Yes, but there are two more clinkers: (1) the amendment to IBM's original licensing deal with AT&T, which antedates SCO and gives IBM the right to do as they please with their work in connection with Unix, and (2) the third party in the IBM-SCO licensing arrangement, Novell, who apparently retain veto rights over SCO's actions, and already exercised their veto back in June.
The pit of problems that SCO has to climb out of to make their lawsuit succeed just keeps getting deeper and deeper...
Now it's clear they don't really care if anybody actually pays for a license.
The whole thing is an Enron-like ploy to create a huge accumulation of accounts receivable, so as to puff up the apparent value of the company.
Whether anybody actually pays is irrelevant.
Not quite. They're using the threat that they *might* drag somebody into court over the issue, regardless of the merits. It's an attempt to extort protection money without making an actionable threat.
They realize how hopeless and preposterous it is, to get licensing fees from Linux users in general. Instead they try to get what they can by bullying people into using (paying for) "their" Linux.
It suggests they're aware of how thin the ice is where they're standing...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there are two more clinkers: (1) the amendment to IBM's original licensing deal with AT&T, which antedates SCO and gives IBM the right to do as they please with their work in connection with Unix, and (2) the third party in the IBM-SCO licensing arrangement, Novell, who apparently retain veto rights over SCO's actions, and already exercised their veto back in June. The pit of problems that SCO has to climb out of to make their lawsuit succeed just keeps getting deeper and deeper...
Now it's clear they don't really care if anybody actually pays for a license. The whole thing is an Enron-like ploy to create a huge accumulation of accounts receivable, so as to puff up the apparent value of the company. Whether anybody actually pays is irrelevant.
Not quite. They're using the threat that they *might* drag somebody into court over the issue, regardless of the merits. It's an attempt to extort protection money without making an actionable threat.
It's pretty clear.
They realize how hopeless and preposterous it is, to get licensing fees from Linux users in general. Instead they try to get what they can by bullying people into using (paying for) "their" Linux.
It suggests they're aware of how thin the ice is where they're standing...