SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? [LWN.net]

SCO did sell/distribute Linux ?

Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:17 UTC (Thu) by jdthood (guest, #4157)
In reply to: SCO did sell/distribute Linux ? by Highlander
Parent article: The text of SCO's "Linux license"

> 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
a GPL license text, it didn't really license that code under
the GPL because it was not aware that the code was there.

Effectively, SCO is claiming that when it distributes Linux
it violates the copyrights of all the authors of Linux who
have licensed their contributions under the GPL. But that is
a matter for SCO and those authors to settle.

SCO's concerned with YOU is that you, user of Linux
distributed by someone other than SCO, pay for using the
code that slipped into Linux without SCO's intent.

(Log in to post comments)

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,
Wol