[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsfe-uk] SCO's latest
From: |
Chris Croughton |
Subject: |
Re: [Fsfe-uk] SCO's latest |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:58:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Paul Mobbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 August 2003 22:46, Paul wrote:
> > Just had this through from someone who attended a recent SCO reseller
> > conference - it's a joke!
>
> Just a suggestion...
>
> If we can confirm this, legally anyone whom they demand this money from has a
> right to receive legal justification as to why they are liable for the
> charge. This is because they did not obtain the product with an explitcit
> license according to the terms that SCO suggest apply. So why not get anyone
> who uses Linux to email SCO - hopefully '000s - to demand the detailed legal
> basis for the claim?
Email? Fax them, especially if you can get headed notepaper for it, and
demand a faxed reply. Only a quid or so for each of us, but a lot for
them to fax back.
> Bumps up their costs, a bit of extra administrative pressure on their legal
> team, and perhaps helps to personalise the action between the Linux user
> community and SCO rather than just the current SCO sideswipe at IBM and the
> AIX system?
Agreed (and I'm suggsting fax for those who can do it easily and
officially, for the rest of us swamting them with email requests is a
good way to go in addition).
If they want money it's up to them to demonstrate that they have a right
to it. After all, 'Linux' (even assuming that they just mean the kernel
which bears that name) is not monolithic, I may well not even have the
bit they claim to own installed (and there's loads of the GNU stuff I
have never downloaded).
Chris C