Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, Aug 8, 2003.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    >
    > Lunix is no longer free.
    >
    > "SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    > CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    > single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    > available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    > purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    > representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    >
    > Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.


    Rubbish

    Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    software is licenced under).
    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

    Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.

    If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/

    "And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."

    I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    > >
    > > Lunix is no longer free.
    > >
    > > "SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    > > CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    > > single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    > > available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    > > purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    > > representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    > >
    > > Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.

    >
    > Rubbish
    >
    > Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    > software is licenced under).
    > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    >
    > Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    > of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.
    >
    > If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    > http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
    >
    > "And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    > And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    > in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."
    >
    > I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    > pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.


    SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    doesn't change that.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:58 :
    >
    > SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    > covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    > SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    > doesn't change that.


    Yes, SCO has a right to licence their own proprietary code. But if they
    want to distribute it with GPL code, then it is governed by the GPL. SCO
    has distributed Linux under GPL, so _if_ there is any SCO code in it, then
    SCO has put that code under GPL. They can't undo this just 'cos they
    changed their mind.

    On the other point, if some unauthorised person has put some of SCO's code
    into Linux, then SCO may have a claim on them. But first they have to
    identify the code (which they have failed to do so far).
    Even in that case, SCO's claim is against whoever put the code in Linux.
    They don't have a claim on Linux users. For comparison, consider if NZ
    Herald included some copyright material in a newspaper without
    authorisation. The copyright owner could claim against NZ Herald, but not
    against every individual in the street reading a newspaper.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Peter

    John Fulton Guest

    Mainlander wrote:
    > In article <>, says...
    >
    >>this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    >>
    >>>Lunix is no longer free.
    >>>
    >>>"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    >>>CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    >>>single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    >>>available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    >>>purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    >>>representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    >>>
    >>>Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.

    >>
    >>Rubbish
    >>
    >>Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    >>software is licenced under).
    >>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    >>
    >>Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    >>of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.
    >>
    >>If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    >>http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
    >>
    >>"And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    >>And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    >>in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."
    >>
    >>I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    >>pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.

    >
    >
    > SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    > covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    > SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    > doesn't change that.
    >

    i suggest that you have a look at WWW.THEREGISTER.CO.UK to get an idea
    of what is going on here.

    IBM have just lodged a court claim against SCO for fraud among other things.

    The basis of the claim is that SCO issued a LINUX distribution under the
    GPL agreement. Having done that they have put everything in that
    release into the public domain and no longer have a copyright claim in
    it at all. You need to carefully read the GPL Conditions. It is quite
    likely that SCO themselves have contravened the GPL by their actions are
    by taking Court action are droppng them selves further into the deep do-dos!

    I also note that RED HAT have also lodged a claim against SCO along
    similar lines, I also note that in Europe it looks as if the Germans are
    having a serious go at SCO along the same lines also.

    I suspect that SCO made a serious mistake early on in their
    deliberations, and have now got themselves so committed to their action
    that they cannot afford to loose! I suspect that they will. These
    Court actions are injunctions against SCO who will now have to
    themselves either put-up-or-shut-up. They have backed them selves into
    a corner and I am interested to see where they go from here.

    I think that they are now quite irrelevant, I also note that their
    management have recently sold most of their own stock in the company!
    That for me speaks volumes!

    Regards to you all

    John Fulton
     
    John Fulton, Aug 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:58 :
    > >
    > > SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    > > covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    > > SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    > > doesn't change that.

    >
    > Yes, SCO has a right to licence their own proprietary code. But if they
    > want to distribute it with GPL code, then it is governed by the GPL. SCO
    > has distributed Linux under GPL, so _if_ there is any SCO code in it, then
    > SCO has put that code under GPL. They can't undo this just 'cos they
    > changed their mind.
    >
    > On the other point, if some unauthorised person has put some of SCO's code
    > into Linux, then SCO may have a claim on them. But first they have to
    > identify the code (which they have failed to do so far).
    > Even in that case, SCO's claim is against whoever put the code in Linux.
    > They don't have a claim on Linux users. For comparison, consider if NZ
    > Herald included some copyright material in a newspaper without
    > authorisation. The copyright owner could claim against NZ Herald, but not
    > against every individual in the street reading a newspaper.


