SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) [LWN.net]

SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 21, 2003 5:43 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)
In reply to: SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) by pyellman
Parent article: SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)

You don't need to worry about the GPL. This comes up over and over and over again, "What if a court found the GPL invalid?"

This is ignorant. First, in what way exactly invalid ? The GPL is not a license anyone is forced to accept in the first place. Anyone are perfectly free to not accept the provisions of the GPL.

The thing is, there exists this thing called copyrigth-law. This says that only the copyrigth-owner is entitled to make copies of a work, or to distribute the work.

GPL is only a set of extra permissions with conditions. It in effect says that IF you agree to certain limitations, then you can distribute the software (in original or changed form). If you don't agree, then that's perfectly ok. But then, by pure copyrigth-law, you cannot distribute at all.

People misunderstand this all the time: "If GPL where to be deemed invalid, Microsoft would be free to incorporate parts of Linux in their prorietary OS". Type of comments. This is silly, pure copyrigth-law prevents this.

(Log in to post comments)

SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 21, 2003 6:36 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

Exactly. The GPL is actually stonger than most software licenses
because acceptance is not based upon a button click or you use the
software. It is based upon distribution of the software. If you
didn't agree to the license there is nothing which would allow you
to distribute the software. With the more common "by downloading
this software/by using this software/by clicking accept you agree
to the conditions of the license" arrangement, a user could claim
that the purchase of the software had implied a license to use it
or claim some other reason to use it under fair use.

Of course I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.
So I too am surprised at the way people continually state that the
GPL is shakey because it is untested. Why don't they say that about
every license?

The other thing which bothers me is the "viral" terminology used by
the supposedly Linux-savvy Slashdot crowd. Is it unreasonable to expect
people to comply with a license when they take code from one program and
insert it into another or when they duplicate and distribute a program?
I don't think so. The fact users are allowed to make and distribute
derivative works at all is an right granted under the GPL which would not
normally exist -- it is not a "viral" burden.

SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 21, 2003 15:23 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

>You don't need to worry about the GPL. This comes up over and over and over again, "What if a court found the GPL invalid?"

Nowhere in my post do I make anything approaching such a global statement; the word "invalid" does not appear in my post. However, if you and the following poster believe that (1) the GPL is in no way different from any other software license, and (2) the fact that the GPL has never been tested raises no concerns about when and how that eventuality will be dealt with, then you have some serious blinders on. The point I was making was not that the GPL could be declared "invalid" in one fell swoop, but that it is important the first public "test" of the GPL be a victory, no matter how large or small, in its favor, and conversely, that a negative outcome in any such first test could be uniquely damaging. Keep in mind that you are dealing here with corporations such as Microsoft whose lifeblood is long-term litigation; chipping away at open source and the GPL in the courts is exactly their intent, and getting that first one in their pockets would be significant.

Peter Yellman