“We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO’s IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO’s intellectual property rights.” SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. UPDATE: SCO may countersue Red Hat, SuSE joins the fray. Read it at Slashdot.
I only have 1 word to say: LOL
i think i’ll also make one but in half price 349$ i’ll break the market
I’m sorry, I can’t stop laughing. Now if I purchase a license, does this mean I can sue SCO for consumer fraud when they lose their case? Boy, do I have some beachfront property in South America to sell anyone who goes for this.
Can you alienate the Linux deveopment community any further, SCO?
SCO has come up with a whole new meaning for vaporware
If SCO – thanks to their NDA noone knows anything specific – is right then there are a few choices left:
1. Replacing the SCO code part
2. Switching to a BSD (Open, Free, OS X)
Even Window$ is cheaper…
Are these guys smoking crack or something???
From SCO’s site:
The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only.
So distribution of source is not covered, eh. They are trying their utmost to screw with the Linux licensing/distribution/opensource models.
Let’s suspend the belief question here for minute (as in: I believe/do not believe that there is tainted code in the linux kernel)-where is McBride getting this number from?
Like anyone is going to pay $700 for a single CPU install. If they were serious, they would undercut Red Hat, and make a play directly for the power users that breathe linux.
As for the enterprise, $700 doesn’t seem like much, but when a basic web server from Microsoft costs a mere $300 more, and is a muti-seat license, Microsoft looks like a better deal.
In addition, FreeBSD is available for free unsupported, which is more advanced, and has a better reputation that any of SCO’s products. If I’m trying to cut IT costs, my options certainly don’t include SCO.
Time to SHORT SCO, HARD. McBride is clearly killing the company-bad business plan, bad pricing, bad code.
Good riddance.
After October 15th the price jumps to $1399.00 per CPU?
Now, the “SCO’s actions backed by redmond” doesn’t look like a paranoid conspiracy theory anymore…
SCO has yet to prove to the public that their so-called IP is even in the Linux kernel. At least I have yet to see it in any public document on this subject.
More claims, zero proof. When you “show me the money”, SCO, You’ll (maybe) see mine. Until then, this is just more FUD, in my opinion, and you’re not extorting a dime from me!
So SCO says that code in the Linux kernel is illegal and wants the user of Linux to pay for it or get sued? How would that make it ok????? It just sounds like SCO is trying to blackmail people. If the code is there illegaly then it should be removed and if not then SCO should just shut up.
Paying for illegal code doesn’t make it legal!!
Note that I don’t belive that the code is illegal until I see proof of it.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
“At first, SCO seemed content to wage its contract war with IBM, although it did send a letter to some 1,350 companies that use Linux, warning them, “similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.” In other words, SCO alleges that running Linux is essentially the same as running pirated software.”
-Asia.internet.com
.. that Linux violates your IP.
Only one, small proof, that my Linux violates your IP. ONLY ONE!! Yes, then I swear I’ll pay the $699.
No, just kidding, I’ll switch to FreeBSD :-))
To be serious. $699??? What planet is SCO from?? Please IBM, buy SCO and give Darl McBride a job as a room cleaner!
What an arrogant (and dead!) company!
Even if there was offending code in the Linux kernel (which is still very much in doubt), there are two other things to consider.
a) The code could be replaced
b) SCO has distributed that very code under the GPL
In any case, they would be violating the GPL – and therefore copyright law – by adding a subsequent license on top of the GPL, no matter what they say on their web site.
This is just another attempt at pumping and dumping their stock!
^^ That’s all I have to say.
Even so, I bet Munich would have still chosen Linux.
There are some thing money just can’t buy.
I’m probably wrong…and this may sound stupid, but weren’t SCO’s licensing complaints about stolen code pertaining to high scale, multi-CPU configurations (i.e. 8+ CPU servers)?
What right would they have to charge *ANYTHING* for *ANY* single CPU system? Clearly, a uniprocessor system wouldn’t take advantage of this functionality. Yes/No?
(Again, I could totally be wrong… I’ve merely skimmed through SCO’s posted complaints… but this just seems ghey.)
I really wish the guys at SCO all the bad luck in the world!