    SCO has put in a license for their part of the code that is being
    distributed with Linux.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <F9%Ya.10179$>,
    says...
    > Mainlander wrote:
    > > In article <>, says...
    > >
    > >>this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    > >>
    > >>>Lunix is no longer free.
    > >>>
    > >>>"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    > >>>CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    > >>>single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    > >>>available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    > >>>purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    > >>>representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    > >>>
    > >>>Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.
    > >>
    > >>Rubbish
    > >>
    > >>Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    > >>software is licenced under).
    > >>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    > >>
    > >>Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    > >>of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.
    > >>
    > >>If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    > >>http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
    > >>
    > >>"And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    > >>And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    > >>in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."
    > >>
    > >>I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    > >>pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.

    > >
    > >
    > > SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    > > covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    > > SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    > > doesn't change that.
    > >

    > i suggest that you have a look at WWW.THEREGISTER.CO.UK to get an idea
    > of what is going on here.
    >
    > IBM have just lodged a court claim against SCO for fraud among other things.
    >
    > The basis of the claim is that SCO issued a LINUX distribution under the
    > GPL agreement. Having done that they have put everything in that
    > release into the public domain and no longer have a copyright claim in
    > it at all. You need to carefully read the GPL Conditions. It is quite
    > likely that SCO themselves have contravened the GPL by their actions are
    > by taking Court action are droppng them selves further into the deep do-dos!


    If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge that
    the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they are not
    infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the unauthorised
    inclusion of the proprietary code.

    Just because someone publishes stolen code under a GPL doesn't override
    the IPRs of the owner of the code.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Peter

    John Fulton Guest

    Mainlander wrote:
    > In article <F9%Ya.10179$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>Mainlander wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>, says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Lunix is no longer free.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    >>>>>CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    >>>>>single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    >>>>>available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    >>>>>purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    >>>>>representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.
    >>>>
    >>>>Rubbish
    >>>>
    >>>>Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    >>>>software is licenced under).
    >>>>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    >>>>
    >>>>Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    >>>>of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.
    >>>>
    >>>>If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    >>>>http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
    >>>>
    >>>>"And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    >>>>And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    >>>>in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."
    >>>>
    >>>>I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    >>>>pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    >>>covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    >>>SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    >>>doesn't change that.
    >>>

    >>
    >>i suggest that you have a look at WWW.THEREGISTER.CO.UK to get an idea
    >>of what is going on here.
    >>
    >>IBM have just lodged a court claim against SCO for fraud among other things.
    >>
    >>The basis of the claim is that SCO issued a LINUX distribution under the
    >>GPL agreement. Having done that they have put everything in that
    >>release into the public domain and no longer have a copyright claim in
    >>it at all. You need to carefully read the GPL Conditions. It is quite
    >>likely that SCO themselves have contravened the GPL by their actions are
    >>by taking Court action are droppng them selves further into the deep do-dos!

    >
    >
    > If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge that
    > the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they are not
    > infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the unauthorised
    > inclusion of the proprietary code.
    >
    > Just because someone publishes stolen code under a GPL doesn't override
    > the IPRs of the owner of the code.
    >

    It certainly does if they do it themselves. If SCO put together a LINUX
    distro with their own code in it then they are giving it away when they
    put it under the GPL - after all they have the source and prosumably
    have checked it have they not? I do not believe that IBM would be so
    silly as to put illegal code into their LINUX distro! they are too long
    in the tooth for that one!

    Regards

    To you all

    John Fulton
     
    John Fulton, Aug 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    >
    > After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO continued to
    > distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL distributing
    > Linux under GPL.
    > How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the same time
    > maintain they have no knowledge of this?


    At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people to
    purchase licenses for SCO code.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Peter

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Mainlander of Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:38 :

    > In article <>, says...
    >> this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    >>
    >> After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO continued
    >> to
    >> distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL distributing
    >> Linux under GPL.
    >> How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the same
    >> time maintain they have no knowledge of this?

    >
    > At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people to
    > purchase licenses for SCO code.


    (BTW, that breaches GPL, and terminates SCO's licence under GPL - they can't
    do it that way. They can not force their licence on people as a condition
    of using GPL code.)

    In the earlier post, Mainlander said:
    -If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge
    -that the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they
    -are not infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the
    -unauthorised inclusion of the proprietary code.

    SCO are _still_ distributing Linux under GPL. They can't say they are doing
    this without knowledge that it contains their proprietary code, and at the
    same time claim that they do know it contains their proprietary code. If
    Linux contains SCO code, then SCO has distributed it under GPL, and is
    still doing so. Since SCO put the code under GPL, anyone can use and
    distribute it without further licence from SCO. (If there is any SCO code
    in there, that is.)

