| |||||||||||
Re: English articleRe: English articlePosted Aug 14, 2003 15:17 UTC (Thu) by kunitz (guest, #3965)In reply to: Re: English article by Ross Parent article: SCO's earnings report I have an subscription to the WSJ website. It is reported that Mr. Mark Heise of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP said, that SCO will argue that the GPL itself is invalid. In Heise's legal theory US federal law pre-empts the GPL by allowing only one single backup copy. I can't comment on this nonsense.
(Log in to post comments)
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 15:44 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I can; that's ridiculous.If the copyright holder allows redistribution of the work, then that would override any fedaral law. There is no way this Government is going to tell me, the creator of a work of art, useful or otherwise, how many backup copies I can permit others to make, nor whether I may or may not permit others to redistribute my work without limit. Because if they *are* going to try that, and they succeed, it's time for a full-scale revolution--this has become a dictatorship. I will be positive, and assume a sensible judge would stop that one good.
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 16:08 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Second comment:I went to read the Register article, which talked about this. When I think about it more, I believe the Federal law was applicable if the copyright holder had reserved all rights. That law was supposed to be a way for people to preserve their investment in a software package, even if the copyright holder prohibited any copying at all. If that's true, either Boise's team is incredibly stupid, or they're out to misuse the law for their client's gain. Again, I would hope a judge wouls squash this like a bug.
|
|||||||||||