SCO: to pay or not to pay

And now you cap it all with this paranoid ranting. It's classic, truly classic. Was this what you wanted out of life, to end up imitating the doomed villain in a cheesy B movie? Tell me, does that dark helmet fit comfortably? Are all the minions cringing in proper form? "No, Mr. Torvalds, I expect you to die!" I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all.

Excellent! That had me *actually* LOL!

21 posted on 08/26/2003 7:00:52 PM PDT by adam_az

Thanks for removing it, I felt it was a reference to an anotomical point that is innapropriate to the FR posting policy and will admit that I was wrong about that assumption now that you have explained it.

22 posted on 08/26/2003 7:13:58 PM PDT by Coral Snake (Biting commies, crooks, traitors, islamofascists and any other type of Anti American)

If they use the US Mail to deliver their "bills", and if they fail to prove their claims in court, might this constitute mail fraud?

23 posted on 08/26/2003 7:17:42 PM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)

I suspect that the offending code is in the same place as your offensive tagline in post #13.

24 posted on 08/26/2003 7:19:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)

FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD.

25 posted on 08/26/2003 7:19:41 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions

They might get away with the stock fraud they are engaged in, but they had better not mess with the post office.

If they use the US Mail to deliver their "bills", and if they fail to prove their claims in court, might this constitute mail fraud?

26 posted on 08/26/2003 7:24:41 PM PDT by Salo

Ok, cleared up.

Where's the code, Snake?

27 posted on 08/26/2003 7:49:05 PM PDT by adam_az

To: Question_Assumptions; Coral Snake

28 posted on 08/26/2003 7:50:14 PM PDT by adam_az

The obscene dot, eh? Have you sought help?

29 posted on 08/26/2003 8:20:25 PM PDT by per loin

Just wait till he notices that someone with the word "loin" in their name has written to him....

30 posted on 08/26/2003 9:02:57 PM PDT by adam_az

31 posted on 08/26/2003 9:05:04 PM PDT by per loin

The license also allows the possibility of being audited at SCO's expense to ensure that the user has been truthful about the number of Linux installations it has. Should the audit reveal that the user has underpaid SCO by 5% or $5,000, whichever is highest, the user also agrees to pay the price for the audit.

I've never seen a software license agreement with that kind of auditing provision. The Business Software Alliance takes pretty strong steps to find software piracy and enforce licenses and copyrights, but BSA members don't have this type of clause in their contracts.

SCO wants to really make sure they are getting all of their money on this deal.

The company has also indicated, however, that should it lose such a case, there are no provisions for refunding IP license fees.

Wow! So if the license turns out to be totally fraudulent, is the licensee is barred from any recourse?

I'd really like to see the full terms of this alleged "license" that they are offering.

Therefore, the best advice for any Linux user must be to take legal advice and then decide whether the license fee is worth paying, or whether its worth taking a chance on SCO's allegations being disproved.

That's great advice for any Linux user. It will probably cost less than $700 total to learn exactly what kinds of Intellectual property need to be licensed and under what circumstances. I suspect that the SCO "license" is more a trick to get you to sign something they can sue you over later than any kind of "protection."

I'm also curious if any Linux contributors could pursue a lawsuit against SCO based on their interference in the GPL under which these contributors released their copyrighted code.If I had made any contributions to Linux, I'd definitely see this as SCO trying to steal my copyrighted contributions and sell them as though SCO owned them free and clear.

32 posted on 08/27/2003 5:54:13 AM PDT by cc2k

All your Linux are belong to us!

33 posted on 08/27/2003 7:05:42 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)

34 posted on 08/27/2003 7:09:00 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)

To: Salo; Redcloak

Also, the FTC frowns on the practice of sending bills to people before it has been proved that money is owed.

35 posted on 08/27/2003 7:16:07 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)

Novell CTO tells SCO to put up or shut up

Legends in your own minds. As if that compels SCO to care what you think.

36 posted on 08/27/2003 9:49:37 PM PDT by Bush2000

They might get away with the stock fraud they are engaged in, but they had better not mess with the post office.
If they use the US Mail to deliver their "bills", and if they fail to prove their claims in court, might this constitute mail fraud?

"What are you so nervous about? We went up against the entire Earth Alliance and two carrier groups."
"Yeah, but this is the Post Office. They could get us in real trouble!"

37 posted on 09/04/2003 11:38:02 AM PDT by steve-b

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794