SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings [LWN.net]

SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings

Posted Dec 22, 2003 15:17 UTC (Mon) by danw6144 (guest, #14336)
Parent article: SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings

Any Linux kernel developer who contributes code
under the unsigned, nonexclusive GPL license
retains the original copyright ownership. If the
developer subsequently legally transfers his
copyrights to a new owner, the code released under
the GPL is no longer protected by the GPL
from infringement claims by the new owner.

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
Sec. 205. Recordation of transfers and other
documents
(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer
of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. - A
nonexclusive license, whetherrecorded or not,
prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright
ownership IF THE LICENSE IS EVIDENCED BY A
WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER of the
rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized
agent, and if -
(1) the license was taken before
execution of the transfer; or
(2) the license was taken in good faith before
recordation ofthe transfer and without notice of
it.

Caldera contributed copyrighted source code files
to Linux under the nonexclusive UNSIGNED GPL.
Caldera sold to Novell who sold to SCO.

The old contributions under the GPL, because it's
unsigned, infringes on SCO's (the new owners)
copyrights.

The GPL is a binding legal agreement under a
public covenant though. That's the same thing as a
"contract license held in public trust". See IBM's
Amended Counterclaims. The GPL is valid and
binding under contract law. See Procd, Inc v.
Zeidenberg.

(Log in to post comments)

SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings

Posted Dec 22, 2003 16:05 UTC (Mon) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link]

They are reversed.

SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings

Posted Dec 24, 2003 0:33 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

You're forgetting that Caldera *is* the new SCO. They are one and the same - Caldera simply changed their name to The SCO Group. The old SCO is a different company now.

Troll alert

Posted Dec 22, 2003 16:26 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

It's a troll. It's obviously wrong. It was clearly posted to attract attention and cause many replies. There have been similar posts in other stories, also first posts and also irrelevant.

Reading LWN isn't that fun anymore when such trolls are posted and there is nothing I can do about it. It remains the first post no matter how many readers point to the flaws in it. Sure, the articles are still interesting, but reading the comments leaves a bitter aftertaste. That's not something I pay money for.

I'm not suggesting to go the Slashdot way. There are other systems, such as Scoop which work much better because "mod down" has no cost except the one you have paid already, i.e. the time spent on reading the comment.

The current approach is blocking trolls by the editors. Unfortunately, as the trolls become less obvious, they become harder to identify by the editors.

(JOKE) alert

Posted Dec 22, 2003 16:56 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

C'mon you dont want to close yourself in a "all well" cristal dom!...
Even if possible the world would lose much of its fun...

Troll alert

Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:25 UTC (Mon) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link]

Yeah. Here's another vote for only allowing paid users to comment. I don't mind if they troll if they're paying LWN for the right... :)

Troll alert

Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:26 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

I don't think this could count as a troll; posting the same comment in more than one place is still not a crime, although bad style. Yet, it's somewhat subjective to disqualify someone as a "less obvious" troll. Simply don't reply if you think they are, but sometimes people may make mistakes without being a troll.

You are right though that danw is off, whether deliberate or not:
Caldera did not "sell" to SCO. Caldera IS SCO. Renamed. Even if that claim about the unsigned GPL were true (which it is not - I am sure writing the GPL on one of the sold! OpenLinux Boxes counts as much as a signature), I cannot change my name and then say hey, all our previous implicit agreements are now invalid.