These SCO clowns are out of their minds! Read this transcript of a conference call following their press release. (Transcript cut-and-pasted from here.)

------------------------------
Well, I just got off the phone with the SCO conference call, and it is even more unbelievable than I imagined. Read on for the details of the call.

Here is the summary of SCO's points:
1. Linux 2.4 series kernels contain copyright violations of SCO's System V code in three ways. There are hundreds of files, they say:
a. Literal copying of the source code
b. Literal copying of derivative works without permission
c. Non-literal copying of SCO methods and processes

This code applies to code that gives Linux multi-CPU capabilities (SMP). Without the offending code, Linux would have little or no SMP capability. a) code has come from multiple vendors
b) is NUMA & RCU (Read, copy, update).
c) very vague about this

They said that they may sue individual enterprises regardles of the case against IBM. "If the actions are in violation, they are in violation, whether or not it has been determined in a court and it is not dependent on the IBM case". (that is paraphrased but was stated by David Boisem their attorney).

In order to avoid the possibility of being sued (aren't they nice?) enterprises will be held harmless if they ALSO PURCHASE A SCO UNIXWARE 7.1.3 LICENSE for each instance in which they run Linux.

Points from the Q&A Section:
Q: Is this the first time SCO is elevating its claims to include copyright infringment?
A: Yes, since SCO received copyright approval on their source code back from the USPTO now.

Q: What are the penalties?
A: From Boise: There are additional penalties provided under copyright law when there are willful violations. He is saying SCO is letting people know today what their obligations are.

In other words, they are going to claim willful violations against end users.

Q: What is the Red Hat and other distributor liability?
A: Under copyright law, people are liable for copyright infringement and for contributory infringement. So anyone that contributes to the infringement can be sued.

I WILL KEEP UPDATING AS IT IS STILL ONGOING, BUT I WANTED TO PUBLISH THIS UP NOW.

Q: Did you just get these copyrights?
A: Yes, but you don't need to have the copyright approved by the USPTO to have copyright rights, but you do have to have it to bring a lawsuit. So, we got them recently in the last couple of weeks.

Q: Will you sue end users?
A: We are concentrating on commercial users that are benefiting/profiting from Linux. For now.

Q: Have u spoken to Linus Torvalds? How do you know the origins of the code?
A: Our programming teams have looked at this and have determined where Linux is infringing and where it is not. We know what is ours.

We have done email exchanges with Linus. We agree this case dealt with just a contract dispute w/ IBM. Up to today. But AS OF TODAY it is different. It is a copyright and IP rights case now.

UPDATE 2 FROZEN HERE. More to come.

Q: Will you adjust your earnings guidance because of this?
A: IDC says there are over 2 million 2.4 Linux kernel version servers out there. With a SCO Unixware license program in place, we are talking about a multi-billion dollar issue here. We are not willing to discuss earnings guidance at this point.

Q: Earlier you said you were still a products company and not a strictly IP company. This appears to have changed and you are now an IP company. Would you agree with that assessment? Linux has succceeded while your product failed in the marketplace.
A: Our Unixware product was damaged by Linux and that is why it isn't successful. That is why we are doing this. We didn't faill, it is Linux' fault we failed.

Q: Don't you violate the GNU license with this plan?
A: No, because we put in just a run-time only license for our Unixware product. Thus users can run both licenses at the same time and our license plan does not violate or conflict with the GPL which deals with source code licensing.

Q: Are you saying all code contributed to Linux by Unix vendors is infrignging?
A: No. Vendors have contributed thousands of files, while we are only claiming violations of HUNDREDS of files contributed by companies who are/were System V licensees.

Q: Will Red Hat have to pay for every copy they sell on top of what the end users pay?
A: No. The end users will have to pay. But the vendors didn't protect their users from IP claims, an unprecedented situation. Thus the users will be looking toward the vendors to cover them on this.

Q: Do the contributory infringment claims include system VARs and integrators?
A: Boise: It could include those companies, and we have shown our willingness to litigate via the IBM case, but we would prefer not to have to litigate if we don't have to. We're just that nice. As long as you pay us what we want, we won't sue you.
------------------------------

Is anyone else here as sickened by this as I am? What they're really doing now is mounting a FUD campaign would make Billy Gates envious, in the hopes that they'll find people who are gullible enough to think that SCO now holds the keys to the "Only Legal Linux." Are they on drugs??? SCO needs to hire a PR person, and soon.

Also, can anyone who knows GPL intricacies better than I shed light on whether what they're doing with "run-time only" licensing of Linux code is actually legal? It seems to definitely violate the spirit of the GPL, but is it also in violation of any GPL clauses? The rambling topic on Slashdot is polluted with people who think they know what they're talking about, so I figured I'd ask here instead.

I loved Linus Torvalds' quote: "I allege that SCO is full of it."

The thing about Linux is that the open-source model shows the history of where all the code came from, something SCO isn't able to do, at least not publicly the way Linux can. I'm curious to see exactly what SCO shows in court, if they can prove that the literal cut-and-paste of their source code really happened.

I'm curious to see exactly what SCO shows in court, if they can prove that the literal cut-and-paste of their source code really happened.

Yeah, that will all play out in the courtroom, and I think they know that what they're currently doing won't hold up in court. But that will take years, and in the mean time, what they are hoping to do is make money, and in the process, I think they're hurting Linux as a whole.

It just sickens me that a company can use its power like this to extort money, when in reality, less than 1% of Linux users would even be using the lifted SMP code in question, which, by the way, hasn't been verified in court.

Do we really need various factions of Linux stakeholders to be fighting each other while Microsoft continues to grow stronger? I am sure that Microsoft execs are watching with smiles on their faces as Linux does its best to destroy itself from within.

And yes, I used way, way, way too many commas in most of my sentences above. Sorry, Bitt.

My opinion: They are doing this to get bought. The gambit is, if they can drum up enough "proof" that they can get licence payments for linux, someone will buy them to be the soul "owner" of linux. How many companies would jump at that?
Bottom line is money. SCO CEOs get paid, company that buys them gets paid, us end users get screwed.

Yeah, I've seen that theory passed around on Slashdot. I saw a good post there which offered some legal problems with that strategy, including making them very ripe for a countersuit of some point. Don't remember the details, but all I know is that even in the hard, cold world of business, you gather more flies with honey than vinegar. SCO is creating some serious bad will among its competitors, and betting the house (whatever that house is still worth) on this legal strategy... IBM, RedHat, et. al. have some high paid lawyers of their own that I think could find *something* to sue SCO for... That's the American way, after all.

I'm so, so glad I chucked my SCOX (nee CALD) stock last year for the capital loss.

I think it may be time to short it and make some money back on that loss.

The capital loss was for a write-off, and I was happy to take it.

Now where have I heard this before?

There are several chemical compounds that can be mixed with air that I consider a trade secret. Now I have reason to believe that someone has been releasing these compounds without my knowledge or consent. I'll be investigating this matter and bring charges to the guilty party.

In the mean time, anyone who is breathing is hereby notified that they are infringing on my IP rights and are at risk of being sued if they do not stop breathing. You can avoid IP issues by obtaining a license from me for $700 per head. People with astma or similar breathing problems should contact me for special licensing terms.