OSDN - The Open Source Development Network :  Browse SourceForge - Shop Thinkgeek - Read Slashdot - freshmeat Downloads - Newsletters - TechJobs - Personals Search »  
NewsForge - The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source Log inCreate Account
Advertisement
   NewsForge Linux.com IT Managers Journal Developer Channels   
 
 Newsletter Sign Up

 Section: Business

Linux
"CA Says It didn’t Pay SCO no stinking Linux tax"
Thursday March 04, 2004 - [ 02:36 AM GMT ]   Printer-friendly   Email Story
Topics: Linux , Money , Software , Business , Operating Systems
By: Robin ' Roblimo' Miller

"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.

Read more at Davanum Srinivas' weblog -

 

Related Links

· Online Operating System Books
· Online Linux Books
· Linux
· More Linux stories
· Also by roblimo


JBoss' Fleury seeking for-profit open source incubator

Comments:  "CA Says It didn’t Pay SCO no stinking Linux tax"

Top  |  3 comments  |  Search Discussion  |  

Computer Associates is correct in its concern (Score:0)
by Anonymous Reader on 2004.03.05 1:23 (#87205)
Customers of EV1 are in the process of having their ip blocks blacklisted at my location. That includes web and mail servers.

So 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.

 
[ Reply to This ]
Correction must be made (Score:0)
by Anonymous Reader on 2004.03.05 1:57 (#87207)
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.
[ Reply to This ]

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    NEWSLETTER
    Sign up for the weekly newsletter.

    Advertisement

    CONTRIBUTE

    Share the news, Submit a story!

    SPONSOR LINKS

    Advertisement

    © Copyright 2004 - OSDN Open Source Development Network, Inc., All Rights Reserved
    About NewsForge  •  About OSDN  •  Privacy Statement  •  Terms of Use  •  Advertise  •  Self Serve Ad System  •  Contact Us
    Add our feed to your site