    SCO is infringing the GPL if they seek to require users to buy licences in
    order to use the GPL code. See clauses 4 and 6 of GPL.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 9, 2003
    #9
  10. Peter

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from T.N.O of Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:13 :
    > "John Fulton" wrote
    > | It certainly does if they do it themselves. If SCO put together a LINUX
    > | distro with their own code in it then they are giving it away when they
    > | put it under the GPL
    >
    > not all code in any Linux Distro has to be GPL... look at Lindows.
    > As long as it is specified which code is and is not GPL, then they are
    > covered... however, from what I have read about the subject(admittedly,
    > most by pro GPL sites), I think SCO have fucked themselves over on this
    > one.


    Looks like you are right.
    That GPL is pretty clever, isn't it?


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 9, 2003
    #10
  11. Peter

    lily Guest

    "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    > > this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    > >
    > > After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO

    continued to
    > > distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL distributing
    > > Linux under GPL.
    > > How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the same

    time
    > > maintain they have no knowledge of this?

    >
    > At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people to
    > purchase licenses for SCO code.


    They are claiming that the code that IBM wrote for AIX belongs to SCO.
    IBM contributed this code to the kernel project, but do not distribute it
    themselves, they use Redhat and Suse distros so they retain their copyright.
    They didn't get where they are today without knowing about IP
    SCO Caldera however distributed their own kernel, so even if they get a
    court to say that they own the code that IBM programmers wrote for both AIX
    and the Linux 2.4 kernel, they have still ceded the licensing right under
    the GPL.
    It is going to be impossible for SCO to claim that they were unaware of the
    IBM code in the kernel they distributed because the code is the key feature
    that advances 2.4 over 2.2 and makes it suitable for the very market that
    SCO Caldera targeted under Ransom Love and Darl McBride.
    The more detail that is released the clearer it becomes.
     
    lily, Aug 10, 2003
    #11
  12. Peter

    lily Guest

    "T.N.O" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "John Fulton" wrote
    > | It certainly does if they do it themselves. If SCO put together a LINUX
    > | distro with their own code in it then they are giving it away when they
    > | put it under the GPL
    >
    > not all code in any Linux Distro has to be GPL... look at Lindows.
    > As long as it is specified which code is and is not GPL, then they are
    > covered... however, from what I have read about the subject(admittedly,

    most
    > by pro GPL sites), I think SCO have fucked themselves over on this one.
    >
    >

    The dispute is secifically about some kernel modules written by IBM for use
    in the Redhat distro they integrate.
    Its not about whole Linux distributions.
    If you are using Linux, it is unlikely that the kernel you are using
    contains any of this code.
    Even less likely in a TiVo or any other embedded device.
    Thats where SCO have got completely off the planet.
     
    lily, Aug 10, 2003
    #12
  13. Peter

    Mark Harris Guest

    On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 17:05:27 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:


    >If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge that
    >the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they are not
    >infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the unauthorised
    >inclusion of the proprietary code.
    >

    Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
    STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
    has been inserted into Linux by a third party.

    >Just because someone publishes stolen code under a GPL doesn't override
    >the IPRs of the owner of the code.
    >

    If SCO published the code, then it couldn't have been stolen.

    You really are thick, Patrick, if you can't see the fallacy in your
    own argument.

    cheers

    mark

    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Aug 10, 2003
    #13
  14. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <EH4Za.10280$>,
    says...
    > Mainlander wrote:
    > > In article <F9%Ya.10179$>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>Mainlander wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In article <>, says...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>this quote is from Robert Mathews of Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:32 :
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Lunix is no longer free.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single
    > >>>>>CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems,
    > >>>>>single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be
    > >>>>>available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or
    > >>>>>purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales
    > >>>>>representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site."
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>Time to move on to the Cheaper MS stuff.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Rubbish
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Maybe you should read the GPL (which is the licence most of the GNU / Linux
    > >>>>software is licenced under).
    > >>>>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Under clause 4, SCO's rights under the licence (eg to use or distribute any
    > >>>>of the GNU / Linux software) is terminated.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>If you don't believe me, read the IBM suit, or the commentary here ...
    > >>>>http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
    > >>>>
    > >>>>"And finally, a song of praise to the GPL. It's shining hour has arrived.
    > >>>>And it is shining manfully. If you were longing for the GPL to have its day
    > >>>>in court, you just got it. It is leading the charge."
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I guess the SCO managers sold their shares just in time. One of the biggest
    > >>>>pump and dump schemes for a long time - netted them $million$.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>SCO has a right to license their own proprietary code which is not
    > >>>covered by the GPL, if that code has been placed in Linux in violation of
    > >>>SCO's own licensing conditions, and the fact it has been published
    > >>>doesn't change that.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>i suggest that you have a look at WWW.THEREGISTER.CO.UK to get an idea
    > >>of what is going on here.
    > >>
    > >>IBM have just lodged a court claim against SCO for fraud among other things.
    > >>
    > >>The basis of the claim is that SCO issued a LINUX distribution under the
    > >>GPL agreement. Having done that they have put everything in that
    > >>release into the public domain and no longer have a copyright claim in
    > >>it at all. You need to carefully read the GPL Conditions. It is quite
    > >>likely that SCO themselves have contravened the GPL by their actions are
    > >>by taking Court action are droppng them selves further into the deep do-dos!

