| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
possibility for class actionpossibility for class actionPosted Aug 19, 2004 8:43 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion
This could become even more interesting if other Linux copyright holders can turn this into a class action without delaying or confusing it in any way.
(Log in to post comments)
possibility for class action Posted Aug 19, 2004 12:53 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Doubtful. It would need to be a completely new case.
Possibility for Class Action Posted Aug 19, 2004 15:13 UTC (Thu) by rriggs (subscriber, #11598) [Link] Let IBM set the precedent in their case first. Then all developers with GPL'd software distributed by SCO, either in their Linux products or their "UNIX" products (OpenServer and UnixWare), can go after SCO Group. Note, however, that the crux of the argument that IBM is making will only directly affect kernel developers, not userland programmers. But making SCO drop Samba, GCC, and all the other GPL'd software they distribute from their UNIX products would bring me no end of joy. They'd be screwed.
possibility for class action Posted Aug 19, 2004 15:27 UTC (Thu) by dreed (guest, #17539) [Link] Ater IBM gets done with them, SCO will be in bankruptcy so there's no point in filing a class action lawsuit. Although have others have pointed out, if the continue distributing other GPL software such as Samba, etc. then it might be worth filing a lawsuit to stop that.
possibility for class action Posted Aug 19, 2004 20:43 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] I don't know, I don't think they've actually violated the Samba license.
Does violating the GPL on one program automatically mean you can't distribute *any* GPL software? That would seem to me like an excessively broad interpretation.
possibility for class action Posted Aug 19, 2004 21:29 UTC (Thu) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] Does violating the GPL on one program automatically mean you can't distribute *any* GPL software? That would seem to me like an excessively broad interpretation.Darl McBride has publicly called the GPL unconstitutional. SCO has written letters to congress regarding same. If SCO does not accept the GPL as a valid license, then they have no right to distribute any GPL copyrighted software.
possibility for class action Posted Aug 20, 2004 7:39 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Does violating the GPL on one program automatically mean you can't distribute *any* GPL software? That would seem to me like an excessively broad interpretation.
Yes, that would be a too broad interpretation indeed. However, if you knew that something was "illegal", would you still do it? Of course not. So, if SCO know that GPL is illegal, why are they continuing to break the law by using it? Isn't it unconstitutional to not ask for money for software distribution?
|
|
||||||||||||