- Do Not ever buy a UNIX license!
- Posted by mlw on March 3rd, 2004
SCO has proved what the legal experts have been saying, they can't sue on
copyright infringement of Linux because (a) there isn't any, (b) if there
were it is not clear that it is without license (GPL), (c) it is legally
ambiguous that an end user would be responsible for copyright infringement
commited by some unknown party (i.e. if Hughy Lewis rips off Ray Parker Jr.
recipients of the CD, or the radio stations who have played the song, are
not responsible.)
The only people SCO can sue are its customers. Someone said that $699 was
cheap insurance, well, buying a license from SCO will only *increase* your
likelyhood of a suit.
- Posted by Michael Heath on March 3rd, 2004
mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message news:<_Kq1c.110770$4o.130512@attbi_s52>...
I am not at all a fan of SCO, and I don't believe they'll win their
case against IBM, but the arguments your making aren't applicable
"(a) there isn't any" SCO is currently in a lawsuit against IBM to
PROVE that there is SCO Group, INC proprietary code within the Linux
kernel. Winning this lawsuit will effectively and legally prove that
there is INDEED SCO code in the Linux Kernel.
"(b) if there were it is not clear that is is without license (GPL)"
It is EXTREMELY clear. If they win the lawsuit against IBM, it will
prove that there IS SCO code that was NEVER given ANY kind of Open
Source/Freeware/etc. license and therefore is being used illegally.
"(c) it is legally amiguous that an end user would be responsible for
copyright infringement committed by some uknown party" Your example is
irrelevant. This case is evuivelant to, in your example, the music
artist GOING to the radio station and saying "This is my music and you
have no right to play it, stop" and the radio station refusing. If SCO
tells users that it is illegal to use the alleged code in the Linux
kernel and the user CONTINUES to use it, SCO has every right to sue.
Whether they win or not is the real issue.
Once again, please don't take my comments as advocating SCO. I hate
them and I don't think theres much chance of them winning their
lawsuits.
- Posted by mlw on March 3rd, 2004
Michael Heath wrote:
SCO has removed all copyright claims from their complaint against IBM.
Since they removed all copyright claims from their action against IBM, the
case will prove nothing.
No it isn't. This is not "stealing" (for lack of a better term) a work in
whole or in substantial portion, SCO claims that there are derived works in
Linux. The work "Linux" is not owned by SCO, but SCO claims it owns some
small portion of it. The RIAA stuff only works on whole or substantial
portions of original work. SCO is claiming a derivation, and that is very
hard to prove.
The best they can hope for is to say these [n] modules are derived, remove
them.
- Posted by Hamilcar Barca on March 4th, 2004
In article <91e8407b.0403031525.5b815c15@posting.google.com>, on Wed, 03
Mar 2004 15:25:19 -0800, Michael Heath wrote:
No, they are not. SCOX' current claim is
* IBM developed some code for AIX (which they licensed from AT&T).
* Sequent developed some code for Dynix (which they licensed from AT&T).
* IBM purchased Sequent and is its successor in interest.
* IBM subsequently released some source code (from both AIX and Dynix)
under the GPL.
* Said release violates the AT&T license, with SCOX as successor in
interest.
* Due to this action, SCOX is entitled to terminate IBM's AIX and
Dynix licenses and has done so.
* IBM is continuing to possess and distribute SCOX-licensed material,
and is therefore in violation of SCOX copyrights.
This is the substance their legal claim against IBM. (I've not read the
filings against AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. They seem to be breach of
contract suits against SCOX licensees.)
Their press releases make numerous other claims; all, including the legal
claims, remain unsubstantiated and are contested by IBM, Novell, et al.
SCOX has made no such legal claim. Their claim is that IBM may not
release what SCOX calls derivative works -- although their definition, if
any, of "derivate works" is not supported by copyright law -- except as
permitted by the AT&T license.
SCOX has nade no such legal claim. They do, however, claim AIX and Dynix
are being used illegally.
--
"Until we had this concept of Web services, software on the
Internet couldn't talk to other software on the Internet."
-- Bill Gates. Chairman, Microsoft. 10/29/2003.
