Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

possibility for class action

Posted Aug 19, 2004 20:43 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803)
In reply to: possibility for class action by dreed
Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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?