Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Identifies EV1Servers as Linux Licensee 740

jasonhamilton writes " 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Identifies EV1Servers as Linux Licensee

Comments Filter:
  • by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil@evilempire[ ] ['.at' in gap]> on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:22PM (#8431421)
    Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.

    You can pick up your award at /dev/null
  • by chrisopherpace ( 756918 ) <.ten.gsnh. .ta. .ecapc.> on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:22PM (#8431426) Homepage
    Linux Users Identify EV1Servers as Dumbasses
    • No kidding... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:34PM (#8431663) Journal
      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:
      " Leading Hosted Service Provider Deploys Windows-based Hosting Solutions Faster than Linux-based Solutions "Business managers at EV1 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 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.
      • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Informative)

        by batkiwi ( 137781 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:41PM (#8431790)
        EV1servers is basically the same "type" of company as (just competing with them).

        They offer dedicated servers with no support (beyond basic setup of the machine) in either linux or windows.

        That article is just saying that initially they offered ONLY linux b/c it took too long to deploy windows servers, but now they can deploy windows servers even faster than they can deploy linux servers.
        • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GraZZ ( 9716 ) <jack@jackm a n i n o> on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:00PM (#8432076) Homepage Journal
          I'm really confused by the Microsoft Case Study [] of EV1servers. It talks about how it takes 45 minutes for EV1's to build a RedHat system by hand (although the by hand/scripted automation points are both brought up in the article), and 18 minutes to image a system with Windows. Why not just image the Redhat systems as well?

          Also the Windows solution is praised as not requiring techs to physically touch the new systems that they're working on. Does this mean Microsoft has some sort of network booting now?
          • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:45PM (#8432682)
            You're comparing apples to oranges. EV1's Linux servers at the time of that article were being built in-house using parts bought in bulk because they were throwing so many online so fast. Windows servers, however, wasn't that big of a product line, so they bought those pre-made.

            Every time they introduce a new hard drive size, they have to remake the image they're going to use. Every time a security patch needs to be applied, they need to update all of the images they're currently supporting, and that usally means a total rebuild. Not to mention, they support multiple control panel products on Linux.

            The Windows product line, so far at least has kept itself a lot simpler, so they're likely just working from a single installer program to do that.
          • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Wyzard ( 110714 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:49PM (#8432729) Homepage

            Yes, Windows (XP and 2003, possibly 2000 as well) can be installed via PXE using Remote Installation Services. Microsoft even provides a PXE boot floppy for use with systems that don't provide it in the BIOS.

            RIS requires a specially-configured NTFS partition (you can't put things other than installation images on it), and uses hard-linking to save space on duplicate files between similar installation images.

            Of course, this doesn't address the question of why they don't image the Linux systems. It's certainly not very hard to do.

        • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by linhux ( 104645 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:08PM (#8432171) Homepage
          It is not true that EV1Servers offers no support. We've hade help from them when installing custom kernels and more. They are not very talkative, but they do respond and can fix even quite complicated user fuckups. :-)

          But I was a happy customer (with three servers online, each of them happily pumping out several hundred gigabytes of data per week in many mbps, and planning to adding even more servers) until now. Now we are, of course, pretty pissed off and will consider leaving EV1Servers entirely.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @04:22PM (#8433077)
        I used to work at ev1servers. I was there when they first deployed their windows boxes. It was a huge mess, like most new things are. We all generally had a shared feeling of hatred for the new windows servers. Over time the dust settled, but supporting them has always been hell. Sometimes there just isnt much you can do when a GUI breaks and binary files it uses get corrupt. And the control panels for windows are a joke! I couldnt believe Ensim for windows.. and Helm, HAHA. They're probably the worst attempt at control panels I've ever seen. Maybe it has something to do with the closed source nature of IIS, but they are horribly broken and hell to support people with.

