Damned if you do and damned if you don't

Fran Foo,

13 August 2003 09:10 AM

Tags: linux, ibm, unix, sco, legal, license, cpu

COMMENTARY--Have you been able to follow the SCO Group's labyrinthine plot?

Yes, it takes more than understanding of the intricacies surrounding legal mumbo-jumbo to decipher $CO's real agenda. But you can rest assured Darl McBride and his band of lawyers have Linux users' interest at heart.

A case in point? The postal budget.

Well, in the interest of the user (but of course), SCO is now preparing to invoice customers running or developing applications using Linux. I can't imagine how many meetings it took but just look at the furious pace at which the expenditure for stamps and envelopes were approved!

"Invoices will be dispatched in the next weeks or months," a company spokesperson told ComputerWire on Monday.

Recipients will include the 1,500 enterprises which were served warning letters by SCO in May.

For those still unsure if your company is liable, here's a quick recap of SCO's licensing FAQ:

Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO Unix IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP licence.

What is the definition of a client vs a server system? How do I know which licence to purchase?
A Linux (Client) Desktop system is a single user computer workstation running Linux. It may provide personal productivity applications, Web browsers and other client interfaces (eg, mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.

A Linux server system is one that hosts services for clients on other system. It may have one or more users and one or more CPUs. Each CPU on the server must be licensed.

I am running Linux on POS devices, not as a server operating system. Does SCO have an IP License for POS devices?
Yes. Licenses for POS devices are considered embedded devices. These licenses are available directly from SCO, via contract. Contact your SCO sales representative for more information.

If I am running SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux do I need to obtain a SCO IP License for Linux?
Yes.

Why isn’t SCO making the IP License for Linux available through its normal distribution channels?
SCO plans to make the licenses available through the channel as soon as channel partners can be trained and educated.

What is the cost of the licence?
The promotional fee for the client (desktop) licence is US$199 (AU$303) while server licenses are:

  • US$699 (AU$1,063) for one CPU
  • US$1,149 (AU$1,747) for two CPUs
  • US$2,499 (AU$3,800) for four CPUs
  • US$4,999 (AU$7,603) for eight CPUs
  • US$749 (AU$1,139) for an additional single CPU

    The promotional licence fee for embedded devices is US$32 (AU$49) per device.

    Strangely enough, the FAQ does not state when the promotional period ends nor does it detail full pricing thereafter but SCO executives have said the introductory period ends on Oct. 15 and a single unit server price will double to US$1,399 (AU$2,128).

    At the moment, SCO is focusing on commercial users and this bodes well for Asia-Pacific since large Linux installations in the region are mainly in educational institutions...for now, at least. But when you look at the entire trail of events, one can't help but wonder--is this just a clumsy execution of an 11th hour plan or perhaps a smokescreen for a hidden SCO agenda?

    If you have any comments, please e-mail IT Manager Australia and share your thoughts.

  • Advertisement

    Talkback 17 comments

    1. I'd gladly pay SCOs license if I knew what I was paying for. SCO can't possibly hope to lay claim to all of Linux 2.4 - I know that because I have contributed code to Linux and that code does not belong to SCO - so (at best) SCOs license is only for a sma Anonymous -- 13/08/03

      I'd gladly pay SCOs license if I knew what I was paying for. SCO can't possibly hope to lay claim to all of Linux 2.4 - I know that because I have contributed code to Linux and that code does not belong to SCO - so (at best) SCOs license is only for a small portion of Linux 2.4. If SCO told me what those bits were then I could better judge whether I need those bits. If I did have a need to use SCOs code then I would buy a license from SCO without delay. If I don't need SCOs code then I'd remove SCOs code from my servers.

      What I won't do is pay for a "Linux 2.4 license" because SCO does not have the right to charge license fees for code that doesn't belong to SCO. I will only pay for a license to SCOs code.

      SCO should tell us - the end users who are their potential customers - exactly what our $699 is paying for.

