| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
The text of IBM's counterclaims
The text of IBM's counterclaims
Posted Aug 8, 2003 19:43 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: The text of IBM's counterclaims by dwalters
Parent article: The text of IBM's counterclaims
> 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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]
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.
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,
Wol