On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 18:33, jdow wrote: > Justin, The article referenced commented about SCO Group, nee Caldera, > posted a major loss many times their preceding year's profit. It says > they pulled in a shyster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H<ahem> attorney to protect their > intellectual property rights. It also notes they are in a sad position > internally because they are major Linux contributors. (The BIGGEST giggle > potential here is that THEY might be the ones who posted any possible > infringing code into the kernel. That would rather mess up their IP > rights.) I think that everyone's really taking SCO's actions too far, including some of the individuals quoted in the article. The SCO group hasn't announced any intention of pursuing anyone except for some who are using the libraries from SCO Unixware. That's perfectly reasonable. If you are using their binary software without license, then they have every legal right (and moral right) to pursue you for license violation. If you're using their software, pay for it. It would be ridiculous for them to pursue violations in any GPL'd component of Linux, except possibly to have the code removed. As in the current situation with MP3 software, if patents or licenses would be imposed on the users/authors/distributors of GPL'd software, then the GPL does not allow that software to be distributed. In effect, if the SCO group were to attempt to collect license fees for any GPL'd software, they would (along with everyone else) lose the right to distribute that software. As Linux (and UnitedLinux) seem to still be a part of the SCO group's strategy, that would be a very stupid thing to do. -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
