| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
IBM files another summary judgment motionIBM files another summary judgment motionPosted Aug 19, 2004 23:50 UTC (Thu) by rriggs (subscriber, #11598)In reply to: IBM files another summary judgment motion by danw6144 Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion
What you posit is a fair defence -- for distributing the kernel between 2000 and 2003. After that, your argument falls flat.
The simplicity of the GPL tends to throw a lot of people off. They wish to make it more complicated than it really is. Abide by the GPL and you have a right to distribute. Otherwise, one has no such right.
SCO/Caldera should have stopped distributing software licensed under the GPL in 2003 when they decided they no longer wished to abide by the GPL. You can't have it both ways. The GPL is the only license by which SCO Group is permitted to distribute the Linux kernel.
What IBM is asking for judgement on, and for which SCO has no defence, is that SCO Group distributed (and continues to distribute) IBM's copyrighted works without a license after SCO Group annulled their only license to do so through their other actions.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||