| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Killing SCO means killing GPL!Killing SCO means killing GPL!Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:28 UTC (Thu) by tpeters (guest, #4579)Parent article: Aiming at the GPL? The SCO license quoted in the other news note above is "viral" in the same way as the GPL is: any derived work must fall under the same license. If SCO is not allowed to restrict authors of code related to Unix to contribute it elsewehere, then neither can the GPL be enforced - so derived work could be sold under a proprietary license. I believe that SCO indeed is trying to kill Free|Open SW. It does seem unlikely though that they can cash in if the GPL gets killed. I suspect a conspiracy: management gets paid by a third party that is wealthy and has an interest in killing the GPL. It starts with M, ends with t, and has icrosof in the middle.
(Log in to post comments)
Killing SCO means killing GPL! Posted Aug 21, 2003 12:27 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] Don't be an idiot.When you distribute something proprietary mixed with GPL code, you have four choices: In all these cases, you may be liable for $150,000 per violation for acts committed previous to the copyright holder bringing the infringement to your attention. But the copyright holder must prove you knowingly violated if you choose 1), 3) or 4). It would probably be hard. SCO is claiming that their Unix licence still applies after you have replaced the viral code. This requires a complete overhaul of copyright law, and a massive expansion of the domain of derivative works. In reality, the code does not become "tainted". Eg
Killing SCO means killing GPL! Posted Aug 21, 2003 15:46 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] This is not, in fact, the case, because the GPL only sticks to code which you distribute linked to GPL code, and don't recall in response to complaints. Code can only become "infected" by actually releasing it under the GPL. Furthermore, it is not an exclusive license or a copyright transfer, leaving the author of linked code able to do whatever else is desired with it. SCO is claiming that code which you write is a derivative of their code if you have a UNIX license, even if the result does not actually contain any UNIX code, simply because you had the license at the time. Copyright law doesn't see derivative works like that, and the GPL isn't applied that way either.On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see SCO make the claim that the mechanism used by the GPL is the same used by their license.
|
|
||||||||||||