    2. This is harassment. These companies should lodge official complaints with the authorities. SCO cannot demand payment for unsubstantiated charges, especially when they are preventing Linux users the ability to remove any such code by withholding Anonymous -- 13/08/03

      This is harassment. These companies should lodge official complaints with the authorities.

      SCO cannot demand payment for unsubstantiated charges, especially when they are preventing Linux users the ability to remove any such code by withholding information regarding the code in question. That is if there is anything there in the first place - I've heard that there probably no more than 80 lines of similar code (about the length of a *very* basic command line program).

      Also, it is the vendor, not the user who should be liable.

    3. !!!!!FREE LINUX FOREVER!!!!! SCO can go kiss my proverbial I will not and NEVER will for a SCO licence! Anonymous -- 13/08/03

      !!!!!FREE LINUX FOREVER!!!!!
      SCO can go kiss my proverbial
      I will not and NEVER will for a SCO licence!

    4. Wow, I own some of the code in the linux kernel, everyone must send me 1000 dollars, but I won't tell you what it is :-) What SCO is doing is trying to extort money from anyone they can, and this is just not right. What a joke Anonymous -- 14/08/03

      Wow, I own some of the code in the linux kernel,
      everyone must send me 1000 dollars, but I won't tell you what it is :-)

      What SCO is doing is trying to extort money from anyone they can, and this is just not right.

      What a joke

    5. Two words: Mail fraud. If you think IBM's response to the SCO lawsuit had some teeth, wait until you see what the USPS and FTC will do to them for sending out fraudulent invoices. Jeff Berntsen -- 14/08/03

      Two words: Mail fraud.

      If you think IBM's response to the SCO lawsuit had some teeth, wait until you see what the USPS and FTC will do to them for sending out fraudulent invoices.

    6. "If I am running SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux do I need to obtain a SCO IP License for Linux? Yes." What? If I bought SCO Linux from SCO, why do I now need an SCO Linux licsence? I run and love Linux. Up till now, I have been Brian Korsedal -- 14/08/03

      "If I am running SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux do I need to obtain a SCO IP License for Linux?
      Yes."

      What? If I bought SCO Linux from SCO, why do I now need an SCO Linux licsence? I run and love Linux. Up till now, I have been able to understand how a person could see things the way they do, but that is too much.

      How can you sell something to your customers and then threaten to take them to court if they don't pay you more?

      Lets say I sold you a car for $5000. You drive along happy for a few years, then I send you a letter telling you that you have to pay me another $5000 or I'll take you to court. That's what it is like.

    7. SCO have not yet proved their case in the dispute on the substantial copying of proprietary Unix code into Linux yet they continue to act in a manner that assumes that the court has already ruled in their favour. Further to this, they seek not only substa Anonymous -- 14/08/03

      SCO have not yet proved their case in the dispute on the substantial copying of proprietary Unix code into Linux yet they continue to act in a manner that assumes that the court has already ruled in their favour. Further to this, they seek not only substantive damages from the parties that are alleged to have carried out the theft of the code but also seek to have end-users of the code pay directly.

      In its action, SCO has demonstrated a Shylock-like attitude. It acts as a wronged party seeking vengeance on all. Except Shylock wanted ratification by the courts.

      While perhaps some may have felt initial sympathy for SCO's plight, increasingly the company seems to be alienating the potential end-user base. Ethical behaviour aside, this does not make for good business strategy. Even if they are looking to have channel partners to manage their licenses, those partners would have to give serious consideration to the qualities demonstrated by SCO and the impact on their own businesses by association.

    8. Since the decreased in revenue from poor Unix sales (mainly was affected by the ever stronge growth in Linux) and the profit forecast is in the negative zone. SCO need to found a way to get itself out of that hole and what is the better way then sued Anonymous -- 15/08/03

      Since the decreased in revenue from poor Unix sales (mainly was affected by the ever stronge growth in Linux) and the profit forecast is in the negative zone.
      SCO need to found a way to get itself out of that hole and what is the better way then sued someone big for $$$ to make a point and ask everyone who is running their business criticals on the Linux box to pay. is ironic as I see it, SCO is digging their own resting place.

