Slashdot Mirror
SCO Identifies EV1Servers as Linux Licensee
jasonhamilton writes "EV1Servers.net has been identified as a Linux licensee, giving them the dubious title of being the first dedicated hosting company to have a licence agreement with SCO. Rather than 'eliminating uncertainty from our clients' hosting infrastructure', as Robert Marsh (CEO of EV1Servers) claims, some users of EV1 appear to be somewhat upset."
You tell EV1 that you're taking your business elsewhere, you take your business elsewhere, and you tell your friends to stay the hell away from EV1 as a hosting company.
Code or be coded.
We should boycott EV1Servers for contributing to the SCO legal fund.
Indeed. Show that sponsoring the terrorists is not tolerated.
No doubt Darl et. al will bring this up as an example of how the Linux Community (tm) attacks everyone that deals with them, but hey, there's nothing wrong with that.
Show the world that SCO is a disease that infects everyone that touches it.
Bring out the torches!
BTW, I hope nobody is moronic enough to DDOS them. It's a losing strategy. Boycott is much better.
(Obviously these guys could also be out friends, and this might be a scheme to get to SCO, perhaps for selling what they don't own or whatever, but that seems rather far-fetched).
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Now the EV1 users know just what kind of job their hosting service does. It should be a huge embarrassment for a hosting company to actually get Slashdotted. *nods wisely*
...
For those of you who aren't customers of EV1, like I am, you might want to notice that they can't take very many new servers right now because their one operational datacenter is full. However, their new datacenter more than doubles their capacity and opens this week. Oh, and a 2-week long $1 setup fee special starts soon after that new datacenter goes online.
Considering that they didn't pay the "going rate" of $699 per server, and likely got a huge discount for allowing SCO to use their name, I'm pretty sure this one's being written off as an advertising expense. Slashdot and the rest of the tech media is taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.
That's a nice theory and for a minute there I briefly considered buying an SCO license, but in reality I doubt there will be any meat left on them bones by the time IBM is done with them. Of course you could play vulture and hope that IBM gets full and leaves a few scraps for you -- but I suspect there won't be anything left of SCO other then a bloody stain on the ground where they went down. IBM will probably grind up the bones and use them to make soup before it's all said and done ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As much publicity as ev1servers.net is going to receive (negative, positive, regardless) having their servers not respond to a rush of traffic is not saying much for product...
Note in all the articles & releases that 1: there is no mention if these licenses were purchased for any amount of money 2: it only covers "SCO Intellectual Property" and 3: it makes it seem like this is a Fortune 1000 company that's involved. The release states "EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies that have signed up for a SCO IP license". Go take a look at any list of Fortune 1000 companies and check for yourself if EV1Servers.Net is listed. It's not even close.
In reading this press release it looks to me like the SCO FUD Machine is working at high speed.
Isn't it obvious? You tell them you are leaving EV1, and recommend that they refuse to deal with EV1 as well.
When SCO loses and immediately files bankruptcy because they've spent far more on lawyers then they have taken in in revenue, it might be just a little difficult for anybody to get money out of them... in fact, even if the IBM countersuit prevails, I expect they will never get paid.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It doesn't matter what the arrangement is.
What matters is that this hosting company is publicly saying that they have some arrangement with SCO, which will lend credence to SCO's claims in the minds of some.
They should be made to feel the pain - if their current customers say 'hey, I'm switching away from you because I don't want to give my money to a company that will support SCO's bull in any way, shape, or form" they will get the point.
Code or be coded.
[From Groklaw]
Sadly, that last link seems to be slashdotted already via Groklaw. The old "too many connections" PHP error. Heh.
I was apparently a bit late in submitting this article, but I have to wonder, would this action not terminate SCO's license to Linux under Section 4 of the GNU GPL?
Section 4 reads:
Of course, IANAL.
Well, that's still better than them displaying a whole lot of PHP mysql command errors. Strictly speaking, that one remaining error should go, also...
At least it shows that whoever coded the thing could at least think a little bit of this "error handling" thing. I wonder why so many PHP coders don't care enough to check if they actually have successfully got the connection and, if they haven't, bail out gracefully...
