| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant
Posted Jul 25, 2003 14:07 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466)Parent article: SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet)
Very nice to see the arguments relative to Linux laid out in a concise way. But the author misses section 12 of the GPL about no warranty and that makes anyone not liable for damages (which are essentially undefined).
(Log in to post comments)
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant
Posted Jul 25, 2003 18:30 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link]
That's not relevant here; no license term can exempt you from copyright law, sorry.Section 12 means that end-users cannot sue the developers/distributors for flaws in the software. It doesn't exempt either the users or the developers/distributors from being prosecuted by a third party for violating the law.
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant
Posted Jul 29, 2003 14:19 UTC (Tue) by chohman (guest, #5519) [Link]
Stevenj's observation on section 12 seems correct to me; however, I am unsure that that matters.If I am a Linux USER, and SCO wants to sue me:
a) they have no trade secrets here - they published the code
b) they have no license with me, so I suspect I can't violate it
c) in the words of Eben Moglen, who I assume understands copyright law at least a little better than the layman, I can not be sued for USING a copyrighted work.
Perhaps you can suggest some legal theory under which they may be able to sue me, but I haven't seen anyone propose one yet.