Theese guys are evil, very evil and very stupid. The people at SCO makes G.W. Bush look smart, they even manage to make Win3.1 look smart!
hahahahahahahahaha
SCO …. hahahahahah ….
sorry … I can’t help it ….
seriously, i really really wish i was a fly on the wall in a few of their board meetings. joking aside… what is their strategy? confusion? bfuscation? a very very long april fool joke?
if they are spending so much time and effort – they must have a strategy and a plan? what is it? perhaps we could learn a lot by placing ourselves into their shoes for a moment? damn – its so hard…
Let’s just re-release 2.3 as 2.6, and tell SCO to go away… problem solved.
now come and let me “GIVE” it to you SCO.
this is unbelieveable -SCO what a bunch of As*Ho**s
Do you kids not know when a troll is lurking?
Not that we don’t already have a number of reasons to string McBride and CO up for, but:
1) From the first letter (never sent) to RH: “At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO’s intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.”
So SCO is admitting that they were hoping to be bought out!! They had already filed suit against IBM and the only means of resolving “globally” the issue would have been to have been bought outright by someone who would have then GPL’ed the code.
This effort didn’t “stall” (through no fault of your own, of course, SCO–it was never going anywhere. This effort created the ensuing problems.
2) from the second letter to RH: “To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions. I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.”
You F’in, hypocritical sons-of-b!tches!! Didn’t McBride, Boies, and others deny a pending lawsuit agaisnt IBM prior to the lawsuit. Didn’t they claim they would take no legal action agaisnt Linux distributors (still haven’t, but certainly are threatening)!! Couldn’t SCO have spoken with the Linux community in “good faith” to have the code removed!
Why are people paying attention to an obvious troll? Do not feed the troll, just let this stupid idiot talk to himself.
Frankly, I kinda like the way the SCO folks are handling this. I think their strategy is to be on the news as much and as long as possible. Obviously, the way to do this is to keep doing increasingly bizarre things, which is exactly what they’ve been doing. SCO is at the end of their life. They have nothing to loose at all. They’ve got no business, no prospects, not future at all. Except for the last quarter (when SUN and MS gave them money), SCO has not been profitable in the last 10 years.
HAHAHAHA!! GOOD LUCK, SCO!!
I have to say this, everyday i come here to osnews.com for two major reasons:
1. To have a good laugh because SCO again made fools of themselves publicly.
2. To see other more relevant news about the OS world.
McBride is just killing me, that guy is such a clown. And we have yet to wait until 2005 for this BS to stop? hahah we’ll have a nice time until then.
I wonder how that guy can sleep at night, being such an ass.
*ROFLMAO* SCO…what a pain in the ass! That Company
is so really pissed off, McBride can’t rescue it, the whole
Online Community and OpenSource World HATES SCO Dipshit!
IP Licence…lolololololooool…
SCNR
on the contrary my dear chap, linux and most open source software is the epitome of meritocracy. quite the opposite to the ideals of communism. you work hard, you do better. you have talent, go for it.
ironically, its SCO and MS which could do with a bit more of the meritocracy which we espouse so much in the USA and UK.
aside from the technical merits, thats what draws people likeme to the open source and free software community. it is one of the most largest scale working examples of a meritocratic social and technical ecosystem. and its the “communists” up in SCO and MS who are scared by it.
you see, taking the argument to a possible wider scope than it perhaps should here, the problem we have in the west is that although we shout out loud about democracy, freedom and the meritocratic market and society – it really doesn’t apply to the “top bunch”, be it MS, or be it the political ruling classes. and it should. my country would be a better place for it.
and that’s why linux is not communist – and if anything is, MS is.
We’ve got a live one here!
Would it entitle the buyer of the SCO licence to know which part of the code is claimed to be SCO property ? Because SCO would have to say which code prevents, in his opinion, redistribution ? Is there a lawyer here
?
Wow. I have not laughed so hard in a long time. If I thought that all of the wild statements labeling people were serious I would really worry about the mental state of our so-called techno savvy individuals.
Keep up the ridiculous statements. It is better than listening to standup comedians. Of course, it does ruin the porpose of an intelligent discussion of the topics.
Very good plan…
1. Sue a company…
2. Get sponsorship from rival of company in 1.
3. demand money from everyone for something that nobody knows that is somewhere…
Another redefinition of a .COM after the .COM boom and crash
And the addition of clichés he uses makes me think this guy is just a kid who wants to have fun. The best is to make it as transparent as the fart of a rabbit (sorry, an expression from my country, but you see what I mean
)
You thought it was great when Red Hat sued yesterday?
Well this is what you get in return.
Is the price outrageous? Yes, it’s ridiculous. Too bad you don’t have a say in it.