When SCO's FUD is proven to be legally worthless, SCOX stock will drop to absolute zero and the company will be bankrupt. There'd be nothing left to reclaim the money from.
Likewise, if SCO's FUD turns out to be legally valid, Red Hat goes under as everybody all at once sues Red Hat to make them pay up on their idemnification pledge.
SCO's game is one of legal deathmatch. A few bucks (not too many, just a few) is a good deal for somebody who wants to sit this whole thing out.
Check out their homepage, they are opening a new datacenter in less than 48 hours. With thousands of servers ready to go, these should sell like hotcakes with all the free publicity. People running a business don't care about "sticking it to SCO". They want a cheap server (which EV1 offers) and this newly added protection from SCO will be seen as a bonus.
Also, someone from EV1 said on the (now Slashdotted) forum that they bought a site license, not a per server licence, so they did not pay $700 * 20,000 servers. Hell, for all we know they could have paid zero. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, right?
While it might have the effect of making other companies choose to buy a license, legally it has no weight. If I set up a scam and you fall for it, and I get caught, I can't tell the judge "Look, this guy bought one, so it must be legit!" That would simply not fly in a court of law in the US.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
I was all set to get a server from Ev1servers, until I did more research.
I found many problem reports about them and decided against using them. This makes me even more glad I decided to bail from the order form.
Until there is a ruling from a judge, upheld by appeals, saying infringement has occurred, I am not willing to have ANY of my $$$ go to SCO for a "license" to use Linux, even indirectly though someone I do business with.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Repetetive tasks should be automated: <META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="3;URL=http://forum.ev1servers.net/showth<nobr>r<wbr></wbr></nobr> ead.php?s=&threadid=42229">
Not really. Look at the responses to this not just here, but on ev1 forums. Majority are negative. This is not the type of publicity that one wants.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Indeed. Show that sponsoring the terrorists is not tolerated.
Oh, for crying out loud, does every irritating jackass who uses intimidation tactics have to be called a "terrorist" now?
What a great idea, let's treat being litigious and greedy the same as being insane and murderous.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Maybe you'd have more credibility as a CTO if you knew what the word "corroboration" meant.
You are permitted to pay for GPL software, or support.
This is completely legal for EV1.
Guys,
...
Letters like this can help. However, if you're going to send an email purporting to be CTO, can we at least get some decent grammar in a letter written as a professional?
Contrary seem to open yourself up
weaving nothing but lies and decept in
fear that your going to have
Maybe there are something to those college degrees after all...
So they paid SCO's mobsters. Disgusting, yes, but I see it as insurance... like having a plan for a second backup generator in case the fail-proof first backup generator fails. The chances of SCO prevailing are slim, but non-zero... just like the chances of the backup generator failing.
... the rest of us are not in this position, SCO rhetoric and nonsensical ravings aside.
It is not insurance, it is anti-insurance. Now they have a contractual relationship with SCO, a contractual relationship which gives SCO the power to sue EV1, but does not offer EV1 any tangible protection whatsoever. See the groklaw analysis of the SCO licensing terms for specifics.
EV1 is now in a position where it can be sued by SCO and not have the lawsuit thrown out immediately
I'd say EV1 is likely in for a world of hurt, and their customers would be well advised to be looking around for alternatives.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
People complained that Wal-Mart was killing off mom and pop stores. Nothing was done and Wal-Mart indeed killed off mom and pop stores.
People complained that tech jobs being outsourced to India will hurt the job market. Nothing was done and jobs were outsoured, causing massive layoffs.
Boycotts never happen on its own.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Well, I for one, would not be surprised if SCO PAID EV1Servers to be able to use their name.
Real life is overrated.
Ev1Hosting.net (formerly rackshack) used to run primarily Linux servers. They were approached by Microsoft (as many data centers have been) and Microsoft offered them a substantial discount on 2003 server because of the number of Linux servers hosting web pages vs. 2003 shown on a certain website. Microsoft also offered free 2003 server training programs to the staff at racksha... Ev1hosting.
Rumors in the industry have it that they are being used as a primary "showpiece" for Microsoft web servers.
I know this because I used to work for the competition, and Microsoft approached us with the same offer. Mind you, we all got laid off as our jobs were outsourced to India.
