Audit terms

Audit terms

Posted Aug 6, 2003 23:19 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339)
In reply to: Indemnification, or the lack thereof by corbet
Parent article: The text of SCO's "Linux license"

Sorry! As the CTO for a small pharma co that really stuck in my craw.

How about this:

4.3 Upon written request, SCO agrees to make available to Company, in the event that SCO makes any claim with respect to such audit, its records and reports pertaining to the audit and any such records and reports prepared for SCO by third parties.

If they want to sue me under this contract for breech they allow me to request documentary proof of claim -- but they won't give me proof of claim prior to entering into the contract. How about I just wait until they prove that my GNU/Linux system has their proprietary source code in it before I agree to be bound by a license agreement based solely on their claim of right?

Besides, when I listen to My Sweet Lord by George Harrison I'm not required to pay a listen-time license fee (based on number of speakers) to Ronald Mack who wrote "He's So Fine" or Bright Tunes Music Corp., to whom the copyright was assigned. See, George lost a copyright lawsuit for plagiarising the smash hit. As an end user I don't owe Bright Tunes a dime for George's mistake. So, if SCO's case is based on copyright, why should I be forced to pay as an end user?

---

(Log in to post comments)