| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
possibility for class actionpossibility for class actionPosted Aug 19, 2004 15:27 UTC (Thu) by dreed (guest, #17539)In reply to: possibility for class action by copsewood Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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?
|
|
||||||||||||