| |||||||||||||
The text of IBM's counterclaimsThe text of IBM's counterclaimsPosted Aug 8, 2003 18:26 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207)Parent article: The text of IBM's counterclaims
It's good to see that IBM are leveraging the GPL here. It shows that IBM really understand it, are comfortable with it, and that their lawyers are confident in it, and that bodes well for IBM's future involvement with Linux. Contrast that starkly with SCOs lack of understanding of (or complete disrespect for) the GPL: SCO's Blake Stowell admitted that SCO was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but said "If our IP is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property". I believe he's wrong. Section 7 of the GPL is very explicit in this regard: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
(Log in to post comments)
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 8, 2003 18:35 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] Sorry to reply to my own post, but I had also meant to point out that Stowell's statement does not agree with section 4 of the GPL: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. IANAL, but SCO's violation of the GPL appears to be nothing less than the misappropriation of the copyrights of the hundreds of individuals and companies that have contributed to Linux. They appear to be the ones who don't respect intellectual property.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 8, 2003 19:43 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] > I believe he's wrong. Section 7 of the GPL is very explicit in this regard:I'm not so sure... AFAIU it says that if _somebody else_ was to impose obligations on me that interfere with distributing freely, I can't distribute at all. In this case it is SCO themselves that impose the conditions, so it would look like they can distribute. Note that then the same GPL prohibits people who got Linux from SCO to distribute further. IANAL, just a bewildered bystander in a country about to enter a free trade agreement (with IP rights and the works) with the USA.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 8, 2003 22:11 UTC (Fri) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Exactly, it's perfectly legal to license some open source software to someone, and thenlicense some of your other "intelectual property" to the same person under a different license. BUT, because the GPL does not allow you to link GPL code against non-gpl code, the user cannot legally combine both pieces. This would mean the end user cannot legally use Linux, wether or not he has an SCO license. SCO did still violate the GPL, because by compiling a Linux kernel, they link what they claim as non-GPL code to GPL code, which is not allowed.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 8, 2003 23:33 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Not quite right. It's permitted to links non-GPL code to GPL code, as long as none of the provisions of the GPL are violated. (Thus, you can link no-advertising-clause BSD-licensed code to GPLed code freely.) The problem with SCO's situation is that their non-GPL code has more restrictions than the GPL. That is not allowed, under clause 6 of the GPL.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 11, 2003 17:14 UTC (Mon) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link] > the user cannot legally combine both pieces. This would mean the end user cannot legally use Linux Anyone can use any GPL code. The restrictions are on redistributing it.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 11, 2003 17:48 UTC (Mon) by playfair (guest, #13918) [Link] Seems, from reading the GPL, that anyone who buys a SCO license breaches the GPL and must stop using Linux and probably all other GPL software.Buying a license becomes an agreement under the terms of the section 7 quoted above. So anyone who pays SCO for a license gets screwed by SCO and screws themselves, too.
The text of IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 11, 2003 12:50 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] In which case, SCO would be welcome to use linux INTERNALLY. But they could NOT distribute it.The problem is, they have been DISTRIBUTING code, and now they are claiming that the recipients cannot distribute it further because it contains SCO IP. In other words, they are DISTRIBUTING a MIX of GPL and non-GPL code. Bang! Clause 4 goes off! And the fact that they are STILL distributing linux code to all and sundry from their ftp server merely compounds their breach of copyright. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's a simple way round that, if they wanted to pull the ftp server and still remain in compliance with the GPL, but I'm not going to give them ideas ... But the fact is, SCO *is* and has been distributing linux to world+dog. They are also claiming that the distributed code contains their proprietary IP, which *users* are obliged to licence. That claim promptly breaches the GPL, which means SCO are not entitled to distribute linux, which means SCO are breaking copyright law in a BIG way! Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||