[plug] Copy of my response to SCO ANZ, FYI

[Shayne O'Neill]

This ludicrous claim (about the GPL) is based on the notion that the GPL
is some sort of variation of copyright. It is not. The GPL is merely a
permission slip to use the copyrighted code on the condition that certain
rules are abided by. Specifically that if changes are made , those changes
are made public and freely available. And thats it in a nutshell.

What I find fascinating, is that if you go to ftp://ftp.sco.com and dig
around, there is still (I believe) a SRPM of one of the kernel 2.4 series,
with GPL notices intact. If you ask me , they've consented to the fscking
thing.


------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, senectus wrote:

> SCO have said all along that they think that the GPL license is
> unenforceable and not a valid license..
> Even if they manage to prove that (which I believe is beyond their
> lawyers/financial capabilities) then they still have to find a way to
> supplant all the coders that DID write their own stuff before they can
> demand a license for any products..
>
> Besides that.. THEY contributed to the GPL themselves.. there by
> acknowledging its laws and powers..
> Its ENRON on a smaller scale.. They're fiddling the market for personal
> gain.. and need to be hung, Drawn and quartered.
>
> /rant over :-P
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-admin at plug.linux.org.au [mailto:plug-admin at plug.linux.org.au] On
> Behalf Of sscott at iinet.net.au
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2004 11:02 AM
> To: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> Subject: RE: [plug] Copy of my response to SCO ANZ, FYI
>
> The thing that really gets me about this whole fiasco is that even if SCO
> could
> prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Linux kernel did in fact contain
> SCO
> owned code, it would still be illegal and a violation of the GPL for them to
>
> ask for license fees in this manner.
>
> All they could hope for would be for a judge to stop the distribution of
> linux
> until the offending code is removed. Through this action, they are basically
>
> saying that they own *all* of linux and are allowed to relicense it as they
> see
> fit. This is a direct violation of the rights of those who actually *do* own
>
> the code, and Im surprised that SCO arent being sued into the ground by
> anyone
> who has ever contributed anything substantial to the linux kernel.
>
> > I'm prolly slow and you guys have prolly seen this but Leon's in the
> news...
> >
> > Aust firm tells SCO to detail evidence
> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/21/1074360802009.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> plug mailing list
> plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
> _______________________________________________
> plug mailing list
> plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
>