Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
"CA Says It didn’t Pay SCO no stinking Linux tax"
By Robin ' Roblimo' Miller
on
March 05, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
"The Linux faithful have been hammering Computer Associates as a heretic since the British publication Computer Weekly quoting the SCO Group’s CFO Bob Bench identified CA Thursday as one of SCO’s rare Linux licensees." So says an article on Davanum Srinivas' weblog in which he denies that CA has purchased any actual Linux licenses from SCO, and he says SCO is not being entirely truthful when it claims that CA has. Srinivas is a senior architect in Computer Associates' Web Services Group. One would think he knows what's going on. (The headline above this story is direct from Srinivas' weblog, BTW.)
Srinivas continues:
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench’s claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO’s biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a “small part” of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
Comments
on "CA Says It didn’t Pay SCO no stinking Linux tax"Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Re:Computer Associates is correct in its concern
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 05, 2004 03:57 PM
Problem: I don't want to support Walmat/Sam's Club for their extremely poor treatment of their employees, but that only leaves Costco to do the wholesale shopping with.
I'll pick Costco over Sam's Club any day of the week, because I find the treatment of employees to be more important than the support of a corporation I don't like.
I'll pick Costco over Sam's Club any day of the week, because I find the treatment of employees to be more important than the support of a corporation I don't like.
I'm sure all those companies are SO SCARED that you might actually move out of your mommy's basement and not buy their products. That is one of the stupidest trolls I have ever seen, and now I'm going to show you how dumb you are and why you should blacklist yourself:
You read & post to Newsforge.
Newsforge is owned by the OSDN network
OSDN runs ads purchased by Microsoft (if any of you don't believe me you obviously haven't been here long)
Microsoft Supports SCO, and when you visit one of these sites you are supporting Microsoft by hitting theis advertisements
YOU support SCO!!!
Go ahead and blacklist yourself, preferably in a way that will render you incapable of ever posting again.
You read & post to Newsforge.
Newsforge is owned by the OSDN network
OSDN runs ads purchased by Microsoft (if any of you don't believe me you obviously haven't been here long)
Microsoft Supports SCO, and when you visit one of these sites you are supporting Microsoft by hitting theis advertisements
YOU support SCO!!!
Go ahead and blacklist yourself, preferably in a way that will render you incapable of ever posting again.
I believe that a correction by publication institutions must be made to inform the public of the truth in this matter AS SWIFTLY AND EXTENSIVELY AS IT DID THE MISINFORMATION. They owe it CA to not only clear CA of this bad rep, but highlight the fact that CA was also a victim (Canopy requiring an NDA).
I particularly like the CA statement that they had more Linux servers than the ride-on license could ever supply.
I particularly like the CA statement that they had more Linux servers than the ride-on license could ever supply.
This is like the "Linux user" that SCO is suing, Bank of America (I mean, DaimlerChrysler..., sorry, wrong month, same story) where the lawsuit is all about their contract with IBM and them supposedly infringing SCO IP that way, and nothing to do with them using Linux.
Computer Associates is correct in its concern
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 05, 2004 02:23 PMSo if you are leasing a server from EV1 and doing business from that server, you will be blacklisted at my location. Think twice before supporting EV1, a financial supporter of SCO.
SCO supporters, directly or indirectly, will not continue to get business from us. This includes the customers of SCO supporters:
McDonalds, EV1, Microsoft, Sun
and banks anyway associated with funneling money to SCO
Store 24, Pearle Vision, Costco Wholesale, Save Mart are companies we've purchased from before, and will not any longer.
Fujitsu one touch screen left, no more hard drives. NEC America, no more NEC electronic equipment. Nortel, take your ridiculous $13,000 video phones and stick them. And about those mercury switches...
HON Industries, your file cabinets were always inferior to your competitors to begin with, and now that I'm reminded of your support of SCO, I'll make sure no one here buys them even if they ignore quality and buy your crap based strictly on price. And you aren't the price leader anyway once the haggling starts.
Companies must make a decision whether to jump into bed with SCO. Because if you jump into bed with SCO, a lot of your customers will be leaving you.
With Microsoft sales at 4 billion last quarter, and Linux sales at 1 billion, and a much wider installed base of non-paid installations, Linux customers will no longer be ignored.
Or slapped in the face.
#