        The point of this is, I remember the day when we got that article sent over to us from Microsoft. I saw a hard copy with little graphs showing how much easier and quicker it is to set up our Windows servers compared to Linux servers. It was sent to us so that we could approve it and sign off on all the quotes about how much we love Windows at Ev1Servers. I cant think of a single person who likes the Windows servers except Robert Marsh. Of course he never really knows whats going on and buys into windows being the next big thing. From that moment on I knew NEVER to believe in official opinions made by companies. Most of the articles you see are one big controlled commercial publicity stunt. That article pissed us all off.

        By the way, about the deployment of Linux servers vs Windows servers. We were easily able to install a firewall on all of our unsold Linux servers that blocks out everyone but a few ips. When the server is sold, the signup script can automatically log in and disable the firewall with iptables so that the customer can reach his new server.

        However, to my knowledge, to this day, Ev1servers has still been unable to do this on Windows servers. I think that says a lot about how usable Windows is as a server.
  • Arggh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SisyphusShrugged ( 728028 ) <me AT igerard DOT com> on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:23PM (#8431439) Homepage
    SCO uses its bullying tactics to get some money after all...shouldnt the anti-extortion laws be in effect in this instance...maybe that is just wishful thinking!
  • by NeoGeo64 ( 672698 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:23PM (#8431448) Homepage Journal
    More SCO news? I reckon they're getting desperate [].
  • by johnhennessy ( 94737 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:23PM (#8431451)
    As a customer of Ev1 I'm definetly upset.

    So far I have no complaints against EV1, but a measure like this is only going to hurt its customers - we're going to be the ones who end up paying for the SCO license.

    I always told my friends that I'd never buy a SCO license - what do I tell them now.

    • by void* ( 20133 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:25PM (#8431478)
      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.
      • by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:44PM (#8431843) Homepage Journal
        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.

        I'm not a hosting customer, but I am a dialup customer []. The initial news that they've paid their protection money to SCO annoyed me, but then I remembered why I signed up with them in the first place.

        Back in mid-2003, they suffered a transformer explosion and fire []. Their backup systems kicked in, and they could have easily gotten away with letting the whole thing pass. But they didn't.

        They brought in two backup generators -- one to run things, and one as a backup for the backup. That ain't cheap -- it was a 3000 kVa transformer that exploded, and that sounds like an awfully large item to replace (times 2) in 12 hours -- especially since the explosion happened at 7pm local time, when Generators-R-Us is probably closed for the day.

        But that's not all -- instead of sweeping the whole mess under the rug,'s senior technical personnel were on the message boards with up-to-the-minute updates throughout the ordeal. They even posted pictures of the aftermath []. That takes some guts!

        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.

        Stay with EV1, folks. They're victims, like you... they're just trying to limit the damage.
        • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:59PM (#8432065)
          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.

          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 ... the rest of us are not in this position, SCO rhetoric and nonsensical ravings aside.

          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.
        • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:00PM (#8432067)
          They're also getting the kind of publicity money can't buy out of this... which they timed just as they're about to open a new datacenter. "Server farm you've never heard of pays off SCO" is a far better story than "Server farm you've never heard of opens second datacenter". EV1 can write this all off as cheap ads...
    • by roadies ( 748234 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:29PM (#8431562) Homepage
      I'll be the first to jump on this bandwagon. I've been an EV1/Rackshack customer for a few years. They've generally been a very good provider and they're support is outstanding. I have run into a few issues with their Ensim license in the past that almost made me leave them. Now I'm supporting SCO through them?! Bullshit! Time to take a better look at Server4you,, ServerMatrix, and some other dedicated server providers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:24PM (#8431469) the fact that they suddenly can no longer access the support forums to complain of this affront to legal decency.
  • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:25PM (#8431472) Homepage Journal
    If this was a legit transaction their stock price would be rocketing - however I just checked at the stock is langishing and even the volume is moderate. I suspect more details will emerge on this one and we will find out this like the "partner" announcement last week.

