| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles OutSCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles OutPosted Aug 22, 2003 1:02 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: SCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles Out by dwalters Parent article: SCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles Out
It still contains this paragraph, which I don't believe is true: More generally, SCO's case is, to say the least, somewhat impaired by the fact that SCO itself freely released all of the code of ancestral Unix. Under the conditions defined by the Ancient Unix license, issued by SCO/Caldera itself, the Linux kernel developers could copy the entire ancient Unix source tree into the kernel and SCO/Caldera would have no proprietary claim on the results whatsoever. Perhaps it's technically true, I don't think they could claim the kernel because of infringement, but it's disingenuous to imply that the licenses are compatible if it's not.
(Log in to post comments)
Re: SCO's Evidence: This Smoking Gun Fizzles Out Posted Aug 22, 2003 7:54 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I agree that the licenses (BSD+advert & GPL) aren't compatible. But it isthe GPL which says that no additional restrictions may be added. The BSD license does not forbid that. So the copyright holders which could legitimatly prevent distribution of software which is composed of both types of software are the copyright holders of the GPL'ed code. In this case, that would be the kernel developers and not SCO. (Once again, IANAL so don't consider this legal advice.)
|
|
||||||||||||