Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 14th Jan 2003 14:37 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware SCO Group, the struggling company that holds the copyright to the Unix operating system, plans to boost its revenue by charging fees to some customers that have moved from its products to Linux.
Order by: Score:
Rumour
by minkwe on Tue 14th Jan 2003 14:44 UTC

This rumour has no factual basis whatsoever.

Let them try
by Christopher X on Tue 14th Jan 2003 14:46 UTC

I'm sure they'll only anger IBM who has a lot of vested interest in Linux . F*cking Caldera for ya - @ssholes - they've always been the black sheep of the community. Look at Red Hat - yes, they struggled for a long time - but now their financially stable, successful, and widely used. They have strong partnerships with HP, IBM, Oracle, and lots more. What does SCO/Caldera have? The Unix copyrights, its old SCO Unixware/OpenUnix products, and its own crappy Linux distro. May they *slowly* and painfully wither away. I'm sure the old SCO stuff may keep them alive for maybe another decade - but let us hope and pray they die in agony. Its only right, cosmic law, the law of the jungle, karma - whatever - they've pissed off too many people this time around. Okay - so I ranted, but this pisses me off!

Capitalism
by Ludovic Hirlimann on Tue 14th Jan 2003 14:47 UTC

That's what capitalism is all about making mopney from nothing and the work of others.


--
http://dubyadubyadubya.com

re: Capitalism
by Rude Turnip on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:05 UTC

"That's what capitalism is all about making mopney from nothing and the work of others."

No, that's what greedy, lazy assholes who *claim* to be capitalists do. ie - any religious fundamentalist is like this. They claim to be strictly following the rules, but they're just using the label to further their own agendas.

have any of you people
by hmmm.... on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:10 UTC

actually ~read~ the article?


or are you only going off the comments from slashdot?


Where is Mario
by emey on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:10 UTC

He should have come to the rescue. He.. he.. he...

Well SCO/Caldera might have make mistake by getting involved with Linux since it is not a good source of money. Back away as what Corel has taken might be a good approach.

Unless they did something that will make Linux user (like me) willing to pay their high price.

try right about here....
by hmmm.... on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:14 UTC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sources said SCO plans to charge for use of two software "libraries," essential packages of pre-written software that higher-level programs routinely call on to perform basic operations such as opening files. A source said SCO libraries that accompany the SVR4 and OSR5 versions of Unix may be used with UnixWare and OpenServer, respectively, but using them in conjunction with Linux is prohibited by the software's license.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