Spam is here because there is a small percentage of people stupid enough to purchase the spam-vertised products. Likewise, if there is a small percentage of people stupid enough to fall for SCO's extortion, then it's a success. What are the chances that any of these "licensees" will get their money refunded when SCO loses?
Yeah, yeah, obvious sarcasm.
But you have to realize a few things. First, the failure of a mysql/PHP system just shows that their coder isn't all that great. Second, that you can get to see that error at all shows that their pipe (and the box proper) is holding up just fine.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Hmmm, given that MS paid into the SCO legal fund last year under the context of "licensing fees", and couldn't be seen to repeat, interesting how this provider goes all gushy over MS and drops a buncha money on SCO. Wonder how soon that money will be, um, replenished by Microsoft's defeat-Linux-at-all-costs PR fund?
Since the company did it without your knowledge or consent its hardly your fault, but it is your fault if you keep giving them money to give to SCO.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
"EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies"
The word "other" implies that EV1 is also a Fortune 1000 company, and it is not. SCO's ability to write misleading crap remains intact.
Except what about this SCO license--doesn't it include no-redistribution terms that conflict with the GPL? Is EV1's permission to redistribute Linux now terminated under the GPL as well as under the SCO license? Can they be required to stop offering Linux hosting, by anyone that has GPL'd code compiled into the kernel? That would include quite a few parties like Red Hat and IBM, whose attitude towards SCO is less than favorable and which have the lawyers to back it up.
EV1 may find itself much more screwed by its SCO deal than if it had refused to deal with SCO.
Regardless of whether your estimate on the money involved is in the ballpark (I tend to think it's high in fact) your final conclusion is wrong. SCO couldn't do anything about the server to begin with. Now they can. The license gives them grounds to sue that were non-existent before. It's made the situation less reliable, not more, and that's the reason that if I were doing business with EV1 (I'm not) I would terminate that relationship ASAP. I don't care if the 'license' was free, or even if SCO paid them $150,000 US to take it for that matter, it's still overpriced. It gives the buyer nothing, and gives SCO a contractual relationship on which a lawsuit could later be based where there was none before. Taking that license at any price indicates severe incompetence on the part of EV1s counsel, or even more severe incompetence on the part of their executives if they did this over the contrary advice of their counsel.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
So what are the legal definitions of fraud and extortion?
IIRC for it to be fraud you have to show that SCO intentionally midled someone. As whacked as it may seem, its possible SCO actually believes what its saying and it would be almost impossible (IMO) to prove they don't believe what they're saying.
I'm thinking at best they might be able to recover the cost of the licenses, which probably wouldn't be woth the effort.
ummm... if you are selling the license on ebay because there IBM has left nothing on the bones for you claim after they've been given the death the so richly deserve, I'm guessing the purchesor on ebay would be making a pop-culture kische purchase more than actually having need for license that a court of law said was invalid...
In addition to EV1's documented spam support, this act makes for a very good argument that the management of the company is clueless. Do you really want people so stupid as to give in to SCO's bullshit running your webserver?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Now it says:
Due to a recent slashdot article related to SCO, the forums are experiencing an extremely high number of connections, we are actively working on upgrading the servers and should be able to restore some order shortly.
Wonder if they will "upgrade" to Unixware?
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
How is this clueless?
There is, in fact, pending litigation that directly involves the ability of EV1 to continue supporting Linux. As much as the arm-chair lawyer croud on Slashdot likes to think Linux is free and clear, the case is still pending. And while the case is still pending, anything can happen. Just because the current evidence certainly makes it look like SCO doesn't have a chance doesn't mean they can't win through any number of bizarre circumstances that have nothing to do with whether or not the GPL is valid or not, actual SCO code got into Linux, or whatever. Litigation is uncertain, which is why even companies with open and shut cases often settle out of court.
Their cluelessness isn't based on whether SCO's case has a legged to stand on.
I'm saying they may have been clueless to the pandora's box that their agreement with SCO was going to open.
I doubt that Head-Surfer has anything to say that will change my mind. There are few things that 'make' us what we are individually. One of those things is who we associate with. EV1 chooses to associate with SCO. Just as I don't associate myself with crack whores or those that associate with them... I will not associate myself with a company/person that is associated with SCO.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM