[PLUG] The latest on SCO vs. reality

[Petcher, Danielx J]

I could have the situation confused, but I believe it is their (SCO's)
opinion that some party or parties have appropriated their code without
permission or license and included said code in a body of work that was
released under GPL.

SCO never published the alleged code under GPL; they merely accuse the
plaintiffs of having re-published their code without permission.

-djp
http://folding.stanford.edu - the brain you save may be your own!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeme A Brelin [mailto:jeme at brelin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:32 PM
> To: PLUG
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] The latest on SCO vs. reality
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Rich Shepard wrote:
> >    Then they claimed to find hunks of orthodox UNIX code leveraged
> >    into Linux somehow, though at this writing they still haven't offered
> >    the evidence. Unwilling to sue themselves, they "suspended" their
> >    Linux business and warned Linux users about the "potential liability
> >    that could rest with them for using such software" while offering to
> >    "hold harmless" their own remaining Linux customers.
> 
> It seems to me that if SCO owns the patents and copyrights it claims are
> implemented or copied in Linux code that the Linux distribution they
> created would be de facto licensing of those copyrights and patents under
> the GPL.
> 
> I know that if _I_ release code under the GPL that contains patents or
> copyrights that I own, I can't go around suing people who create or
> distribute derivitave work based on my patented or copyrighted code.
> 
> How is that not grounds for immediate dismissal of this suit?
> 
> J.
> --
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme at brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug