO to government Linux users: Pay up

Washington Technology ^ | 08/06/03 | Joab Jackson

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Government agencies must pay up to $699 for each copy of the Linux operating system that they use, the SCO Group Inc., Lindon, Utah, announced Tuesday in a new licensing program.

However, SCO’s intellectual property claims over Linux remain contested by other parties.

“We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO’s [intellectual property] if they are running Linux … for commercial purposes,” said Chris Sontag, who is a senior vice president of SCO. Use of any Linux distribution can cause liability, regardless of vendor, the company claimed.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“We’ll be happy to show [agencies] proof, providing they sign a nondisclosure agreement,” Stowell said.

I finally figured out why SCO is insisting upon the NDA: they WANT the suspect code in there, and they don't want it taken out.

You can't take it out if you don't know what it is.

That's why they released UnixWare source code a couple of years ago while retaining the copyright.

The whole thing was setup.

[Ronin]

SCO is making the RIAA look like saints.

Amazing the chutzpah of some legal scumbags.

[for-q-clinton]

The whole thing was setup.

Yep a setup just like the Mayor of DC was setup. The funny thing about a setup...it requires a crook on both ends.

[for-q-clinton]

I don't understand why SCO is getting such a bad rap. If someone stole your stuff and gave it away for free wouldn't you be upset and want to be compensated for your loss?

And to take the analogy a bit further. Let's say that car was beat up by everyone that used it so that it was no longer of value to you. Is it really fair to say just return it after everyone else got all the value from your car and you got no value from it?

[for-q-clinton]

Ooops I misplaced a word. Stuff = car.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The funny thing about a setup...it requires a crook on both ends.

I am sure that someone like you would know all about that kind of stuff.

[Incorrigible]

Just to be safe, everyone should purchase and install Microsoft Windows on their computer.

[Nick Danger]

What amazes me is the tone of this article. I see the same thing all over the trade press. Instead of writing, "Some jerks in Utah that no one ever heard of are claiming that government agencies should send them money," they treat this as if it were some kind of product announcement from a real company.

What is a reader to make of this?

According to the new licensing program, Linux use on a server will cost $699 per central processor unit, or CPU, through Oct. 15. Use on desktop computers cost $199 per copy. Pricing for multiple CPU systems and embedded systems are also available. The pricing structure can be found at www.sco.com/scosource/description.html.

Can fraud be this easy? How stupid has this society become that we have reporters passing along the demands of fraud artists who claim that everyone owes them money? Over and over again, I see journalists repeating these ridiculous claims from SCO as if they were some sort of legitimate "news."

When SCO has been to court and demonstrated that (a) their claimed copyrights are valid and enforceable, and (b) that their copyrighted code was indeed copied into linux, then by all means, let us print SCO's price list and tell folks to send in their money. But don't they have the cart in front of the horse here? Send in your money now, and don't worry about whether SCO is actually entitled to the money? Why are journalists taking claims like this seriously?

[HiTech RedNeck]

But don't they have the cart in front of the horse here?

Reason is not part of SCO's equation. A celestially-pitched power trip is. Their threat being, of course, that they'll get the court to order a global injunction against the usage of Linux without specifying specific pieces of Linux to be thus verboten.

[ThinkDifferent]

If someone stole your stuff and gave it away for free wouldn't you be upset and want to be compensated for your loss?

If I had evidence that someone had misappropriated my intellectual property, I would present such evidence rather than making increasingly irrational threats to random parties without anything to back them up.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don't understand why SCO is getting such a bad rap. If someone stole your stuff and gave it away for free wouldn't you be upset and want to be compensated for your loss?

Because a community of thousands of programmers painstakingly built Linux voluntarily.

SCO released the source code to UnixWare while retaining copyright in the hopes that it would find its way into the kernel.

There is a solution here, and it is to junk the 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 kernels and go back to 2.2.

SCO can have no claim against the Debian distribution, because Woody has only gotten up to the 2.2.26 kernel. Red Had 7.2 has the 2.2 kernel, and a whole lot of people are still using it because it is rock-solid stable.

The nature of the Open Source community is to go around obstacles, and SCO is just a little bump in the road that has actually lent a lot of legitimacy to Linux.

PS - If you believe in SCO so much, why don't you buy their stock? Since this scam began it has gone from below a dollar to over sixteen dollars. The big boys are bailing out with their cash. I would love to see you donate some of yours to them.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

PPS - SCO lost $24 million on revenues of $62 million last year. They are hemmoraghing money. This scam is their last hurrah.