You should have thought about that when somebody offered you Linux for free, and promised you that you could make as many copies as you wanted, all for free too.
Some of us saw it as the scam it is from the very begining. Don’t expect our sympathy now.
Don’t expect our sympathy now.
We don’t need it. We just want proofs, code. Something SCO has never shown, and neither has it demonstrated it has not been added as a GPL contribution.
But it is probably unnecessary to debate about it with you, since it won’t make it change your mind. But there is something you can’t oppose : the kernel developpers are innocent until the contrary is demonstrated. The SCO scam is not a justice decision or a law.
Only if appropriate license is used, and GPL is definitely not the license chosen if freedom is what you wanna talk about. That’s why the BSD and MIT license exists.
So don’t come trolling about free software and Linux, that’s just plain stupid
Unfortunately, under this administration the rights of many Americans have been stripped away and freedom of speech is not on the priority list. In fact somebdoy was arrested for buying a shirt saying “Give peace a chance” and in the same store he brought it he was arrested. These are dark times for human rights.
In addition, the government has the power to arrest and hol din joil anyone in America for as long as they want if they think that person is a threat and more so they can judge the person privately and even kill him without making the case or accusations public.
In my opinion the Bush administration has done nothing goood and I sincerely hope it will not continue in 2004. An unjustified unconstitutional war not supported by the UN costing billions and we haven’t even got to reconstruction or psot war, a struggling economy, a lot of rigts ripped apart, lies, like this war and Africa, many rules broken, international policy nightmare, many of our men dead because of a poor guess, osama and sadam on the loose etc. I can’t imagine a poorer choice of a president. Though I feel somewhat relieved that he was not the popular choice.
No, not all of us in America live a lie and he said that the country was founded on freedom of speech not that we realy have it now.
We want proof…Something SCO has never shown
They will be glad to show you, just stop by SCO offices anytime. The guy at Linux Journal did, and was left saddened by the whole ordeal, and came out with a whole laundry list of changes that need to be made within the ‘community’.
But out of EVERYONE that has seen the code, their analysis all range from “formidable” to “inconclusive”, but NO ONE that has seen it has been able to dismiss it as not at least possible. Maybe you could, so go see for yourself.
Oh obviously as we all can see, that no matter what you reallty think of it, this proves more than well how Linux is not cost efficient choice for any company at all. Not because SCO wants money, but because you have to spend so much time worrying about legal issues and hazzle with it, it’s just not worth it. Especially not when Sun offers really good stuff for no money at all, and if you want OSS software, you can just go BSD which is just plain better for 95% of the situations.
But, most of you people here probably never heard the word TCO anyway, that’s why you still students running Linux
You do realize that SCO themselves checked the majority of the code they are showing to people into the kernel in the first place. I’m glad that you are all gung ho pro sco, it’s great. I suppose the mental midgets of the world have to find SOMETHING to amuse themselves with.
They will be glad to show you
No they don’t, since they ask for an NDA. I want a public announcement. And the journalist you mention was not convinced at all. They could not prove they had not put the code on purpose in a GPL project. Nobody says this code does not exists, but since SCO has participated to some parts of the kernel, they have to prove this code is not a GPLd one.
SCO == Stupid Clowns Orbiting
My best bet is that some of the comments to this thread are from SCO…
How can SCO even waste time and money on something so stupid like this…guess they are being paid of by microsoft…so microsoft doesnt end up being the big fools SCO are gonna be!
cheeeeezuz!
Can’t we all just get along..?!
You do realize that SCO themselves checked the majority of the code they are showing to people into the kernel in the first place.
Well, if that turns out to be true, you probably have nothing to worry about then. But IMO, David Boies et al wouldn’t be pushing out these claims against users @ $700 a pop if they weren’t pretty sure they were going to be vindicated. They could easily wind up in jail (for a variety of reasons) if all this was false, which in effect gives much more credibility to their claims.
Well, if that turns out to be true, you probably have nothing to worry about then. But IMO, David Boies et al wouldn’t be pushing out these claims against users @ $700 a pop if they weren’t pretty sure they were going to be vindicated. They could easily wind up in jail (for a variety of reasons) if all this was false, which in effect gives much more credibility to their claims.
Yeah, but the Linux source has been open to the world since ’91, SCO could have put what they wanted into the kernel within the last few months, just so that they could get back on their feet…!
This makes me laugh. Like the Enron or Worldcom directing board members ? How many won’t go to jail ? You just need to have good lawyers and a lot of money, and you will escape the fate of the autoradio theft.