    > >
    > >
    > > If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge that
    > > the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they are not
    > > infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the unauthorised
    > > inclusion of the proprietary code.
    > >
    > > Just because someone publishes stolen code under a GPL doesn't override
    > > the IPRs of the owner of the code.
    > >

    > It certainly does if they do it themselves. If SCO put together a LINUX
    > distro with their own code in it then they are giving it away when they
    > put it under the GPL - after all they have the source and prosumably
    > have checked it have they not? I do not believe that IBM would be so
    > silly as to put illegal code into their LINUX distro! they are too long
    > in the tooth for that one!


    The case for SCO will be that it is only now that they have discovered
    the theft of their IP and therefore whether they already published it
    under the GPL is irrelevant. In other words the proprietary code that
    they say someone else put into the distro was illegally republished under
    GPL.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 10, 2003
    #14
  15. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Mainlander of Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:38 :
    >
    > > In article <>, says...
    > >> this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    > >>
    > >> After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO continued
    > >> to
    > >> distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL distributing
    > >> Linux under GPL.
    > >> How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the same
    > >> time maintain they have no knowledge of this?

    > >
    > > At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people to
    > > purchase licenses for SCO code.

    >
    > (BTW, that breaches GPL, and terminates SCO's licence under GPL - they can't
    > do it that way. They can not force their licence on people as a condition
    > of using GPL code.)


    The licenses are for the use of their non GPL code that they say has been
    illegally republished under the GPL.

    > In the earlier post, Mainlander said:
    > -If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge
    > -that the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they
    > -are not infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the
    > -unauthorised inclusion of the proprietary code.
    >
    > SCO are _still_ distributing Linux under GPL. They can't say they are doing
    > this without knowledge that it contains their proprietary code, and at the
    > same time claim that they do know it contains their proprietary code. If
    > Linux contains SCO code, then SCO has distributed it under GPL, and is
    > still doing so. Since SCO put the code under GPL, anyone can use and
    > distribute it without further licence from SCO. (If there is any SCO code
    > in there, that is.)
    >
    > SCO is infringing the GPL if they seek to require users to buy licences in
    > order to use the GPL code. See clauses 4 and 6 of GPL.


    But the whole claim is on the basis that the distro contains code that a
    third party illegally republished under GPL. As that party does not have
    rights to republish such code the code in question, if it can be proved
    that SCO did not license it under GPL, then SCO has a right to publish it
    under whatever license they wish.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 10, 2003
    #15
  16. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <m8gZa.10355$>, says...
    >
    > "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>, says...
    > > > this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    > > >
    > > > After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO

    > continued to
    > > > distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL distributing
    > > > Linux under GPL.
    > > > How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the same

    > time
    > > > maintain they have no knowledge of this?

    > >
    > > At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people to
    > > purchase licenses for SCO code.

    >
    > They are claiming that the code that IBM wrote for AIX belongs to SCO.
    > IBM contributed this code to the kernel project, but do not distribute it
    > themselves, they use Redhat and Suse distros so they retain their copyright.
    > They didn't get where they are today without knowing about IP
    > SCO Caldera however distributed their own kernel, so even if they get a
    > court to say that they own the code that IBM programmers wrote for both AIX
    > and the Linux 2.4 kernel, they have still ceded the licensing right under
    > the GPL.


    The case plainly is that SCO is saying the code was republished illegally
    by IBM who were not entitled to GPL publish it. If that proves to be the
    case then it can be withdrawn because it was not legal to publish it as
    GPL.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 10, 2003
    #16
  17. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 17:05:27 +1200, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >If SCO issued a GPL licensed Linux distribution, WITHOUT knowledge that
    > >the distro included proprietary code owned by SCO, then they are not
    > >infringing the GPL by pursuing legal action against the unauthorised
    > >inclusion of the proprietary code.
    > >

    > Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
    > STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
    > has been inserted into Linux by a third party.


    They issue the distro, with requirement to purchase licensing to use the
    code that they claim is theirs.

    >
    > >Just because someone publishes stolen code under a GPL doesn't override
    > >the IPRs of the owner of the code.
    > >

    > If SCO published the code, then it couldn't have been stolen.
    >
    > You really are thick, Patrick, if you can't see the fallacy in your
    > own argument.


    Just because SCO published it without knowing that it was stolen from
    them at the time, doesn't mean it wasn't stolen from them. That's so
    obvious.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 10, 2003
    #17
  18. Peter

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Mainlander of Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:58 :
    > In article <>, says...
    >>
    >> (BTW, that breaches GPL, and terminates SCO's licence under GPL -
    >> they can't do it that way. They can not force their licence on people
    >> as a condition of using GPL code.)

    >
    > The licenses are for the use of their non GPL code that they say has been
    > illegally republished under the GPL.


    Maybe that is what SCO would like to do, but GPL doesn't allow it.
    Read the GPL (and the FAQ).

    > But the whole claim is on the basis that the distro contains code that a
    > third party illegally republished under GPL. As that party does not have
    > rights to republish such code the code in question, if it can be proved
    > that SCO did not license it under GPL, then SCO has a right to publish it
    > under whatever license they wish.


    Then SCO would have a claim against that party, but they have no claim
    against users. SCO can't stop people using GPL code, and if there is some
    code that SCO thinks shouldn't be GPL, then they better speak up.

    Anyway, SCO has continued to distribute Linux under GPL, so if there is any
    of SCO's code in there, they put it under GPL themselves.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 10, 2003
    #18
  19. On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:02:02 +1200, Peter wrote:

    > If SCO has discovered it "only now", then why did they bring legal
    > action against IBM way back in March? If SCO discovered the alleged
    > theft back in January when they started spouting off on it, then why
    > have they continued to distribute Linux under GPL for months since then?


    It gets even more interesting.

    It appears from the claims made that the code they're claiming has been
    illegally inserted into the linux kernel was contributed by Caldera
    Germany, before Caldera renamed itself to SCO.

    SCO Xenix is crap (I've had to suffer the pain of using it and working
    round the y2k issues). Unixware is crap too (Ditto) and Caldera's own
    Linux distro was pretty dire too.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 10, 2003
    #19
  20. Peter

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <aKqZa.10505$>, says...
    >
    > "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <m8gZa.10355$>, says...
    > > >
    > > > "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > In article <>,

    > says...
    > > > > > this quote is from Mainlander of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:05 :
    > > > > >
    > > > > > After SCO declared that there was infringing code in Linux, SCO
    > > > continued to
    > > > > > distribute Linux under GPL. Months later, they are STILL

    > distributing
    > > > > > Linux under GPL.
    > > > > > How can they claim there is infringing code in Linux, and at the

    > same
    > > > time
    > > > > > maintain they have no knowledge of this?
    > > > >
    > > > > At the same time as distributing Linux they are also requiring people

    > to
    > > > > purchase licenses for SCO code.
    > > >
    > > > They are claiming that the code that IBM wrote for AIX belongs to SCO.
    > > > IBM contributed this code to the kernel project, but do not distribute

    > it
    > > > themselves, they use Redhat and Suse distros so they retain their

    > copyright.
    > > > They didn't get where they are today without knowing about IP
    > > > SCO Caldera however distributed their own kernel, so even if they get a
    > > > court to say that they own the code that IBM programmers wrote for both

    > AIX
    > > > and the Linux 2.4 kernel, they have still ceded the licensing right

    > under
    > > > the GPL.

    > >
    > > The case plainly is that SCO is saying the code was republished illegally
    > > by IBM who were not entitled to GPL publish it. If that proves to be the
    > > case then it can be withdrawn because it was not legal to publish it as
    > > GPL.

    >
    > Why should anyone believe SCO ?


    The case has legal standing, if SCO wins their case then it is obligatory
    to believe them. As we would say the matter is sub judice.
     
    Mainlander, Aug 11, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. StuM
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    417
    Herman Wouk
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. GraB
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    577
    Mainlander
    Aug 9, 2003
  3. Robert Mathews

    Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..?

    Robert Mathews, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    394
    Peter
    Aug 8, 2003
  4. Robert   Kramer

    Have you payed your Lunix License..?

    Robert Kramer, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    476
    Peter Harrison
    Aug 23, 2003
  5. Gregory  Parker

    This will make you all happy MS Lunix..

    Gregory Parker, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    697
Loading...

Share This Page