| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?Posted Aug 7, 2003 12:21 UTC (Thu) by Highlander (guest, #13768)Parent article: The text of SCO's "Linux license"
SCO did sell a Linux distro, didn´t they ?
(Log in to post comments)
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:46 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Tut tut, now. You wouldn't want any facts to enter into the discussion nowwould you? This is a scam, similar to the 20 or so scam emails I got this morning. A scary scam since they sic lawyers on you, but a scam nontheless. Derek
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:19 UTC (Thu) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] It would be interesting to see how this wil work.It is going to be hard time for SCO to prove that you have to buy second license to use their product. First license you can wget from ftp.caldera.com. And first license - in fact GPL - prohibit any second linceses or what ever. Interesting dialog between imaginary customer and SCO: And this "viral" license says that no-one can change it or put any other restrictions on sources and binaries. And this license has no clause for revocation niether. P.S. ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/current/
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:39 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] > And this license has no clause for revocation niether.Actually, the GPL has a revocation clause. If you break it (like SCO's doing now with requiring a second license), you lose the right to do the things the GPL entitles you, e.g. putting Linux sources on a web server (something SCO still does). None of your licensees do lose theirs, since they received a license from the original authors.
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:17 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] > SCO did sell a Linux distro, didn´t they ?> They must have done so under the GNU License, so if their > distro included their own code (the code in dispute), they > effectively did license it under the GNU License. And there > is no case left for them. SCO is claiming that although it did distribute its code with Effectively, SCO is claiming that when it distributes Linux SCO's concerned with YOU is that you, user of Linux
SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? Posted Aug 8, 2003 12:49 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Except, of course, that you can STILL wget the appropriate licence today, and SCO is well aware that their code is included.SCO should have pulled their ftp server the day they realised that code was there that shouldn't be. Oh - and by the way - they would have been (and still are) perfectly entitled to do so and yet still remain within the GPL. If their lawyers haven't advised them how they can legitimately escape this catch 22 then their lawyers aren't worth a dime. But I'm not going to tell you in case I give them any ideas. Just the little hint - does the GPL mention the internet at all? Cheers,
|
|
||||||||||||