Gadgetopia

EV1 made a socially ethical business decision. Whether the SCO lawsuits are valid or frivolous, EV1 has the responsibility to keep its customers online if it wants to continue to do business.

EV1's customer service has always been oriented toward keeping its customers running. Even during their transformer explosion last year, they brought in external generators to keep everyone's web business running so smoothly that the only hiccup was the delayed announcement of new services.

As far as the affect on the global Linux world, we all know that SCO should eventually lose this fight. That result will come through the courts and not be validated by any company that pays a potentially bogus license. At least our servers (I host with EV1, too) are safe during that litigation.

I agree with you that EV1 is making the move in order to protect their customers. I was perhaps a bit too harsh with the last sentence of the post.

However, I would have far preferred that they follow the lead of Novell, HP, and other vendors, and refuse SCO, then indemnify their customers from any legal action as a result.

Their current action basically states that they're playing it safe by bowing to SCO's (probably empty) threats, which of course helps SCO both legally and financially. This puts the ball in our courts as customers, since it's now our funds that are supporting SCO. This means that we have to decide for ourselves whether to stay put and acquiesce to this decision, or take our business elsewhere.

Owen, why do you always side with the criminals?

eWeek has an article discussing the reaction to this on EV1's forums. I take most of it with a grain of salt since you don't post to forums about stuff that's not concerning you. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542043,00.asp

As has been offered, there seems to be two options for EV1: What they've done, or what Novel et. al. have done. The intrinsic problem legally with what Novel has done is that it leaves them open for litigation should the SCO claim be proven in court.

I'm not up on the size of Novel these days, but last I cared, they weren't in any position to be fending off law suits that could cost them millions. I posit that by taking this stance, Novel's customers may be removed from direct danger of litigation, but would also be subject to the loss of Novel as a whole by consumption in the courts.

That's why I think EV1 made the smart move in terms of staying alive for their customers. I have more faith in a company that is willing to hear the arguments in court, protect my rear while it's going down, and continue to exist when it all shakes out. This is as opposed to the ethical couse of Novel and company who have effectively given the finger not just to SCO, but to the court and their customers.

For the record, I'm not on SCO's side, nor do I think they or EV1 are criminal, but believe them to be justifiably seeking to protect their IP interests, as misguided as they may be in garnering the ire of this affected community.

Owen, you use really big words. Ire? Who the hell uses that anymore? GArnering? Whoa, man, slow down a bit.

I still think they're crooks, and you seem to always been on the wrong side of the ethical line. You and Mark Geragos.