    In the meantime anybody hosting at this company? time to move away folks. I do not want to host my business at a company who lacks basic judgement.

  • by Johnny_Law ( 701208 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:25PM (#8431475)
    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/html/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40 There seems to have been a slight problem with the database. Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser. You want me to what? Well if you insist...
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:25PM (#8431484) Homepage Journal
    "EV1 Servers - Passing The Savings On To The Customer"

    "SCO - Playing The Chump Card As Long As We Can"

  • by RocketJeff ( 46275 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:26PM (#8431500) Homepage
    Yes, for all those people wondering, used to be known as

    goto [] and you'll get the 'official' word (and a redirect to

    For some reason there seems to be a lot of confusion about this.

  • by toygeek ( 473120 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:26PM (#8431501) Homepage Journal
    So far SCO has been basically saying "You need to buy a license from us to use Linux commercially." Now a well known company actually BUYS the license.

    What does this do for their case? Are they going to come forward and say "See, EV1 bought a license. Now YOU need to buy a license!" or what? Really, what does this do for them legally? Anything. I sure hope not.
    • What does this do for their case? Are they going to come forward and say "See, EV1 bought a license. Now YOU need to buy a license!" or what? Really, what does this do for them legally? Anything. I sure hope not.

      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.

  • Thats good news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:27PM (#8431509) Homepage
    ...that they released the company name which contributed to the assaults on Linux's name. I know now which hosting company not to choose.

    In fact they should release all names of companies licensing Linux from SCO. Better yet, the names of their CEOs, their email addresses and business types. It will show the quality of business decisions going on within those places and will decrease certainity of investors who know about the whole SCO fiasco.
  • by BladeRider ( 24966 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:27PM (#8431516) Homepage
    They included the statement, "at our customers request." You can bet they'll be passing the cost of the license on to their customers.
  • by Roached ( 84015 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:29PM (#8431553)
    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/html/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40

    It appears they are no longer a dedicated hosting company...
  • by Cheap Imitation ( 575717 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:29PM (#8431563)
    (mobster voice) You know, you sign an agreement with SCO, we can't protect you, you know? Things happen. Geeks get riled up. Servers get Slashdotted...

    It'd be a shame to see that happen to a nice little company like yours... (/mobster voice)

    Tongue-in-cheek, folks!

  • by Pengo ( 28814 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:30PM (#8431580) Journal
    Hello Sir,

    I was considering your service for a customer I was doing consulting for, they have built a small web based data driven application for doing internal CRM. Looks like my final recommendation is going to be racksaver as they are not in corroboration with The SCO Group.

    I have read the terms of their license agreement, and I don't see anything of value in that contract. Contrary seem to open yourself up to their crosshairs in the future exposing yourself, and anyone that I would recommend to your service. I also strongly feel that they are weaving nothing but lies and decept in their practices, and I can't help but wonder what your company must have gained by doing business with them.

    Unfortunately, I do fear that your going to have a backlash of bad press come from this and will be nothing but harm for your company. (Again, another reason that I would in the future not recomend anyone to do business with EV1Servers.NET, I don't believe you can sustain a business with that kind of bad press).

    I suggest reading the following website:, as I am sure that it's just a matter of hours before your company is front page to it and will definitely be posed as a sacrificial lamb. Having been a business partner/owner myself, I would strongly suggest that you put a clear stance on the front page of your website regarding the purchase. The community that feeds you business will turn on you if you don't. I personally have been completely turned off by the news.

    I hope you don't feel this letter was an attack, nor do I expect a response. I hope that the matter might be resolved before further harm is done to your business. Today you just lost one potential customer. I felt enclined to at least notify you why that would be, as maybe it can be corrected.

    Kindest Regards

    CTO - XXX Xxxxxxxxx
    • by dmdollar ( 742298 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:51PM (#8431962)

      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...
    • by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:54PM (#8432011)
      Unfortunately, letters like this do little good when they are filled with spelling and grammar mistakes. I don't mean to insult, but if your grammar and spelling are below average, you really should make use of spell check and grammar check in your e-mails. People will take them more seriously.

