| |||||||||||
OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and LinuxOSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and LinuxPosted Aug 1, 2003 8:30 UTC (Fri) by glidentoo (guest, #13560)In reply to: OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux by ksmathers Parent article: OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux >'m somewhat confused by Eben Moglen's paper. Has SCO started threatening >to sue Linux users? I've read about their offer to sell licenses for the >use of Linux, but all I gleaned for incentive was the carrot, not the >stick. My English might not be that good, but as I read it, their offer to sell licenses for the use of Linux = to sell air for human being to breathe, it is free ........ (SCO does not own Linux, no one does, just because of some ambiguious code which SCO says belong to them does not entitle them own the whole software, coupled in the fact SCO is involved in the creation of Unitedlinux, the judgement could be SCO's code has to be GPLed as they put it in WILLINGLY) >As I read SCO's offer, it was a promise not to sue, not a threat to sue. >You can't just remove the not to get the alternative -- the opposite of a >promise is an unknown, not a promise to do the opposite. Again my English is not too good but it seems to me like :- I promise not to sue you if you buy my license for use of Linux, however, if the court pass the judgement against me, I cannot promise I would/could return the money to you with Interest as you had bought something legitimate, it's a licenses to use Linux from SCO, even though SCO does not own Linux, but if a transcation is done and you willingly pay for it, it's your problem. However, I cannot say I would not sue you if you did not buy. Does sound like a threat to me in a way.
(Log in to post comments)
OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux Posted Aug 1, 2003 9:31 UTC (Fri) by nowster (subscriber, #67) [Link] SCO does not own Linux, no one does. Actually, everyone who has contributed code to Linux owns that part of it, but has granted everyone else the right to use it freely. That's how the GPL works. The GPL is the stone in the stone soup.
OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux Posted Aug 1, 2003 20:41 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >The GPL is the stone in the stone soup.No wonder then, when someone tries to take all of the soup for themselves they find it a bit difficult to swallow... ;-)
OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux Posted Aug 4, 2003 14:49 UTC (Mon) by alexs (guest, #13637) [Link] you can not take GPLed Linux code and make up a closed source productout of it - the GPL is not a free license in the end because it does not totally expose its code to unlimited freedom. read the XFree86 license and see why that is a license with more freedom.
OSDL Releases Position Paper on SCO and Linux Posted Aug 6, 2003 1:46 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] > the GPL is not a free licenseThe GPL prohibits people from taking freedoms away from others. In most developed countries, we are not "free" to own or become slaves. This is not a useful freedom so we trade it for other benefits (the knowledge that we will not be enslaved). The GPL trades away a useless freedom (the freedom to take others freedom) and in return gives us the benefit of lasting freedom, in that it cannot be taken away. Ciaran O'Riordan
|
|||||||||||