Linux Distributors Appear to be Safe From SCO (Did We ever Doubt It ???)
Jim Lascola
sudden they are backing WAY DOWN!!!
Linux distributors are safe from legal action by The SCO Group Inc,
because the company does not want to destroy Linux, according to SCO's
SVP and general manager of the SCOsource intellectual property
enforcement division, Chris Sontag.
Although the Lindon, Utah-based Unix operating system vendor is
sticking by its claims that Linux contains code that has been
illegally copied from its Unix System V, it appears the company is
unlikely to follow up its $3bn lawsuit against IBM Corp with similar
actions against Red Hat Inc, SuSE Linux AG or others.
"One of the reasons we haven't launched a suit against a Linux
distributor is because of the GPL [open source General Public
License]," Sontag told ComputerWire. "It would blow up the GPL and
destroy Linux and we do not want to do that."
Rather than focus its legal efforts on the open source community and
Linux distributors, SCO is working to identify the issues and come up
with solutions in consultation with customers and other parties, said
Sontag. The company hopes to have these solutions finalized during
July, he added.
One solution may be a new kind of licensing mechanism for the SCO Unix
code, he said, although there remain issues with the GPL that
complicate how such a mechanism might be implemented. Sontag said
SCO's effort was focused on identifying Linux intellectual property
issues and possible mechanisms through which future problems could be
prevented.
http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B4D80256D4E005D45FA
Jim
T. Relyea
<snip>
>
> "One of the reasons we haven't launched a suit against a Linux
> distributor is because of the GPL [open source General Public
> License]," Sontag told ComputerWire. "It would blow up the GPL and
> destroy Linux and we do not want to do that."
>
<snip>
>
> http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B4D80256D4E005D45FA
>
> Jim
See, at heart the execs at SCO really do care about Linux. Look how sincere
they are. Should we ever have doubted them? I also have a couple of bridges
in NY for sale in case anyone is interested...
Todd
Bart
> Looks like Everyone calling their BLUFF Worked because now all of a
> sudden they are backing WAY DOWN!!!
>
>
> "One of the reasons we haven't launched a suit against a Linux
> distributor is because of the GPL [open source General Public
> License]," Sontag told ComputerWire. "It would blow up the GPL and
> destroy Linux and we do not want to do that."
>
If that were true you'd see a convoy of semi tractor trailers pulling
trailers of money out of Redmond into SCO.
--
Free as in you can't earn a living with it.
Free software is like free syphillus. It is free, but do you really
want it?
Jon Portnoy
I'm sure they have our best interests at heart.
(gigglesnicker)
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
Opinions expressed are my own, not those of any entity I am
associated with unless stated otherwise.
Tony Watts
Jim Lascola wrote:
> Looks like Everyone calling their BLUFF Worked because now all of a
> sudden they are backing WAY DOWN!!!
>
>
>
> Linux distributors are safe from legal action by The SCO Group Inc,
> because the company does not want to destroy Linux, according to SCO's
> SVP and general manager of the SCOsource intellectual property
> enforcement division, Chris Sontag.
Trying to put a damper on all the bad press from linux folks.
>
> Although the Lindon, Utah-based Unix operating system vendor is
> sticking by its claims that Linux contains code that has been
> illegally copied from its Unix System V, it appears the company is
> unlikely to follow up its $3bn lawsuit against IBM Corp with similar
> actions against Red Hat Inc, SuSE Linux AG or others.
>
They didnt say they were safe, they said they "haven't" not they "wont"
launch a suit. Besides they are suing IBM over breach of contract (and
supporting linux, it seems they think IBM are not allowed to give money
and resources to develop linux especially if they used to use them for
unix, especially technically important things like buildings ;-)
Point is that any case against distributers would have to be more
specific, copyright infringement etc etc which is harder to prove.
> "One of the reasons we haven't launched a suit against a Linux
> distributor is because of the GPL [open source General Public
> License]," Sontag told ComputerWire. "It would blow up the GPL and
> destroy Linux and we do not want to do that."
>
> One solution may be a new kind of licensing mechanism for the SCO Unix
> code, he said, although there remain issues with the GPL that
> complicate how such a mechanism might be implemented. Sontag said
> SCO's effort was focused on identifying Linux intellectual property
> issues and possible mechanisms through which future problems could be
> prevented.
You cannot change the licensing to linux it is under the GPL. If there
is SCO code in the kernel which they wish to license they will have to
remove any code which is covered by the GPL. As soon as they make
additional conditions on the code they lose the right to distribute it.
The whole point of the GPL is freedom(liberty not gratuit), if you try
and introduce restrictions you are destroying the GPL.
At any rate, as soon as their right to any code in linux is proved it
will be removed and replaced, and they will have no more claims to linux.
Tony
Peter
wrote:
>>
>> See, at heart the execs at SCO really do care about Linux. Look how sincere
>> they are. Should we ever have doubted them? I also have a couple of bridges
>> in NY for sale in case anyone is interested...
>>
Bit like SCO making warm fuzzy statements about not suing Linus, and
then not actually ruling out the possibility.
Jerry Nash
>Looks like Everyone calling their BLUFF Worked because now all of a
>sudden they are backing WAY DOWN!!!
>
>
>
>Linux distributors are safe from legal action by The SCO Group Inc,
>because the company does not want to destroy Linux, according to SCO's
>SVP and general manager of the SCOsource intellectual property
>enforcement division, Chris Sontag.
Translation: in legal matters, you always go for the deep pockets.