Subject: Re: SCO Drops Linux, Says Current Vendors May Be Liable (fwd)
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:55:06 +0100

on Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:16:41PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf (brian@collab.net) wrote:
> 
> OK, looks like product management finally got that memo from legal.
> 
> 	Brian
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: 14 May 2003 22:26:07 -0000
> From: brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org
> To: slashdotnews@hyperreal.org
> Subject: SCO Drops Linux, Says Current Vendors May Be Liable
> 
> Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/14/2053236
> Posted by: timothy, on 2003-05-14 20:58:07
> Topic: linuxbiz, 404 comments
> 
>    from the so-they-read-the-gpl dept.
>    [1]Hank Scorpio writes "Well, SCO is at it again. I just received an
>    email from their Developer Partner Program stating that not only are
>    they suspending all future sales of their own Linux product (due to
>    the alleged intellectual property violations), but they are also
>    beginning to send out [2]this letter to all existing commercial users
>    of Linux, informing them that they may be liable for using Linux, a
>    supposed infringing product. They mentioned that they will begin using
>    tactics like those of the RIAA in taking action against end-users of
>    Linux. This seems like it will be about as successful as the whole GIF
>    ordeal a few years back. Where is UNISYS today? Is SCO litigating
>    itself into irrelevance?"
> 
> References
> 
>    1. http://www.globexcorp.com/
>    2. http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html
> 

That infringement cuts both ways.

I see an amnesty / marketing opportunity for RH & SuSE amongst SCO
customers who may well be in material GPL violation themselves.

Dirty war.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   The golden rule of technical design:  complexity is the enemy.