    9. There is NO reason to pay SCO, read this for more explanation. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html In brief, you should not pay SCO without SCO giving any proof to the world yet. Even if they sh Anonymous -- 15/08/03

      There is NO reason to pay SCO, read this for more explanation.

      http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914464,00.html

      In brief, you should not pay SCO without SCO giving any proof to the world yet. Even if they show the proof later, don't be affraid if SCO threaten you with lawsuit, because you (or the linux vendor) should have the option to remove the infringing code if you decide you don't need that part to run linux.

      Also, if you happened to get invoice from SCO, I really think you should really file a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection or something similar in your country.

      https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

    10. Probably best not enter into any agreements wiht SCO. IBM paid a lot of money for licences, and now they are sued by SCO. There is no reason why they won't sue you on some technicality even if you pay. This is extortion! Don't pay. Uno Engborg -- 15/08/03

      Probably best not enter into any agreements wiht SCO.
      IBM paid a lot of money for licences, and now they are sued by SCO.
      There is no reason why they won't sue you on some technicality even if you pay.

      This is extortion! Don't pay.

    11. I agree that I wish SCO would publish the systems in question. That way I can RE COMPILE them out of my kernel if they are even there to begin with. Since I don't use the SMP or anything of the nature SCO says they own then I am not going to pay them a Anonymous -- 15/08/03

      I agree that I wish SCO would publish the systems in question. That way I can RE COMPILE them out of my kernel if they are even there to begin with. Since I don't use the SMP or anything of the nature SCO says they own then I am not going to pay them a single cent.

    12. Only brain dead peoples pay something to extorsionists. They don't have any case. They only want to hijack the work of thousand people around the world. SCO is dead. Nobody in the world will ever do any business with them. Just wait for th Anonymous -- 15/08/03

      Only brain dead peoples pay something to extorsionists.
      They don't have any case. They only want to hijack the work of thousand people around the world.
      SCO is dead. Nobody in the world will ever do any business with them.
      Just wait for them to finish the sponsorship they got from MS and see them go out of business.
      1. DON'T PAY FOR CRIME.
      2. Get rid of mentally impaired guys who write articles pro SCO.

    13. SCO have NO proof that there is any of their code in Linux. They have some circumstantial evidence, but that is not proof. For all we know, THEY copied Linux code into SCO! Bottom line is, if you buy a licence from SCO, when they haven't prove Anonymous -- 15/08/03

      SCO have NO proof that there is any of their code in Linux. They have some circumstantial evidence, but that is not proof. For all we know, THEY copied Linux code into SCO!

      Bottom line is, if you buy a licence from SCO, when they haven't proved anything, you deserve what you receive. It's a case of "Damned if you do, and you're perfectly fine if you don't".

      Personally, I'm actually hoping that SCO do send an invoice to my company. I want it as a souvenir of the sometimes extreme stupidity of the corporate mind.

    14. It is a great shame that a company can be allowed to just sit there and sprout wild accusations without anyone seemingly able to stop them. OK, in some countries they have been succesfuly silenced, but in others this just looks to be a case of keeping on Richard Corfield -- 15/08/03

      It is a great shame that a company can be allowed to just sit there and sprout wild accusations without anyone seemingly able to stop them. OK, in some countries they have been succesfuly silenced, but in others this just looks to be a case of keeping on rubbishing Linux whilst dragging out the legal process.

      Perhaps there's not much else SCO can do. As soon as they show weakness, they'll be quite rightly jumped on from all angles for extortion, so they must keep up the rhetoric, and dig themselves into a deeper hole.

      The rubbish they are coming up with is unbelievable! Its generally accepted now that SCO never owned the code presumably copied. It was developed by IBM and added to AIX. If I were to sell a both Ford and Rover cars, and fit the same car radio into both, could Ford claim ownership of Rover? SCO claim that by using the code in AIX, IBM made it the property of SCO, and therefore Linux is property of SCO. This is daft!

