Not just IBM's problem [LWN.net]

Not just IBM's problem

Posted Jul 31, 2003 13:37 UTC (Thu) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531)
In reply to: Not just IBM's problem by jdthood
Parent article: Not just IBM's problem

But has this not already happened in the instance of them demanding a license fee, or 'protection money' as some would allege, to run a binary copy of the Linux Kernel?
Whatever they claim that license to be, it IS contrary to the GPL unless they identify exactly which part(s) they are licensing (which they refuse to do, (hence the actions in Germany and Oz), and that said component(s) must become a separate add-on module, and fall under the category of 'mere aggregation' as I believe the GPL calls it.

This is my interpretation, but IANAL.

(Log in to post comments)

Not just IBM's problem

Posted Aug 1, 2003 3:31 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Did SCO demand license fees from people who got Linux via SCO's distribution of Linux? If not, then there is no GPL violation. SCO can distribute Linux under GPL, including SCO-copyright code, while also demanding license fees for the same SCO-copyright code that a user got another way.

In case this isn't clear, here's a simpler example: If I download a Linux kernel from kernel.org and place my own scheduler in it, I can then distribute the modified kernel to Joe under GPL, giving Joe the right to redistribute without owing me anything. And I can simultaneously sell Mary a copy of just my scheduler code with no right to redistribute it to anyone. If Pedro copies and uses Mary's copy, he owes me royalties too. But if Pedro copies my scheduler code from Joe, Pedro owes me nothing.