and here....
by hmmm.... on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:16 UTC

~~~~~~~~~~~
Red Hat spokeswoman Dayna Muller said the company is not engaged in any discussions about licensing current or future SCO Unix technology. Red Hat is the top seller of Linux, according to market researcher IDC.

Red Hat is affected by the issue, however. A Red Hat Web site that describes how to use Corel WordPerfect software for SCO on Linux advises, "Do not violate SCO's copyrights." It then instructs, "You should get a copy of SCO's shared libraries and install them."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

re: Capitalism (and relevant stuff too)
by Brian on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:33 UTC

Both of you have major issues. I'd suggest you actually *study* history and not make up your own.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing as long as it is governed by integrety. The US was built from orthodox Judeo Christian ideas which provided a code of integrety which allowed Capitalism to succeed as wonderfully as it did.

Please can the politcal rhetoric in here.

Anyways...

It looks like SCO is upset that people are emulating SCO under Linux. I think they won't get much mileage out of this, the result being that SCO's customers will beg software vendors to hurry up their Linux ports, ultimately speeding up SCO's death. Either companies need to suck up the SCO OS licensing cost or port their apps. I wonder which route is cheaper (or more stable).

The timing is interesting, as I recall SCO has released a new distribution recently. This is an interesting way to attract users to their new products....

Which libraries?
by Bo R. Wells on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:39 UTC

Which libraries are owned by SCO?

What I mean is, if I have a Debian or Redhat system that I am trying to install for a customer, what files included with the standard distribution are owned by SCO? Can they be removed without affecting functionality?

If I cannot guarantee my customer that they won't have to enter some licensing agreement with SCO it is going to be very difficult to sell a turnkey system to them.

comments
by sam on Tue 14th Jan 2003 15:43 UTC

>>>I'm sure they'll only anger IBM who has a lot of vested interest in Linux.

Why? IBM would be the biggest winner in a patent/gpl/linux mess.

IBM already knows about the potential patent problems --- that's why there was/is/willl never be an IBM linux distribution. Redhat/SuSE takes the risks as distributors -- IBM gets the massive amount of revenue from hardware/software and consulting fees. (Meanwhile IBM pays probably less than $100 to Redhat for an OEM license of Redhat enterprise linux edition, which costs thousands of dollars in retail prices).

http://www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml

If there is a gpl chaos. Who are you going to call? (Ghostbusters) IBM Consulting. You can either pay IBM software division a big pile of money for a linux to aix migration kit (IBM spent a billion on linux api's on aix), or you can pay IBM Consulting a even bigger pile of money to migrate to another platform.

Or if you want to remain using linux, but a chaotic gpl/patent landscape prevented every linux distributors from selling their products ---- then use IBM power on demand, and rent linux computing power from IBM. Since IBM runs the power grid themselves, there is no distribution and therefore they are not in a gpl mess.

Trust me, IBM knows about these potential problems for a number of years. That's why they are doing what they have been doing for the last few years (contributing only on technology [that has big blue hardware tie-ins] that gets into the main tree, not making their own linux distribution, relying on their linux distribution partners to take the risk, AIX having all those linux api's....) Microsoft is right in this aspect --- IBM hasn't worked on anything substantial on linux.

Re: comments
by javi on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:11 UTC

"...(IBM spent a billion on linux api's on aix)..."

Whoah, that must have been the worlds most expensive recompile/port effort ever attempted. I am pretty sure that IBM must have spent about $4.5billion to port GCC to AIX then... ;)

...
by chicobaud on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:14 UTC

Microsoft is right in this aspect --- IBM hasn't worked on anything substantial on linux.
Talking about greedy people (I mean both)...

SCO seems not to have a clue about the future of their products, plus they also seem to have made a lot of enemies.

However, they did had a nice and unbloated Linux (2.4 OpenLinux) that was available everywhere (on retail stores) but they took it out of retail stores in order to avoid selling it to end users :-) (stupids)

[A note out of the subject to Ludowic Hirlimann - the x3 dubya link is really nice, Americans are starting to be hated here in Europe and it's all their fault (those arrogants imperialists).]

comments
by sam on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:21 UTC

>>>Whoah, that must have been the worlds most expensive recompile/port effort ever attempted. I am pretty sure that IBM must have spent about $4.5billion to port GCC to AIX then... ;)

IBM accounting the amounts are very vague. That billion dollars include a lot of stuff that are cross-platform, i.e. the eclipse project.

...
by FUD on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:21 UTC

Ok so its just a couble of libraries run with Linux-ABI. I guess those companies using them are SOL *L*

...
by FUD on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:23 UTC

err couple even *L*

Read it...
by Joe P on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:23 UTC

SCO only has the OSR5 and SVR4 libraries. Only applications written for SCO Unix use these libraries. Thus, this doesn't affect any distribution or turnkey systems. As long as you only install Linux applications you'll have no problems.

Red Hat isn't affect. They state that you shouldn't break the law. They suggest that if you have a licensed copy of Word Perfect for SCO and a SCO Unix license you're not using to just copy the two libraries to the Linux box and install Word Perfect. Please note that this is just a how-to and none of SCO's libraries are include in the Red Hat distro.

Who does this affect? Any one how used SCO software in the past and wants to move to Linux by just copying the libraries and installing SCO versions of the software. Thus, SCO is trying to keep a source of revenue as they lose customers to Linux.

ok ....
by hmmm.... on Tue 14th Jan 2003 16:35 UTC

after reading around it basically looks like this sums it up

for the turnkey system provider or distribution maker: only thing to worry about as far as i can tell is programs written for SCO's unix and running under emulation...

for the average user: this probably doesnt affect you in any way whatsoever

ive only been looking at it for a short while and may be missing something but thats what it looks like it boils down to

and for those who think it is an "attack on linux" or "attack on the GPL"... just relax... its not




My take on things...
by Elver Loho on Tue 14th Jan 2003 17:04 UTC

*evil laughter*

Next thing you hear, Microsoft will charge people switching to Linux or Mac OS X...