[KarlInOhio]

Did they claim that anything was taken from their code other than multiprocessing support? If not, then why are they charging at all for single CPU systems?

As soon as it is officially announced which section of Linux is allegedly copied, that section will be rewritten and all future versions will be SCO-free. SCO's possible revenue stream will dry up very quickly.

SCO does have a way of picking out enemies: both IBM and the federal government.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Let's say that car was beat up by everyone that used it so that it was no longer of value to you. Is it really fair to say just return it after everyone else got all the value from your car and you got no value from it?

The amount of code involved is, by anyone's estimates, minor. It's more like someone stole $50 worth of accessories from a car and used them in a customizing job for an unsuspecting customer, and now the person from whom the accessories were stolen wants to exact the price of an entire car from that customer. Oh yes, and the person from whom the accessories were stolen won't tell the customer what the accessories were, unless the customer signs a statement giving up the right to use any car competing with the stealee.

[HiTech RedNeck]

As soon as it is officially announced which section of Linux is allegedly copied

SCO hopes, of course, that through extortion and barratry that this moment will be "never."

[for-q-clinton]

If I had evidence that someone had misappropriated my intellectual property, I would present such evidence rather than making increasingly irrational threats to random parties without anything to back them up.

Well who would you make that case to? The guys that stole your car or the courts?

[for-q-clinton]

Who said I believe them? All I'm saying is they need their day in court. And if it is their IP they are perfectly in their right to be demanding payment today. I wouldn't pay it myself, but if it were my stuff that someone stole I'd be telling the world everyone owes me money.

You're right the solution is to roll back to 2.2, the problem is SCO has put 1500 business on notice. So that means those 1500 business will have to pay if they used their products after they received the notice (assuming a court rules it is their IP in Linux). Let's face it, if it is their IP in there they are within their legal rights to charge people who use it. The voluntary community you speak of is a great ideal, but in a capitalistic society it doesn't work. People will steal code and put it in Linux and that will make Linux no longer *free*. Now that MS has it's source code available for people to review, what's going to stop people from putting it in the Linux kernel. And then we all know what would happen next. MS will sue everyone using Linux for a license fee (probably the same price as Windows). From a business stand-point Linux is just too risky right now (and Gartner agrees for what their opinion is worth--about 50 cents I know not a good group to back you up but people do listen to them).

[for-q-clinton]

The amount of code involved is, by anyone's estimates, minor. It's more like someone stole $50 worth of accessories from a car and used them in a customizing job for an unsuspecting customer, and now the person from whom the accessories were stolen wants to exact the price of an entire car from that customer. Oh yes, and the person from whom the accessories were stolen won't tell the customer what the accessories were, unless the customer signs a statement giving up the right to use any car competing with the stealee.

Good points. Which brings me to another question. What is up with the prices they are charging?!? That is a bit out of line. MS is getting sued for setting too high a price on Windows becaue they were a monopoly, but SCO is going to charge just as much for an inferior product? They are losing credibility with their pricing model. If they came down with $50/proc I think it would be more reasonable. But it is their code and they can charge what they want to for it. People can then decide if they want Linux 2.2 or wait for some future SCO free version.

Also it was stupid of them to pick on the gov't as the gov't is the one that runs the courts. They should have waited on that one. The gov't moves too slow to quickly remove Linux on servers as soon as ruling comes out, so they could have put them on notice as soon as the ruling came out.

Another thing. Do you think SCO will really show all of its code in court? I bet they leave a few lines in so that if/when it gets yanked they get to go back and say Linux 2.8 is using SCO code. See open source is a never ending legal nightmare. Who knows MS, Novel, or Sun may try to put some code in there via proxies and then sue later. I can see Sun trying to get in on this because they have their multi-proc code down pretty good, so let that leak and then they get to charge $1K per proc.

I wish someone would post a response to this legal problem. What can the open source community do to protect its users from lawsuits?

[kms61]

I believe Darl McBride is clinically insane.

[ThinkDifferent]

They are losing credibility with their pricing model.

Agreed (assuming one had assigned them any credibility previously).

But it is their code

Allegedly.

I bet they leave a few lines in so that if/when it gets yanked they get to go back and say Linux 2.8 is using SCO code.

I'm pretty sure they don't get to do that. The doctrine of laches appears to say that you can't deliberately induce copyright violations and subsequently profit from them.