In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
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.
Read up on www.groklaw.net for why SCOG don't have any claim (note the
use of "SCOG" - they are *not* the SCO of old...)
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.
Contact Novell. If SCOG's claims have any hint of validity, Novell will
almost certainly give you a form waiver. And anyway, if you reply to
SCOG saying that you'll happily pay up *after* "SCOG vs Novell" settles
the copyrights in their favour, then should SCOG actually carry out any
threat to sue, you just file to have the case stayed.
Yup, it's a hell of a nuisance, but basically that's SCOG's plan -
extortion via hassle. You've got to make sure that any hassle rebounds
on SCOG. And should SCOG (via some incredibly impossible happening)
manage to win against Novell, you pay the licence fee and that's the end
of it (you hope). See Daimler-Chrysler for why it might not be :-(
But SCOG are likely to be bankrupt before any case against you would get
unstayed.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
