Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void

Posted by timothy on from the more-and-more-surreal dept.

wes33 writes "Groklaw has a link to SCO's replies to IBM's amended complaints. Some choice bits: '6th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred. ... 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity. ... 8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.' Comments are pouring in ... not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy." Considering that the GPL and the GNU project rely on and affirm the protections of copyright, this seems like a strange argument to pursue.

6 of 1,186 comments (clear)

  1. Can you say, "Pump and Dump"? by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only problem with all things I see here is DarlandCo. will probably never see the inside of a prison cell, which is unfortunate.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Can you say, "Pump and Dump"? by b_pretender · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You have to remember, a lot of the people who sit in high political offices are former judges. They are old white men who care about appeasing each other's financial interests and don't mind if all the geeks in the world want to rip their throats out. Plus, you have to remember that there's a good chance any random judge will have SCO or one of it's alliances somewhere in their investment portfolio. They probably don't care about Linux one bit, nor grasp the importance of the GPL. It's more likely someone in this mindset would think "Well, if this free stuff would go away, then people would have to buy software from the guys I've invested in.. More money! Woohoo!"...


      If there was any sanity or fairness left in our courts and political systems, the DMCA would have never gone into law. Nor would we have gone to war in Iraq [google.com]. It's a dark time for the little guy. :(


      You're pretty far off of the point. With the exception of the Microsoft handslapping, the judicial system has been pretty fair and removed from Govt politics. The US Govt was set up that way, and of all of the branches of Government, the judicial branch to this day remains mostly neutral and unbiased.

      You make it seem like it's a bad thing that some judge doesn't care about Linux or grasp the importance of the GPL. Well, Awptimus, that is the important point. We don't want the judge to care about Linux or bias his decision based upon the importance of the copyright license. We only want him to remain fair and unbiased and to determine how the different aspects of the case fit into the US Copyright Law. The copyright system is currently pretty screwed up, but it's not the job of some individual judge to take matters into his own hands when it comes to the all-important GPL. It's better for the USA if he only does his job to fit the SCO case into existing law. Leave it to law makers to make laws.

      Finally, in your last comment, you seem to link the courts to drafting DMCA and to the war in Iraq... both of which the judicial system had NOTHING to do with. I think a course or a book on the US Government would be good for you since you either aren't from the USA or you failed 9th grade Govt.

  2. EFF by erikharrison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.

    If Linus is unequal in his pursuit of his intellectual property rights vis a vis the GPL that only renders Linus property rights at issue, not the GPL. The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA) and not an institution. Since the GPL is one of the more innovative licences we often lose sight of that fact.

    (IANAL, of course)

  3. This is a good thing. by Jaywalk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It sounds like the GPL is going to get an airing in court. IBM and most of the other big firms with a stake in Linux probably want that because the GPL is the cornerstone on which Linux was built. If the GPL can't handle a legal challenge, it's better to find that out sooner rather than later. This makes it pretty much guaranteed that IBM won't buy out SCO; they'd rather see the legal test through to the end and make sure their reliance on Linux being owned openly (leaving them free to sell hardware and services) stands up in court.

    If the GPL stands up in court, it's SCO's case that is going to be crippled.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  4. Have to have GPL killed.. they've abused it. by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i have said it before, and i will say it again...

    SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.

    i'll keep saying it - this is the whole of the "why" behind their case, i'm telling you. They don't want to have to pay up to anyone - let alone thousands of individuals, for abusing their GPL code in their products...

    because after this - everyone will go after them.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  5. Re:Here's what you were saying... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communism has been tried before,

    Incorrect. Communism has never been attempted by any human civilization. You may have been confused by the Soviet Bolsheviks, who claimed to be "Communist", but they were liars. As were the Maoists who imitated them.

    If Communism is ever tried, it might succeed in one of a few ways. Possibly, Marx will have been correct, and the natural evolution of a mature, capitalist society will be towards greater and greater corporate control, until a handful of merged companies + unions control the entire economy, and are indistinguishable from the government.

    Or, there's the even more off-the-wall chance that a resurgence of Christianity will bring with it the recognition that their religion is doctrinally Communist (as laid out in Matthew 25:44, amoung many other places). Some people think Communism implies atheism, but they are independent social factors. A strong religion might be one way to overcome the natural greed that impedes Communism.