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.