Anyway, this is not a proof, this is so indirect. The only thing that would give them credibility is to show the bloody code ! But they don’t.
Yes, try going into a US Federal Court and trying to peputuate fraud. You will quickly find yourself behind bars.
“jump up and down and scream with every post filled with name calling and insults”
Oh, and you are innocent?
So if I use Linux that I downloaded for FREE. No registration, no nothing. How do they know that I’m using it to collect there rediculus money?
SCO needs to go away and there helping out by digging their own grave.
R.I.P = SCO
In a couple of ways!
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/08/05/cz_dl_0805ibmlinux.html
Some of you should read them.
From the article YOU linked to.
“Linux’s lack of indemnification is an exception to standard industry practice. Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT – news – people ) indemnifies Windows users. Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW – news – people ) indemnifies Solaris users. IBM itself indemnifies users of other software products including AIX, z/OS, DB2, and even WebSphere, which includes an open-source technology called Apache.
Indemnification usually means that a) if your system crashes, the vendor might compensate you for your downtime; and b) in this case, IBM would held liable if the code you’re using infringes on someone’s intellectual property. ”
From c:windowssystem32eula.txt:
“EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY/DAMAGES. The
following is without prejudice to any rights you may have at
law which cannot legally be excluded or restricted. You
acknowledge that no promise, representation, warranty or
undertaking has been made or given by Manufacturer and/or
Microsoft Corporation (or related company of either) to any
person or company on its behalf in relation to the
profitability of or any other consequences or benefits to be
obtained from the delivery or use of the SOFTWARE and any
accompanying Microsoft hardware, software, manuals or written
materials. You have relied upon your own skill and judgement
in deciding to acquire the SOFTWARE and any accompanying
hardware, manuals and written materials for use by you.
Except as and to the extent provided in this agreement,
neither Manufacturer and/or Microsoft Corporation (or related
company of either) will in any circumstances be liable for any
other damages whatsoever (including, without limitation,
damages for loss of business, business interruption, loss of
business information or other indirect or consequential loss)
arising out of the use or inability to use or supply or non
-supply of the SOFTWARE and any accompanying hardware and
written materials. Manufacturer’s and/or Microsoft
Corporation (or related company of either) total liability
under any provision of this agreement is in any case limited
to the amount actually paid by you for the SOFTWARE and/or
Microsoft hardware.”
There’s some indemnification for you.
From the link above (not sure how you missed this part):
“But there’s one thing IBM (won’t announce this week, and that is a promise to indemnify its Linux customers against possible SCO claims.
Some analysts are clamoring for IBM to make such a promise. But IBM refuses. Which makes some people wonder: If IBM’s code is clean, why won’t IBM shield its customers?”
Why would they? They didn’t build the linux distribution their customers use. I wouldn’t either. Nor would HP, Dell, Walmart, or any other company that didn’t design the OS. What you are expecting is the same as expecting them to indemnify their Windows customers against possible SCO claims. It’s just not going to happen, because it shouldn’t happen. Business 101.
Top speed is right about the slashdotters too. I think that a LOT of the price that SCO is charging for these licenses is the “revenge” tax for all the false accusations of criminality, fowl language and personal insults they had to endure from the “community”. Indeed if I had a dollar for all the slashdot activity I have seen since I have come here I would be richer than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer and COULD BUY OUT MICRO$OFT. Then I MIGHT have given you guys Win 9x and its related software under BSD or MIT licensing so that you would have some genuine AMERICAN code to play around with and keep Win XP closed for the real security through obscurity that governments and businesses REALLY NEED.
I guess I don’t understand. Maybe someone can tell me.
If there is a problem with the Linux kernel, why don’t a few hundred thousand programers get together and slam out a new one?
Also, if the 2.4 Linux kernel is a in violation of SCO’s IP, why couldn’t another kernel be used — let’s say the one that comes with FreeBSD?
I don’t know if that makes any sense, but I thought I’d ask.
Thanks,
Sorry for an communsim-related post but I would like to say some word to smackdows and all kind.
I line in Slovenia, a former communistic country(Yugoslavia). Before Tito died communism wa pretty well. Everybody got a job and the job payment was fairly divided. After Tito died the country got into crysis. After the death of Tito there were hard years(bad goverment). But when the democracy came, it seemd that all problems were solved and life would got better. But now, it’s hard to get a job. The job payment is VERY unfair in the crime is very high.
