SCO introduces 'resume download'

[Dr_Evil]

SCO introduces 'resume download' feature
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 30/10/2003 at 23:23 GMT



In a move likely to antagonize the free software community even further, the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

Caldera, which changed its name to the SCO Group last year, had complied with the GPL since 1995, when it first shipped its Caldera Network Desktop product, until earlier this year. Ransom Love, who left the SCO Group last summer and sold his last share in the company he helped found, told eWeek "I wouldn't want to test the GPL in court, particularly given Caldera's history of voluntary compliance with it."

IBM has countersued SCO, arguing that it no longer has the right to distribute GPL software. SCO made its position on the GPL perfectly clear in a filing last week: it doesn't think the GPL is enforceable, so it's going to carry on violating it.

The offer is only open to SCO's existing customers, and details are here. ®


related topic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33619.html

from :-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33697.html

[brichards99]

We've talking among my friends for a while now about SCO. I guess I'm constantly amazed at the stones these folks must have to take on every big name corp out there, and still earn a profit.

And I guess that's the most amazing thing . . . SCO just keeps getting more and more valuable among investors.

Do you think the GPL needs to be re-written to ensure that it can stand up to this kind of abuse?

[MrLinus]

No. The GNU Org (specifically the Free Software Foundation) needs to take SCO to court. Even if SCO doesn't however, I wonder what a judge will say when he sees this in regards to SCOs complaints.

I have strong doubts however as to how many people will actually use SCO these days as a Linux platform. I suspect that only those that have strong SCO/Caldera ties already would use it. I think their chances of new users being added is slim.

[bballad]

Originally posted here by brichards99
We've talking among my friends for a while now about SCO. I guess I'm constantly amazed at the stones these folks must have to take on every big name corp out there, and still earn a profit.

And I guess that's the most amazing thing . . . SCO just keeps getting more and more valuable among investors.

Do you think the GPL needs to be re-written to ensure that it can stand up to this kind of abuse?

they are not earning a profit, or at least that is the buzz I hear, they may be under investigation real so for their eranings reporting. Talking to some of my friends who are stock analysts, their commentranged from whos SCo to the onyl people investing in SCO are gamblers with dreams of a big IBM byout, SCO is still not a worry.

[MrLinus]

SCO must have some really funky optomitrists (sp? -- ok.. I haven't had my coffee yet.. ) working for them.

[spurious_inode]

Not only does SCO have IBM, HP, SGI, Novell, RedHat and the FSF to contend with, but they have stirred the sleeping dragon of the Open Group with their bogus claims. Their days are definitely numbered.

-- spurious

[Abtronic]

There is an extremely interesting thread on slahdot about this; heres a post i personally found rather damming:

To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.

Lets go on and look at another clause.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.

And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.

IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.

View the whole thread here