Does SCO's behavior affect all Linux flavors? (dabian, mandrake, etc..)

To me, it seems at the very least that SCO uses some very poor business practices, sorta like they have no ambition to make their systems work, rather destroy our online community.
Their business logic eludes me. Sounds like microsucks is involved.

There is a cool article called "SCO's failing case against IBM" written by Bruce Perens here.

It ends: "When a company makes unfounded assertions for a month or two, it can be dismissed as a mistake or wishful thinking. When the distortions continue for a full year, that suggests a less innocent conclusion. There are hard questions about what's going on--especially when deceived stockholders are liable to left in the lurch."

The Forbes.com FUD is actuall a Reuters story. Reed Stevenson works for Reuters. I thought they hired journalists at Reuters, but I guess I was wrong.

> Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in
>as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement.
>They were not "purchased".

That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.

I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
CA should have known better than to allow this.

It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...

The relationship between SCOX and Canopy certainly seems, to us, like an abuse of the corporate form. I'd guess the SEC will eventually become involved.

It doesn't matter what they did or did not pay! They still "acquired" the licenses, providing validation for SCO's claims.

If the SCO license cost 1 penny, would you buy one? No? Not because you don't want to spend a penny, but because getting a license is pretty much an admission that SCO may be right.

The damage is done, and CA should be taken to task for their cowardly behavior.

Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)

Forbes.com has an article on this right now that is full of statements which don't really make sense.

I particularly liked this part: "Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury,"