So, the communsim idea itself is not such bad but it need the right leader.
For that other: yea, SCO sucks pretty much.
The (S)cumbag (C)riminal (O)rganization is going to end up in prison where they belong. America is unstable, but there is some justice in America somewhere and when it comes out finally, it will be great again.
I think that a LOT of the price that SCO is charging for these licenses is the “revenge” tax for all the false accusations of criminality, fowl language and personal insults they had to endure from the “community”.
Who could blame them. Not one person from this “community” has been willing to step forward and say IF this is true, it shouldn’t have happened and we will pay. Instead all SCO got was death threats.
I MIGHT have given you guys Win 9x and its related software under BSD or MIT licensing so that you would have some genuine AMERICAN code to play around with and keep Win XP closed for the real security through obscurity that governments and businesses REALLY NEED.
Coral Snake you are a true genius, and M$ may one day have to do this themselves. But what the OSS vs Proprietary battle will always result in: those that are willing to “pay” will always receive superior services. Those that must “beg” will always wonder what bone they might get thrown to them next.
MS doesn’t imdemnify its customers from improper use of copyrighted material. Most software products don’t provide this guarantee. So why should Linux?
The only reason Linux is more susceptible to such issues is because the copyright holders themselves can view the code. There is little chance that a copyright holder would be aware of such theft if it was done by a closed-source product.
If you can cite another claim against Linux similar to SCO’s, then maybe I’d start believing some of your doom and gloom.
SCO’s NDA is ABSOLUTELY NOT showing the proof. The NDA prevents the observer from pursuing any corrective actions, it happens on SCO’s terms–which apparently hasn’t sought to identify when and by whom it was committed.
Or maybe they have done this? They’ve already admitted that most “similar” code wasn’t submitted by IBM. But then again they claimed IBM was the main source of the problem originally. Then again they claimed it wasn’t the Linux kernel, it was Linux technologies. Oh, but now they claim the code is in the kernel too. They claim their code MUST be the source of enterprise-readiness in Linux, but everyone agrees System V is the least enterprise-capable NIX…
If you didn’t get it, my last paragraph was to demonstrate that not only will SCO not show you the evidence–their claims to “evidence” changes on a daily basis. They are most certainly shooting blanks in the dark.
I think that someone will do the right thing and put handcuffs on McBride and company. They should serve about ten or fifteen years in prison.
The above story mentioned on Slashdot has already received 1274 comments. Beside this, a poll on the outcome of this mess was answered by 6165 persons (unless some voted many times). I guess it stresses out the fact that SCO has reached an unprecedented “level of nuisance” (or whatever one may call it) in the mind of computer users.
The SCO is not just a nuisance, they are criminals and they should be arrested.
SCO has released the code under the GPL. It cannot legally redistribute the code under another superceding license. That would result in gross copyright violation, and SCO could be sued by all of those who contributed to the kernel.
I know some naive, lying trolls such as TopSpeed and Coral Snake (who are probably the same person anyway) still pretend that SCO has a case, but more and more it is clear that this is just another pump’n’dump scheme. I mean, if they were so sure they had a case, why would SCO executives keep selling their stock?
P.S. Coral Snake: security through obscurity doesn’t work. I mean, look a MS Windows’ abysmal security record – and that’s despite billions of dollars spent to make Windows secure!
IBM shouldn’t file a counter lawsuit but they should press that criminal charges be brought against the SCO.
This is a crime, it’s not a bad business deal, it’s actual crime and should not involve financial lawsuits but a criminal lawsuit.
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5050986.html
Microsoft has a new sales pitch for Linux users: Buy our software and stay out of court.
Microsoft better stay out of it so that they don’t get implicated in criminal activity, otherwise you might be seeing Bill Gates hauled off to prison.
This has nothing to do with money anymore, it’s at an all new level.
Fudding again…so, where’s the proof?
Innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law. I know you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is…
I’m not gonna say where…but somewhere in the Linux OS there is code which I wrote.
I have created a licensing scheme to protect you from me suing you.
I know this sounds a little Mafioso (“Pay me to protect you from me”), but I assure you I’m not lying.
A single CPU system license will run for $499.
Let the money roll in.
Jeez…pretending your SCO is even easier than I thought.
