SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant

molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

Comments

Oh good grief.

[doublem]

They distributed the @($& code!

I hate lawyers, I really do.

Playground bully

[blackp]

If a kid hands a kick ball to another kid on a playground, then later sues the kid to pay rent for using that kickball, that is just silly.

If code was released into the GPL public domain, then SCO has the right to get reparations against those responsible for releasing that code, and maybe those responsible for knowingly distributing that code. In this case, they fire the guy that release the stuff into public domain, and request removal of their propritary information. Getting back licensing fees is nothing more than being a playground bully asking for kids' lunch money to play kickball.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jgerman]

See there's the rub. It doesn't matter if the engineers weren't supposed to release it, or if it didn't go through legal. No one outside of Caldera is subject to their internal procedures. They fucked up, they face the consequences. I've said it before. If those engineers did something to cost the company money fine punish/fire them. But those engineers are acting on behalf of the company, it's not our job to police what they do.

After the lawsuit, ...

[burgburgburg]

when they would in theory have full information on what SCO code was stolen, if there were any SCO code in their Linux distribution, they would have been releasing it under the GPL.

If on the other hand, they claim that their distribution did NOT have any SCO code, then simply diff their distribution against all others to find the files/code sections that they are potentially claiming are SCO code.

And if there is no difference, then we have further proof that their lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.

nice try

[sbwoodside]

They're trying to say that if the person who contributes the code is not the copyright holder, then the GPL doesn't apply, so they're not responsible for GPLing the code, so their distro doesn't count. But it does.

He had this to offer about the GPL and SCO: "The GPL, by its terms, only applies to software programs or works which contain a notice "placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. (emphasis by him)

But they published the code, and it contained a notice, which they also published, saying that it's under the GPL. Even if the code went through other hands first, they are claiming that they are the copyright holder, AND they published it with the notice. So they STILL fall under the GPL provisions.

Simon

Re:Why care?

[DeltaSigma]

Indeed, here it's "you get what you pay for," and I'm afraid certain monopolies have deeper pockets than I...

MS/SCO hope there is NO "After the lawsuit, ..."

[The Monster]

lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.

SCO and MS do not want the suit to actually go to trial. They want it to drag out as long as possible, because if it goes to trial they will lose bigtime, and strengthen Linux.

Meanwhile, as long as the suit hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of IT managers considering a move to Linux, it fuels the FUD. It's the threat that Linux could cost some undefined amount if SCO wins that gives MS the ability to scare the crap out of the PHBs.