[Fwd: [u-u] SCO event :|]

[Mike Kallies]

Robert Brockway wrote:
> I believe that no SCO code is contained in the kernel (except that which
> they have previously released under the BSD or GPL licences).  I also

I agree with what you're saying, only the court decision matters, and 
not much they've said really has any bite, but the GPL part bugs me a 
bit.  I've heard the GPL counterargument to SCO's ability to license 
Linux too many times.

If you read section 7 of the GPL like a scum-sucking lawyer (not to 
imply that all lawyers are scum sucking)  (I've added some emphasis to 
both of these)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

"7. ...skip... If you cannot *distribute* so as to satisfy 
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other 
pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the 
Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit 
royalty-free *redistribution* of the Program by all those who receive 
copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could 
satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from 
distribution of the Program."

Now if you read some of SCO's tripe:

http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html

"This new SCO license is a binary, right to *use* SCO Intellectual 
Property in a distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial *uses* 
of a Linux operating system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the 
kernel, and cures the IP infringement issue for binary *use* only. 
Customers who purchase this license are held harmless by SCO for past 
infringements, as well as the on-going *use* of the infringing code."


And a little bit more tripe:

"The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, 
nor does it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to 
cure infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies 
or distributes Linux source code."

(there's a little bit of FUD in there since source usage and 
distribution aren't contested, they may as well add "The license does 
not prevent us from having intimate relations with your mother" -- it's 
just as true.)

Notice that the GPL specifically avoids usage rights.  I would expect 
that if it didn't, any GPL'd code suffering from DeCSS, Frauenhofer, 
Unisys or any other patent encumbrument would crumble forcing you to 
"refrain entirely from distribution..."

Notice that the SCO babble locks on to usage rights.  It sucks at them 
like a parasite.

Of course that depends on SCO pulling some patent-like IP out of their 
patent orifice, but I find it interesting that SCO's language is so 
usage-centered.

I suppose I'm only saying that the GPL argument only goes as far as 
distribution, and that SCO doesn't seem to be attacking that.

I'm not a lawyer of course.


> I think that Darl McBride and other senior people in SCO will be
> investigated for fraud following these events.

I agree here too, investigated... yes.  Prosecuted?  They're pretty slimy.

 From where I sit, they really are knowingly and wantonly commiting 
fraud for the sole purpose of personal profit, and at the expense of 
their former allies.

-Mike

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml