Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Derides GPL, Will Revoke SGI's UNIX License

Posted by timothy on from the darl-knows-bad-letters-when-he-sees-them dept.

ComaVN writes "Not a big surprise for those who have followed the recent SCO misery, but SCO is going after SGI. According to SGI, SCO intends to terminate their Unix System V license, much like they did with IBM earlier. I guess it's hard to stop once you've chosen a certain direction for your company." sheddd writes "Does this case have any merit? Joe Formage has written a good article on SCO's strange behavior." Read on below for SCO's odd tactic of attacking the GPL by belittling IBM's legal diligence in not avoiding GPL'd software, and word on why Linux users aren't being served SCO invoices.

larry2k writes "PR newswire has an open letter from SCO to IBM.

From the letter: 'SCO believes that the GPL -- created by the Free Software Foundation to supplant current U.S. copyright laws -- is a shaky foundation on which to build a legal case.'" The release is also carried by NewsForge. Among other things, SCO says "By so strongly defending the controversial GPL, IBM is also defending a questionable licensing scheme through which it can avoid providing software indemnification for its customers."

Doesn't supplant mean "replace"? That's not what the GPL does.

And if you're wondering why you have not received an invoice from SCO for any Linux-based OS you may be running, benploni writes "From Groklaw: In this Detroit News story Blake Stowell explains why no one has received an invoice: 'SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said.' [emphasis added]. We all knew there was no way they'd risk actually sending out invoices, and here's the proof."

5 of 681 comments (clear)

  1. Is it only me by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: -1, Troll

    that's fed of SCO stories? Could we not just have a monthly updated or something? This is a genuine idea, I'm not just trolling :)

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Is it only me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      (Score:0, Troll)
      As I said, I wasn't trolling. Oh well.

  2. Yup, SYSV is dead by metamatic · · Score: 2, Troll

    It's a shame, I prefered many aspects of SYSV design to BSD... but now, there's no way I'd ever build anything on SYSV.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  3. Dictionary, anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Doesn't supplant mean "replace"?

    No. "Supplant" means to overthrow, or to displace by force or tactic. And that's exactly what the GPL does.

    SCO's point is completely valid. Basic a legal argument on a piece of legal trickery that stands in defiance of three hundred years of judicial and legislative tradition smacks of cleverness, not of sound policy.

  4. Re:Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    I'm a total n00b at this, but exactly why will IBM defend the GPL? Why not side with SCO, come to an agreement, and claim ownership of any code they want to?


    I mean, is it possible that IBM can believe that they could make more dough owning linux as opposed to keeping it open-sourced? And, if they decided the former, could their fire-breathing lawyers win it in court?