      Maybe I just think that because I was raised by a mother who majored in English and a father who is a journalist, though. I tend to give less credence to correspondence that's poorly written, for good or for bad.
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:31PM (#8431597)
    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.
  • Netcraft sez... (Score:5, Informative)

    by phil reed ( 626 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:31PM (#8431601) Homepage
    The site is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

    The site is running Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) mod_gzip/ PHP/4.3.2 on Linux.
  • Well.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZoneGray ( 168419 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:32PM (#8431624) Homepage
    I'd be inclined to be a little upset, too... except that I don't run EV1 (though I do admin a few servers there), and so it's really none of my business. But I was wondering how long it would take for SCO to go after those kinds of people, since they're obvious sources of cash.

    It sucks to see them feed the beast, but it may have been the smartest thing for them to do. They're an agressive company, growing like hell, and the last thing they need is to be the point defendent in something like this. So I understand the temptation to just pay it off and get it behind you.

    I imagine SCO will next turn to smaller hosts, who will in turn make their own decisions.

    What would be really nice is to have the darned courts get on with it, and actually decide something in this case. Most folks think SCO will go down in a ball of flames, but until that's determined, their claims are so wide-ranging that nobody can afford to take even a small chance. Until the courts start to give some indication of where they stand, this stuff will continue.
  • by Iphtashu Fitz ( 263795 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:32PM (#8431628)
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:33PM (#8431645)
    In an effort to provide our customers the highest levels of service and investors the highest returns on investment, EV1 proudly announces our acquisition of the Brooklyn Bridge. In an exclusive bidding, EV1 acquired the bridge for approximately 25 million dollars, well below the projected market rates. EV1 expects revenue from bridge tolls to fund further purchasing of SCO licenses and fund expansion of our world-class MSCE support staff.
  • by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:36PM (#8431703) Journal
    EV1 has stated that they are using RHEL and BSD if you check out this post at groklaw:

    OT: Robert Marsh (CEO of interview Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST view_ev1servers_ceo_robert_mar sh.html

    Q. You recently made a long-term commitment to Red Hat Enterprise as EV1Servers' standard Linux OS going forward, and have also begun offering FreeBSD. What factors guided your decisions on the "OS road map" for EV1Servers for 2004 and beyond?
    A.Our number one consideration was long-term stability. For the majority of our users, web servers are business tools, not unlike phone systems or copy machines. They expect the equipment to work smoothly, and have no interest in devoting significant time and attention to frequent updates. We felt that RHE's 12-18 month release cycle and 5-year support timeframe would best meet their needs.
    We also took into account our customers' feedback. While most were strongly supportive of our selection of RHE, we also received a significant number of requests for FreeBSD as an alternative. And that's what we now offer.

  • by ConnortheMad ( 546429 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:41PM (#8431795)
    With an additional 30,000 projected servers at capacity. If their licensing is yearly, this may have simply been a calculated move, to pay them now before the additional servers come online, so they could have a year of operating profits to pay them next year. They buckled to the pressure, as they are about to go through a giant expansive phase and don't wish for the SCO to jeopardize it.
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:45PM (#8431866)
    Just a suggestion to make the best of a bad situation: Alter the name slightly to "Ev1lServers" and market to supervillains. It's a tight market, but if you've got salespeople willing to check hollowed-out volcanos and old missile silos and the like, they've got mountains of under-utilised capitol. Just make sure you get as much money as you can up-front - they're prone to dissolve without warning despire their large resource base, or to kill your salespeople once the product is delivered. But with names like SCO and Ev1lServers, it's hard to go wrong!

    [The above is not intended as real advice - I feel compelled to mention this because their company actually did get an SCO license]

    Ryan Fenton
  • (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:48PM (#8431911)
    Apparently, a lot of people weren't happy with ev1 even before this:
  • by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:50PM (#8431938) Journal
    Subject: Business opportunity.

