SCO appears to be willing to sell me an item for which my only knowledge is some non-binding assurances from a sales rep and a line on my credit card bill that says "Linux license".
I think this is tied in to the recent German court's fine of 10,000 Euros SCO has to pay for posting its as yet unproven claims on German websites.
I can see SCO being wary of licensing something, for gain, that may later prove to be not theirs to license.
If the SCO suite is dismissed or fails, people who bought the phantom license will have a hard time getting their money back, since they will not be able to demonstrate how they were damaged. The license fee is nothing more than a contribution, since there is nothing received in return.
You might as well spend your money one one of those magnetic things you clamp around your fuel line to improve your mileage.
The philosophy behind SCO's crypto-license may be related to the business practice of settling nuisance suites (that have little or no merit) just to avoid wasting time and money.
-- Leon A. Goldstein
Powered by Libranet 2.8 Debian Linux System G2
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
