Why should Linux users pay when they're not guilty?

[Deja Q]

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5163508.html

Full licenses cost $699 per server central processing unit (CPU) or $199 for a desktop PC that runs Linux. An annual license costs $149 per server CPU or $49 per desktop PC.

Many if not most of the Linux users are simply buying packaged distributions or downloading the distrbutions from the providers (Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, others...). They shouldn't have to pay a cent, they are guilty of NOTHING. It's the distributor (Red Hat, et al) who are doing wrong, if they are doing wrong and SCO has shown nothing to back up their ridiculous claim.

The others downloading the code and building their own distributions, well that's their problem. But those relying on Red Hat, et al, have nothing to fear at all...

SCO is just being a corporate jerk trying to manipulate the consumer when the consumer had done no wrong.

[JaySherman]

1. First it was IBM, then Micro$oft.

SCO. The new evil empire?

[Deja Q]

3. It stinks!!

:D

You probably did notice that "The Critic", the complete series, is out on DVD, not to advertise or anything?

SCO - just a bunch of wannabes trying to cash in on somebody else's success, making cheap claims they refuse to back up with real evidence. Even Xerox had more of a claim when Apple came and borrowed Xerox' employees, GUI code, and mouse design... (and I'm not sure Xerox did have a totally legit claim either...)

[JaySherman]

4. Buy my book! Buy my book!

I'll have to have a looksie on Amazon. Thanks for the info :)

Back to being serious. Though I don't know all the legal details I'm a bit worried about this since the courts always seem to side the companies. Who actually owns the rights to the Unix source code at this point? Is it really SCO? If it is we're fucked because right or wrong they can charge as much as they want for it. I don't think our side will have much of a case in court.

Oh btw, did you take a look at this too? http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5108956.html

Sounds like they're going with same brute-force strategy as the RIAA and attacking the user directly. This shit really pisses me off :mad:

[uberotto]

2. SCO has no claim to any code in Linux...

and anyone who pays them a license fee doesn't have any need for a computer since they obviously can't read.

Listening to SCO talk about their case against IBM and Linux is like listening to * talk about WMD and Iraq. Every time they open their mouths the story (who, what or why they are suing) changes.

[Xithras]

5. You're legally liable anyway

Legally, it's like buying a stolen car or a burned music CD at the flea market. While you may not have committed the theft yourself, and while you may not have even been AWARE of the law breaking that led to your obtaining the merchandise, you CAN be held financially responsible. In the case of the car or the CD, they would simply take them away from you and your financial liability would be limited to whatever you paid for them, but intellectual property is a little different. If SCO wins, they will be able to argue in court that end users illegally benefitted from the use of their technology, and that they should be compensated for that. Under us copyright law, that's a perfectly legitimate argument.

I don't think SCO will end up with control of the Linux IP, but if they do there will be nothing stopping them from sending every Linux user on the planet a $10,000 bill demanding payment for services.

Our lawyers did a risk analysis, and because of that we've just about completed dumping our Linux servers in our datacenter to limit our liability. Dozens of our former Linux boxes are now running either BSD or Solaris X86, and the few RedHat boxes be haven't converted yet will be offline by Friday. As baseless as our college believes the SCO claims are, it would have been stupid to place ourselves at needless financial risk just to prove a point.

[Vitruvius]

6. The word in the industry is that Bill Gates is funding the SCO litigation

on the quiet -- to hobble Linux. And it's working, even tho' SCO's claims appear to be baseless -- as Xithras' post illustrates.