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."

Comments

Re:Users definetly upset.

[void*]

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.

Sure, Slashdot EV1... they're ready for it!

[LostCluster]

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.

One interesting thing to note

[Iphtashu Fitz]

SCO has become masters of twisting words in their press releases. Take a close look at what the press release says and pay particular attention to what's missing.

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.

No kidding...

[Xenographic]

You should also see what Groklaw has to say about this, here.

[From Groklaw]

Speaking of Microsoft turning up in the background, SCO's new licensee, an ISP nobody ever heard of, can be found on Microsoft's website, held up as a case study, dated September 2003, of a company that thought they wanted to go to Linux and then switched back:

"EV1Servers.net Leading Hosted Service Provider Deploys Windows-based Hosting Solutions Faster than Linux-based Solutions "Business managers at EV1 Servers.net knew that there was a demand for a Microsoft Windows-based hosted service offering, but they did not think they could deploy Windows-based servers with the same speed or level of automation that they had achieved in their deployment of their traditional Linux-based systems. Yet with the introduction of the Microsoft Solution for Windows-based Hosting 2.0, which can take advantage of Automated Deployment Services (ADS)--a powerful new server purposing tool in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition--EV1 Servers.net is finding that it can deploy a Windows-based hosting service in less than half the time it takes to deploy a similarly configured Linux system. And they can do it with much less hands-on involvement than their Linux deployments demand."

So they need a SCO IP license to run Microsoft "solutions"? Or is this another Microsoft solution for SCO? EV1's customers aren't so happy.

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:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Of course, IANAL.

Irritating Hyperbole

[Valdrax]

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.

Re:My letter to them today (sent a few hours ago)

[dmdollar]

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...

Re:Great Advertising!

[gaijin99]

But as a CUSTOMER of EV1, I am pissed that my box is now a "legally licensed SCO product". How can I possibly live this down???

By immediately severing your business ties with them, and letting them know why. The only way they'll learn is if they loose money because of this. After all, the bottom line is the only thing a corp listens to, effect it and you in turn get listened to.

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.

Re:Boycott EV1Servers

[Arker]

Not three cents a month, but three cents and it's over with, SCO can never bother with that server again.

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.

A good argument for dumping EV1...

[Dimensio]

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?