The saddest part of this story is that if SCO had sued Linux about 2-3 years ago, they might have won. But now that IBM, HP, Cray, SGI, Fujitsu, NEC, Samsung, Intel, and hundreds of other companies have basically put their money on Linux, there is about a 0 percent chance that SCO will win. SCO is going to get raped and the CEO might even be put in jail for extortion. There is going to be a major investigation to see if there were any other players pushing this lawsuit. It is going to get ugly for anyone who is even associated with SCO. You know it is looking bad for SCO when even Uncle Sam wants Linux to win. On a side note, all this makes me respect BSD quite a lot since it won without all these players in it’s camp and it was going against a real company, not SCO.
But hey, what do you expect, after all I’m apparently a “Pot smoking pinko commie linux user”.
I think that there has been a migration from slashdot. Its just that the trolls have learned that theres no moderation system here, so they can say whatever they want to piss people off.
If SCO wins this whole mess, I’ll owe SCO $4200,for the old pentium system that I use for various tasks, and my old dual processor desktop system. Needless to say that I find this absolutely rediculous since the total cost of the hardware of these systems probably ammounts to only $200 today.
You have to wonder wether SCO will recoup the lawyers fees that they’re spending right now just on people scared of a lawsuit running out and buying thier liscense.
I’m pretty sure that Slackware (and indeed any linux distribution, though slack does have the whole cult thing going for it.) offers indemnification against legal action since if anyone sues me for using linux, I’ll just point to freedom of religion and laugh.
(4 posts for the price of one, because I don’t have time to hang around all day)
ROFL!!!
Now i have to say and some attorneys concur.. M$ is in fact also behind this. The timing of the Sco(extortion inc) lawsuit and the release of windserver2003 just happend to be a coincidence? I think not.Does it not seem that the pricing scheme that Sco has chosen is made to make windserver2003 look more attractive? come ON!! Of course it does. Because it IS!!
Liek the CIA says, if it walks like a duck , and talks like a duck.. its a duck. personally i will switch to a BSD if there is ever any court action pointed and linux users, but the truth is.. sco has no ip in linux.. the functions they claim that ibm attatched to linux from unix ip are in fact owned by ibm and are not owned works of SCO, i mean how could they be. Sco as is is today has no innovation, no advanced code, and no optimization on any platform. It is an old rotting piece of legacy code best left to history books. Want another joke? How about going to Sco Forum 2003??. Now that has to be one exciting trip http://www.sco.com/2003forum/ Make your reservation Now!!!!
Can’t you just shut up about all your anti-Linux? (I am polite now. I was tempted to use the f-word; but I did not, since I think we can solve this in an adult way.)
I am tired of you. Just because you think that Microsoft is heaven, and Linux is hell; doesn’t mean everyone else should mean the same as you. And please stop saying people are things they arent. I am definitly not a communist; political I am on the quite opposite side
We all have different “taste” when it comes to wich operating system we like. I like Linux and *BSD, but Windows XP is OK to (mainly because hardware support from most hardware procents, and same with software). But the thing is, I got 6 computers running in my business. I dont have the possibility to pay over $2500 just for operating system on all those computers. But I do want to use current operating system. Some of these computers can’t run anything better than MS Windows 3.11, but all I want is to run for example a webserver on them…and for that Linux works perfectly! I still do have a MS Windows machine, due to the reasons I explained above.
Well… That was off the track. But can’t you just stop your anti-OS-I-don’t-like “campaign”?
To everyone else of you. If they don’t stop just stop responding to theyre post. They will eventually go away.
Looks like Microsoft is in full control of the SCO puppet strings. They are the direct benefactors of the negative outcome of this sherade, and is going to give SCO as much money as necessary to thwart Linux.
Apple’s OSX is looking sweeter every day; Can you say g5?
A $699 per processor price is ridicolus (heck, I don’t even know how to spell that word…it must be the communist genes
).
If you gave proof that you _do_ own IP in Linux…to the whole community…I would pay you if I had to. But $699 is just unbelievable. I would pay up to $10 though, but I doubt you have enough code in the kernel (in %) to even justify a price tag like that.
Anyways… You are free to sue me for my 5 computers running Linux. 5CPUs… $1995 lost in licensing costs. You will find contact information on my webpage (click on my name).
Have a nice day!
Are they going to come knock on my door and ask for it because ill get out the gun and tell them to get off my lawn.
And how did they come up with that hugh number. That is the most expensive OS for the home computer I have ever hear of.
I think i’ll pay, just so I can sue when IBM wins and I can cash in on their dumb asses. Then I can get myself a new MAC withough hurting my pocket, but ill get the new G5 anyways. Love Apple and what they give.
