SCO responds to IBM's counterclaims

Posted Oct 28, 2003 22:20 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)
In reply to: SCO responds to IBM's counterclaims by StevenCole
Parent article: SCO responds to IBM's counterclaims

Legalese is not my native tongue, but maybe "perpetual" means "not ending by default", i.e. not requiring any actions to continue, but possibly subject of termination. In other words, "it's yours until I change my mind" :-)

Perpetual vs. irrevocable

Posted Oct 28, 2003 22:51 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, it looks like you're right. Searching around a little more, on one legal site, I found that perpetual is analogous to a string of infinite length, wheras irrevocable is analogous to a string (of any length) which cannot be cut.

Imagine the Native American's surprise, having signed perpetual treaties with the US Government, when they found that these treaties were in fact very revocable after all.

Of course, I would make the argument that if the string is cut, then it's no longer infinite and is therefore non-perpetual, which is what was originally promised.

Perpetual vs. irrevocable

Posted Oct 29, 2003 0:52 UTC (Wed) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link]

"Of course, I would make the argument that if the string is cut, then it's no longer infinite and is therefore non-perpetual, which is what was originally promised."

Your mistake is in assuming that logic is inherent in the law. ;)

Perpetual vs. irrevocable

Posted Oct 29, 2003 22:17 UTC (Wed) by bryn (guest, #1482) [Link] (1 responses)

If I owned a perpetual motion machine, it could still have an "Off" switch. It just wouldn't come to a halt unless I pressed that switch.

Perpetual vs. irrevocable

Posted Oct 30, 2003 1:40 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

That's true, and perpetual licenses sold by Oracle have a clearly labeled "Off" switch. If you violate certain terms, then your perpetual license ends, and that's fair because the "Off" switch is right there in the contract.

But the agreement referenced above has no such "Off" switch, and I suspect (but have not seen) that the Unix License which IBM originally made was similar. No "Off" switch on a perpetual anything should equate to a reasonable expectation that the anything will not stop.

So IBM may be entitled to additional compensation due to the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel from SCO saying they have revoked a (no off-switch) perpetual license. IBM has already made claims citing promissory estoppel arising from a reasonable expectation that SCO would abide by the GPL.

If anyone has a link to IBM's license, that would be interesting reading.