[NTLUG:Discuss] found this on SCO vs Linux

[fredjame]

The tactic deployed by SCO is one of intimidation.  From the "small fry" 
persective it may seem like a choice of the lesser of two evils: (a) a 
court case against an opponent that is prepared to spend more money than 
most of us will ever see, or (b) pay the questionable "license fee" and 
get on with one's life.  But on the SCO side, one wonders:  (a) are they 
that desparate for money, (b) do the hope to decrease the public 
acceptability of Linux, much as Oracle tried to squash the People Soft 
buy out of JDEdwards, (c) do they think a rash of little, easy, 
conquests of little people will lend support for their case against IBM 
or any other big target, (d) are they trying to shake Linux out of any 
company (large or small) that might be attracted to a cost effective, 
stable, reliable, computing solution, or (e) some combination of the 
above.  Of course there are without a doubt many other possibilities, 
including the possibility that someone at SCO has their neck on the 
block and the activity might simply be a ploy to save their own skin.

Kenneth Loafman wrote:

> Quoted from Slashdot...
>
> ashitaka writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that an Open 
> Source group has gone on the offensive in response to SCO's latest 
> demands that Linux users must buy a Unixware license to avoid any 
> possible future unpleasantries. 'Open Source Victoria today filed a 
> complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 
> asking it to investigate SCO's activities in light of 'unsubstantiated 
> claims and extortive legal threats for money' against possibly 
> hundreds of thousands of Australians.' I especially like the last bit: 
> 'One feels that this whole fiasco is the IT industry equivalent of a 
> Nigerian scam or internet extortion ploy.' Oh yeah.."
>
> See this link for the full story:
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853121030.html
>
> ----------
>
> A single user may not have much effect, but a class-action countersuit 
> would certainly get their attention and could result in an injunction 
> against collection until after the case was settled.  If we can drag 
> this out long enough, then their sources of income dry up and the SCO 
> problem will just go away.
>
> We don't pay the Microsoft Tax, why should we pay the SCO Tax?
>
> ...Ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-- 
...small is beautiful.