Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com) [LWN.net]

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 27, 2003 19:39 UTC (Sun) by bastiaan (subscriber, #5170)
In reply to: Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com) by dwalters
Parent article: Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Section 6 does NOT save you here: it specifically states that the recipient automatically receives a license from the ORIGINAL LICENSOR. In this case The SCO Group is merely a redistributor of the code. Funny enough the "original licensor" here is IBM, since IBM allegedly released the offending code under the GPL.
Of course the fact that TSG still distributes the supposedly infringing code should severly damage TSG's chance to recover 'damages' from IBM.

IANAL either. (but have learned to put disclaimers in my messages).

Cheers,

Bastiaan

(Log in to post comments)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 1:18 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

If it's SCO's code, as they maintain, then they are the original licensor.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 1:34 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Another way to put this is if they aren't the original licensor then how can they claim that they are the only ones who can license it. They do provide the code under a GPL license.

The fact is that "original licensor" is not defined in the GPL.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 21:43 UTC (Mon) by bastiaan (subscriber, #5170) [Link]

TSG claims they are the copyright holder, and also that they haven't given anyone a license to sublicense the source code. In other words that they are 'the only ones who can license it'. Secondly they claim that they haven't licensed the code under the GPL themselves.
Logically, in the context of the GPL, they are not the "original licensor". If you consider the following time line it should be clearer:

1) party A writes some code X.
2) party A licenses X to party B under NDA.
3) party B publishes X under the GPL.
4) party C incorporates X in GPLed project Y (and publishes it).
5) party D downloads Y (including X) from C's ftp server.
6) party A redistributes Y (including X).
7) party E downloads Y (including X) from A's ftp server.

At 5) party A has not been involved with a GPL'ed X at all and therefore hasn't any obligation imposed by the GPL: it does not have to "automatically give a license" to the recipient D. Ergo it cannot be the "original distributor" at 5).
Now, since there can only be one "original licensor" both D and E must have gotten their license from the same party (via GPL section 6).
Conclusion: party A can still maintain they have not given you a GPL license even if they continue to distribute C.

Of course A=TSG*, B=IBM, C=Linus, X='the alleged infringing code', Y=Linux and D and E are innocent bystanders.

IMHO (and IANAL still), this line of reasoning may work in their case against IBM but destroys any case against Linux users, because it implies their accpetance that X is GPLed now.

Cheers,

Bastiaan

* yes, I'know TSG didn't write the code itself, but that's immaterial to the discussion.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 0:11 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Although that's what they claim that's not what happened. If you bother to look at the facts which are well documented SCO has materially contributed to and derived benefits from the code in question under a GPL license.

I understand your (their) argument. But it is just factually wrong. That was the point of my first post.

Again IANAL

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 0:42 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Whoops. I didn't get to your last sentence. I do agree that they may have a case against IBM.