Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void
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.
Later,
Phil
This is how I understand it:
Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.
Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.
The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.
The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.
So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.
The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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
I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.
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.'
Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."
If the GPL is invalid, then while SCO was redistributing Linux (and still continued to do so after bringing suit), the company was infringing copyright, because nothing other than the GPL gives SCO the privilege to do that. If SCO gets the GPL on Linux declared illegal, watch kernel contributors with deep pockets sue SCO for copyright infringement.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I searched the SEC website and found no information about ongoing investigations. (Apparently it is their policy to not publicize investigations.) I filled out a web form on their site and was quite surprised to receive a phone call the next day from an SEC investigator.
I spoke with the gentleman for about 45 minutes. He's a stock geek, and I'm a computer geek - different worlds, to be sure.
I did my best to communicate what I believe are the essential issues in this matter - that SCO
Is filing lawsuits to manipulate potential investors' opinions about them and their products
Is lying about the core issues in the case
Is a sham - not really developing technology but using IP (their definition) to wrest dollars from "infringers," and
That the leadership within the company is pumping and potentially dumping stock
The investigator listened patiently to my explanation and asked good "process" questions - he heard what I had to say.
He indicated that he wanted to be sure that he understood my issues (IP and copyright issues are not day to day issues for them)
Unfortunately he indicated that he did not believe that he could express my concerns cogently, and that there was not enough volume of stock being sold by insiders to justify starting an investigation.
He did tell me that if we could demonstrate that SCO leaders knowingly lied about their products or other companies, he needed to know about that because that was substantive enough to justify an investigation.
Note that we don't have to find where they sold stock on the basis of the lies, only be able to demonstrate clear false statements.
I found it interesting that
a) They would contact me
b) They would listen to me
c) They want to protect the public from abusive leaders, and
d)They would show me how to help them initiate an investigation.
Find the lies and report them, and the SEC will get engaged. Remember that what seems completely obvious to a tech geek may not be clear to a stock geek. (and vice-versa) Do the legwork, find the proof and then in a clear, concise, non-inflammatory way using layman's terms communicate that to the SEC, and they will do their job. They can't do what they don't understand. Remember that they have to prove it in a court of law, not a court of open-source advocates.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?