      Now SCO claim that the GNU Public License is invalid, and that they published Caldera Open Linux under it is meaningless. The GNU Public License has more chance of survival then the End User License Agreements included with commercial software, because you have to make the concious decision to redistribute GPL software.

      To add insult to injury, they use the word "Copyright" as if it means "Owned by someone with a large team of laywers", as if you and I, or any Linux contributers, couldn't claim copyright, and as if Linux itself was not covered by copyright. The GPL is very clever in that regard. All Linux code is covered by copyright. In the UK, all creation is covered by copyright unless explicitely released to the public domain.

      How can these strategies be so effective? Why aren't people laughing them off? I suppose there is uncertainty because people have too little understanding of copyright. Hopefuly, wanting something good to come out of this, that misunderstanding could be cleared up.

    15. Are you crazy, or just stupid???? You are telling businesses and users that they DO need a SCO license when so far SCO has proven nothing. Hell, if that is the case, I own the letter 'e'. Every time this publication uses the letter 'e Brent Michalski -- 15/08/03

      Are you crazy, or just stupid????

      You are telling businesses and users that they DO need a SCO license when so far SCO has proven nothing.

      Hell, if that is the case, I own the letter 'e'. Every time this publication uses the letter 'e', you must send me $1.

      SCO has not proven anything and it will probably be at least 18 months before it goes to court.

      Also, this is a CONTRACT dispute between IBM and SCO. Even *if* SCO wins, there is a very good chance that end-users (commercial and home) would not be liable for anything.

      SCO is making such bizzare accusations, I find it rather irresponsible of your magazine/web site to tell users that they NEED to send SCO anything.

      If you are going to send SCO something, do like I did and send them money that is worth as much as their license...

      http://www.perlguy.net/sco.html

    16. SCO should run for parliament/congress as Dictator for Life - they've got the balls for it at least. In reality, this is almost like an ambit claim. They're trying it on to see whether they can get away with it. SCO management are defi Anonymous -- 18/08/03

      SCO should run for parliament/congress as Dictator for Life - they've got the balls for it at least.
      In reality, this is almost like an ambit claim.
      They're trying it on to see whether they can get away with it.

      SCO management are definitely a "'roo loose in the top paddock."

      Any new definitions for SCO anyone?

      Satan's Cruddy Orifice?
      Senile, Cretinous Organisation?
      Scabrous, Carbuncular & Ossified?

      Regardless, my intention is to tell them to "SCO JUMP."

      Their swan song will be "SCO long; farewell; auf wiedersehen; adieu"

    17. Do you think SCO are coming from Microsoft Bullies?? I don't like the way Greedy SCO asking peoples' money that paying that price which are too high!! Anonymous -- 22/06/04

      Do you think SCO are coming from Microsoft Bullies?? I don't like the way Greedy SCO asking peoples' money that paying that price which are too high!!

    Add your opinion


    Latest Videos

    ZDNet's CIO Vision Series

    Department of Defence | Greg Farr, CIO (part two)

    In the second part of his interview, Defence CIO Greg Farr talks about outsourcing, the skills crisis and reveals his most urgent IT priority.

    Sponsored content

    Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

    Blogs

    • Angus Kidman I'm a celebrity, don't back me up
      Celebrity comes with its perks — free alcohol, better-looking partners, lots of holiday time — and disadvantages — constant media intrusions, being forced to appear in films with Eddie Murphy for the long-term good of your career, and having to do mindless radio interviews with angry men who've been awake since 4am.
    • Array Lies, damned lies and telco stupidity
      Earlier this month, Telstra put out a press release trumpeting that it's come up with a new phone coaching service to help people who are "bamboozled" by their mobiles. Another excellent example of wrongheaded thinking from the mobile industry.
    • Array Dear carriers: More walking, less talking
      Sometimes, a well-placed and well-timed letter can make all the difference. Other times, it can make no difference at all — and even hurt your case. This week's missive by the Competitive Carriers' Coalition, I would suggest, falls into the latter category.
    • More blogs »

    Tags

    Back to top

    Featured