Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: mobrien_12 on 28 October 2003, 21:55
-
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031027193958740 (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031027193958740)
It's now official. SCO has claimed in court documents that the GPL is invalid. From what I understand, the GPL must now go on trial as part of this case.
Read the groklaw story... the BS is mindblowing
-
fucking christ :eek: :eek:
quote:
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution
This is just getting worse and worse.
Im really at a loss for words. I try to keep up with this sco thing, but fuck. It pisses me off too much.
-
The GPL is the tool of the infidels. They believe their false leader to be righteous. They will burn in their homes with their illegal linux systems. This is the way it will be says the prophet Darl.
Praise Noorda.
-
McCarthyist. The Domino effect..... My GOD!!!!
-
SCO got some nice creativity
-
I dont know what Mc'Bride and his lawyers are smoking but I want some.
-
quote:
SCO got some nice creativity
If SCO would dedicate that creativity and energy to doing their business, they wouldn't have any problems. (http://tongue.gif)
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
-
Found a link to this Register Story (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33697.html) first on slashdot (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/31/1451233.shtml?tid=187&tid=88).
SCO is now distributing the Linux kernel under
their own licence!
[ October 31, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
-
that's preposterous!
how do they think that'll help their case?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
that's preposterous!
how do they think that'll help their case?
Well, IBM has filed an extensive countersuit which could severely damage if not destroy a pissant company like SCO. At the heart of one of IBMs counterclaims is the fact that SCO violated the GPL.
SCO has claimed that the kernel is encumbered with proprietary IP (code, ideas, trade secrets, derivative works, or whatever the hell they feel like because it seems to change every day). They have refused to remove such IP or identify it but claim they are owed $700/CPU royalties. As I understand it, you cannot encumber the GPLd kernel and distribute it, because it violates the GPL and thus the copyrights of every single legitimate kernel contributor.
IBM is a legitmate kernel contributor. SCO has broken the GPL by distributing the kernel while attempting to encumber it. IBM's copyrights have thus been violated and they (as well as anyone else who contributed) can sue the #$%^ out of them.
However, if the GPL is void, and any GPLd code is really public domain (like SCO says) then SCO hasn't broken the law.
Of course, this has more sinister ramifications. If the GPL is void, then all the legitimate contributions become public domain. But since SCO says they own millions of lines of the kernel code which they claim shouldn't have been GPLd and won't identify, nobody but SCO can know which lines are really public domain. POOF! SCO magically now exclusively owns the Linux kernel. It would seem to me that they are going for this full blast by distributing the kernel under their own licence.
[ October 31, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]