And i do feel MS might be behind this too, finding a new way to try and get people away from Linux. All i can say is anything is better than MS, that is Apple, BeOS, BSD and Linux.
They are trying to make people and companys behave irrationally.
SCO has not offered any proof, yet they expect people to fork over a stupid amount of money for somthing SCO hasn’t developed to avoid paying an even worse sum.
It’s just like the informercials with the “Buy in the next 10mins and you will recieve free…”.
They think people are stupid.
If SCO wins this whole mess, I’ll owe SCO $4200,for the old pentium system that I use for various tasks, and my old dual processor desktop system….
Actually, you probably won’t owe them anything. They are only now going after corporate users, who are running servers, like Google does.
You’re probably not even on their hit list, at all. Since that is probably true, why can’t you even listen to the possibility that these business are illegally using it?
If there is illegal code, than show the code, and it will be removed, plain and simple. Instead the (S)cumbag (C)riminal (O)rganization is relying on extortion because they do not want any offending code removed (they probably put it there themselves), they want billions of dollars that are earned by successful businesses. And they want to claim ownership of public property.
The SCO have participated in CRIMINAL activity and there should be a criminal court trial.
…this isn’t a hot topic, is it? 😉
You never have to read the comments. I never read the comments at /. and im perfectly happy. Just come here for the great interviews,reviews, and links.
I think that top speed has the right to voice his opinion. Why is there such a desire for sensorship? Nobody learns anything from sensorship in fact is does irreperable harm.
The SCO is currently committing crimes regardless of whether or not there is Unix code in Linux. They are participating in extortion and everyone except the SCO wants any offending code removed from Linux. Yet for the SCO it is not about that, they are low down dirt bag criminals, the scum of the earth, and I feel confident that they will be found guilty in a criminal trial and sent to prison.
I’ll acknowledge the possibility that SCO has code in the linux kernel that they own the copyright to and distributed without thier knowledge, just as I would acknowledge the possibility that there is a 8 foot tall gigantopithicus wandering around the pacific northwest of the united states. Both are possibilities, that I can accept rather easily. Unfortunately for SCO I demand something more concrete than a mere possibility.
I don’t trust SCO to stop just at suing corporate users, the “I don’t have to worry about what happens to this group because I’m not a member of it” mentality just doesn’t seem to really hold out in reality, since after SCO is done suing corporate users, what are they going to turn to now that they’re a 100% litigation organization.
SCO YOU DIED !! NO LIVE !! jajajaa,nunca vi cosa mas estúpida en mi vida,pretende cobrar por lo que es gratis!!!
jajajaa!!
SCO es una empresa en bancarrota,adquirida por M$ ,sólo para jorobar a LInux,1ro)porque Windows a nivel empresarial MUERE,2do) porque es la porquería de siempre,no importa el nombre estúpido de turno que le pongan ;”LOngHorn” jajaja””
le cambian el nombre,y venden la misma basura a los estúpidos que creen en las promesas del “Nuevo y fantástico” Windows ,jajaja “LongHorn” ,jajaja!!”TIEMBLA MICROSOFT!! que te caes!!!
I am seriouslyly getting fedup with the revisionist history America is trying to do, especially denying that a CANDIAN invented the telephone
Well, since everyone else is getting off topic, I will too. Alexandar Graham Bell, who held the patent for the telephone, was actually Scottish. At the age of 23 he moved to Canada, but after a year he moved to Boston, where he lived out most of the rest of his long life. Sure, he still spent some of his summers in Canada vacationing, but all his work was done in his laboratories in Boston. Naturally, he did not work in a vacuum, either…his American assistants helped design, build, and test his inventions. Who’s the revisionist?
Well, SCO is as usual on the top of things, never failing to make us all roll on the floor in gut-wrenching fits of uncontrollable laughter. Kudos to them for that. Free entertainment is always great.
On the other hand, it is sad to see Top Speed lose his touch. He’s still parrotting the same mantras and the best thing he could come up with (at least in my opinion) was the whole “Linux-using LARPs hiding in momma’s basement” thing. That was entertaining for a few hours, but then got old pretty quick. Sad, indeed sad.
I mean, come on, even his impersonators were much more creative! Lin-Qaeda? Terror-software? Amazing! Gotta give mad props to SmackDown as well.
