Shawn, On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:18:10PM -0500, Shawn Robinson wrote: > My little brother was approached by SCO yesterday regarding licensing his > linux servers so as to avoid being possibly sued by SCO for copyright > infringment. I am wondering as to what the Linux comunity thinks regarding > this Licensing program, and if it is even legal. I have my doubts > regarding the validy of their claims, but i'm want another person's > prospective on it.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Your brother may have a fiduciary responsibility to consult his organization's lawyer about this question; this is perfectly understandable, and frankly is the only reason SCO is still solvent at all at this point. If your brother has been approached as an *individual* about server licensing, not as a representative of a company, and does not have a lawyer, I think that's something we would like to know, as I'm sure the community would want to begin arrangements for a pro bono defense and a suitable PR campaign in such a case. That said, for my money, SCO's tactics smell of racketeering; but it's up to judges to make the final decision about whether they're actually illegal. Whether or not SCO are eventually found guilty of racketeering, popular opinion is certainly turned against them, and few people believe they actually have a valid case of their own -- including previous would-be investors, judging by the beautiful slide in their stock values over the past year. It's worth noting that various Unix hard-hitters, such as IBM and Novell, have also had more than a few things to say about the validity of SCO's claims. If it's within your brother's power to avoid it, I would most heartily agree that he should avoid throwing money to that pit of sharks. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