This is either a joke, a very stupid company or someone misunderstood.

re: US has Judeo Christian roots
by CitizenKane on Tue 14th Jan 2003 17:27 UTC


1. "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion" - George Washington.

2. People who settled in this country were fleeing from religious persecution in other places.

The original story header reads:

"SCO fees may hit some Linux users"

Reading the article it is clear that it is indeed an issue for some and not all Linux user, yet OSNews (Eugenia?) manages to create a headline that reads;

"SCO to Seek Fees from Linux Users"

This is not Slashdot, is it????

-fooks

SCO
by Iconoclast on Tue 14th Jan 2003 18:25 UTC

This is either a joke, a very stupid company or someone misunderstood.

Actually, I think SCO is pretty stupid. The only thing they really have to offer anybody is their Volution software, and as I understand it, they fired all the Volution developers.

I also understand that SCO's CTO has forced SCO to replace all internal Linux servers with (play sinister music for effect) Windows 2000 Servers!

I think SCO doesn't know what it wants to be and is just grasping at straws trying to stay alive. The developers there are great, but the managers and executive staff had their heads hammered up their butts in college and they've never quite recovered.

This won't go through
by Nicholas James on Tue 14th Jan 2003 19:21 UTC

Linux is not based on Unix at all, this won't go through. How could this go through? It would be like MS wanting money from the windows users who moved to Mac.

outcome??
by The Pickle Man on Tue 14th Jan 2003 22:11 UTC

Capitalism is an open free market. Fact is that Open Source is the very essence of Capitalism Why do you think that it was in the more capitalist part of the world that invented the Open Source Movement to answer the attempts of the SCO's and Bill Gates' of the world attempts to close the markets into their own special domain by special grants of privilege by governments.

I know that Open Source is often been labeled anti-
captialist. But remember what passes for capitalism in the present day popular press is really Mercantilism of the 1800's with a flashy new cover. capitalism is free and open competition with absolute minimum of government intervention. Microsoft was not built on Bills great programing ability and brilliance of code but rather on his willingness to use the Copyright laws to batter his competitors. Free markets love variety that is why at last
count Linux has over 70 different Window managers, many solution for many people. How is it that a field of endeavor is pro capitalistic and pro free market if it is based on not charging money for the product of your labor? Simple, the free market is just free persons openly and willingly trading for their mutual benefit, no rules placed on the ways and means of the trade. What says that the only way to gain benefit from your activities is in collecting government issued money from your actions. Fact is that everyone is gaining benefit from their actions in the "free" software market or they would not be there.


SCO and yes Microsoft will have a hard road ahead as the free market loves variety. They will have to find ways to embrace that variety or go under. SCO being smaller than Microsoft has come to the decision point sooner. Any attempt to collect a fee from end users will fail because there is no method of doing it that will not cost more than what they get back, because one of the costs is the enmity it will
raise against them. Besides once the demand is made Linux programers will start working around the "SCO" problem, which in turn will increase the costs of pursuing this issue while reducing. In the end this will only hasten the demise of SCO.

If they (SCO) wish to survive their only chance is to follow the open source model, through open their source code and start charging for services rendered This should make for a good cash flow source while cutting new development costs.

Please read the article, not the headline
by PleaseReadIt on Tue 14th Jan 2003 22:31 UTC

SCO is charging for customers who are taking libraries from SCO systems, and running them with Linux-ABI to emulate SCO. They are simply collecting license fees for people who are migrating to Linux and taking SCO software with it in violation of the license agreement. They are not:

1. Attacking Linux users
2. Claiming/attempting to collect on a copyright on UNIX
3. Trying to "tax Linux users"
4. Most importantly: telling these customers "Quit" and interrupting their business to force them to use SCO UNIX again.
5. Trying to collect on anything that comes with a legit Linux distro

The are:
1. Collecting license fees for software they wrote and own - much like you might pay to Oracle to run Oracle on Linux, etc...

Please get the facts straight - SCO is a bunch of idiots, no doubt, but they are just trying to get what rightly belongs to them and not go out of business (further hurting the economy and putting more people out on the street). Grow up, please.

What's the problem??
by Tim on Tue 14th Jan 2003 22:39 UTC

Some of you people are a real joke. SCO wants to charge people to use a set of libraries that they spent time and money creating. How can any of you demand that SCO work for free? Do you? They are not charging people for migrating to Linux, they are charging for the use of their libraries on a platform they don't make any money on.

I really don't understand how you can demand that others work for free or on your terms. If they created the libraries and you don't like the cost or the terms, then don't use them and create your own.

The Pickle Man:

How is it that a field of endeavor is pro capitalistic and pro free market if it is based on not charging money for the product of your labor? Simple, the free market is just free persons openly and willingly trading for their mutual benefit, no rules placed on the ways and means of the trade


What you're saying is that there are no rules placed on the ways and means of the trade except for your rules. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like the terms of the trade the don't trade. Simple! Otherwise if you demand that the terms of the trade be only for your benefit, then you're not a free market capitalist. In fact you're quite the opposite.

For those of you who want to see Linux and other Open Source projects succeed, they stop acting like spoiled children when someone working on the projects that you benefit from asks to be paid for their hard work.

Re: Mr. Kane and treaties with tripoli
by Jeffrey Boulier on Tue 14th Jan 2003 23:38 UTC

The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion- George Washington.

Er... Report has it that this was in the text of a treaty with the islamic state of Tripoli. Presumably Washington signed it. Perhaps it agreed with his views; perhaps it didn't and he felt that this is the kind of thing upon which the pirates of the Barbary coast would look favorably. But it seems a bit sketchy to attribute the comment to him, since, in fact, he never wrote it.

But anyway, this is getting kind of far away from the main subject of OSnews. Let's talk about FreeBSD's mascot instead. :0)

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Boulier