    Dear friends,

    I am Seth. Just Seth. From god, to Kane, to Seth. I'm his right hand and I've got a business opportunity for you. You see, back in 1972, I have patented RAM memory. Allot of people realized how great my idea was and promptly started ripping me off. I assure you however that I am the logal patent holder for RAM memory but I'm not going to show anyone. From this day forth i would like to use this to claim some minor royalties. I would like $ 499,98 per megabyte of SDRAM, $ 799,98 per megabyte of DDR SDRAM and $ 10 per kilobyte of EEPROM. I will accept these royalties in unmarked 1000 ( one thousand ) dollar bills, left in non-descript paper bags behind the dumpter, next Wednesday.

    Thank you, for your time and for respecting my patent.

    I will be in touch in a few days regarding my patents for boolean values, macros, flash memory, DVDs and 19" rackmount cases. I assure you that I am the sole parent holder of all these items but I won't show anyone. Again, thank you for your time.

  • by ImpintheBox ( 153919 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:00PM (#8432077)
    Microsoft provides the SCOG $millions in loan cum licensing deal to attack their No. 1 threat, Linux.

    Microsoft touts EV1 in Win2003/Linux case study.

    Netcraft names EV1 the top Win2003 hosting provider.

    EV1 has amazingly low, low pricing for Win2003 servers.

    EV1 buys SCO IP license just days before Q1 conference call, and on the day of the PIPE and Boies deals deadline.

    Coincidence or Conspiracy? Let the DoJ make the call.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:27PM (#8432446) Homepage
    • EV1 Servers provides low-cost dedicated servers for adult Webmasters

      ... "Adult customers represent a significant proportion of EV1Servers' user base," he says. "I can't give you exact stats, because we don't review and rate content hosted on our network. But I can tell you that adult users are highly valued members of our community." -- Robert Marsh, EV1 CEO.

    Ref: []

    EV1 even links to that article. []

  • by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <> on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:41PM (#8432626)

    "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.

  • by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:45PM (#8432671) Homepage Journal
    If you are an customer with a linux hosted server with root access, you could effectively Catch 22 the company with a GPL Vs SCO licensing paradox.

    1) Logon to your hosted Linux webserver.
    2) Download a copy of the Linux kernel binary and all the modules.
    3) are making use of derived works under the terms of the GPL. They are obligated to provide the source code under the terms of the GPL if they make the binaries available to the customers.
    4) Under the terms of the GPL, must either make the binaries avilable on the same place, or BinaryOnDifferentSites []

    Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
    5) Any such arrangement in (4) would be a violation of the SCO Group's License with - Catch 22.
  • by ChangeOnInstall ( 589099 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @05:59PM (#8434095)
    I leased a server from EV1 back when they were called Over the course of a week, the server had to be re-imaged three times due to a problem that I never quite managed to diagnose but that most certainly caused everything to stop working right quick. Their techs were stumped over the matter.

    They had a minimum six month (or perhaps 1 year) contract at the time. I informed them that given that we could not get the server working in a reasonable amount of time, that I was going to go ahead and go elsewhere. They informed me that I had a contract, and thus I could not do that without paying a fine. I informed them that a contract is an agreement with mutual obligations between in this case two parties, where one party (me) provides money in exchange for the other party (RackShack) providing a service (dedicated hosting). Given that RackShack had failed to provide the services stated in the contract, I was under no obligation to provide money.

    This illicited the response of "but sir, you signed a one year contract". Finally I worked my way up through about three levels of management until I got to someone with a bit of authority. At this point I was (seriously) threatening legal action if they didn't refund all money and cancel the account. At first the woman I dealt with upheld the "you're locked in, sorry" argument, right up until the point where she offered to check the situation with her legal dept. The next phone call involved an apology and a check.

Trap full -- please empty.