And this thing with him and Coral Snake agreeing on everything is getting old as well. Why not have a flame war of Apocalyptic proportions between the two? Imagine how funny would that be. Two crazies verbally beating the living and breathing Belinux out of each other, the clash of titans eventually ending with both of them falling from the proverbial bridge into the abyss, the Balrog style… ‘Cause this mutual patting on the back just seems so… I don’t know… homoerotic, I guess?
Anyways, I’m off to robbing a local church. Gotta buy me that SCO license thingy. The squirrels made me do it.
Not only should the SCO face criminal charges and have their exectives server prison sentances, but I hope that all of their shareholders take it strait up the ass. I hope that they lose everything because we don’t need those type of dirt bags in the world. The world would be better of if those dirt bags put a gun to their head and did justice.
Where does SCO have to right to use the TRADE MARKED Linux name?
Enough with the personal attacks. If you want to defend Linux, please do. Otherwise, there is no need for your comments. If you want to talk about something, try reading this:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12…
“If there is a problem with the Linux kernel, why don’t a few hundred thousand programers get together and slam out a new one?”
Hard to do when SCO refuses to let anyone see the code in question. You can’t fix something if no one will tell you what is broken.
I don’t think SCO has much of a case either, but you guys are pretty obnoxious with your confidence.
SCO has made a very subtle point about the GPL, that there is little control over what programmers put into a GPL program. While the high price is somewhat laughable, it would also be very laughable if SCO were to win their case.
Remember, it’s a trial being held in the USA. The same country that has college kids being sued for sharing music, the government wanting to spy on EVERY piece of information they can see, and where the contrie’s constitution is quickly being thrown out the window through laws like the DMCA and the PATRIOT acts.
There is a small chance that SCO could win, and such a bold move should at least make you guys pause to think about the situation a bit.
Hypotheticals:
Why doesn’t SCO give kernel developers a kernel free of SCO code?
Because they can’t because it is either not there, or we will then know what the code is.
This is not fair! Finally when I find the ONE OS THAT I LIKE, some shit company on the verge of declaring bankruptcy has to come by and for its own selfish reasons and try to destroy it. Will this ever happen? Are they stupid? I mean that would really kill society. Per CPU??!!! Do you guys know ham MANY COMPANIES USE LINUX AS SERVERS!!!!!?????????????
There is more of a case for prosecuting kids who download music (even though I think the RIAA should rather try to give a plus-value to their product instead) than there is of prosecuting Linux users, or even to steal Linux with a supplementary license.
Kids are contravening to copyright laws. SCO has distributed Linux under the GPL. Distributing something under the GPL means accepting its terms, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. SCO alleged there was improper code in the kernel, said that it had identified that code, and was even ready to show it those who would select to a ridiculously restrictive NDA. And then, they continued to distribute the code under the GPL. Now, they can’t pretend they didn’t know the code was there. For all purposes, they have released that offending code under the GPL.
The GPL forbids the distribution of copyrighted material if the GPL and the rights it affords aren’t distributed with it. Furthermore, these rights cannot be further restricted with a supplementary license…
Things get more complicated for SCO’s lawyers when you consider that SCO (by its own admission) does not own the offending pieces of code it has named so far (NUMA, SMP, etc.), but that those are the property of IBM. Also, SCO employers have, with their employer’s knowledge, contributed code to SCO (for which they retain the copyrights under the GPL – they’re the copyright holders, but they can’t relicense that code). Finally, some code might be identical in Linux and SCO’s Unix because it both comes from BSD – and there is judicial precedent here that goes against SCO’s case.
But even without all of these elements dramatically decreasing SCO’s chances of winning, there is still the fact that SCO has distributed Linux under the GPL – and is in violation of the GPL by now distributing Linux but adding a new license on top of it.
This is a pump’n’dump scheme, nothing else.
pardon me but as i see it you have it backwards. The sco suit isnt about the gpl. You have truly bought into the FUD that sco as spread about the gpl. The process is more rigorous than sco portrays it. What this is about is a company using litigation as its primary source of income. Sco makes much noice about protecting its ip. Sco’s intention all along was to SUE to generate income from said ip. Remember DRDOS? They purchased it only to sue M$ over abuses that occurred 10 yrs before they owned it. No the Sco case isnt about the gpl.. its about the abuses of the legal system and the outright insanity of our copyright/ip management system in the usa.
You cannot copyright or patent an idea
**//
You cannot copyright or patent an idea
//**
I think the whole point of a patent is copyrighting an idea.