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.

Comments

First Post!

[obeythefist]

For me I never posted on Slashdot before. I do like the GPL though! It's agonising to see the GPL is still untested after all this time. Do you think it will be SCO that sets some legal precedents for the GPL?

Re:EFF

[dbarclay10]

As another poster has said, "selective enforcement" is irrelevant as far as copyright is concerned. You're free to license your copyright to somebody and then let them do whatever the hell they want - regardless of the terms of the license, you don't lose copyright.

Now, if you fail to enforce *trademarks*, you can lose them.

How can the GPL violate the constitution?

[BitwizeGHC]

The U.S. constitution is a document which specifies the powers of the government, and the limitations in the applications of said powers. There is only one entity which can be guilty of violating the constitution: the federal government[1].

RMS and the FSF are private individuals. They are free to release their works under whatever terms they wish, including no copyright at all, without violating the Constitution. Statute law is another thing; however, it's doubtful that a statute would be passed mandating SCO's version of copyright in the near future, since that would run counter to established copyright principles that have been in place for two centuries.

[1]I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it's also a law or at least a convention that state governments abide by the principles set forth in the US constitution. It could be merely the laws of competition, however: if Massachusetts were suddenly to become a communist dictatorship, states like Connecticut, Vermont and Maine can expect a sudden population jump. :)

Re:EFF

[erikharrison]

D'oh!

9th Affirmative Defense

[verbatim]

9th Affirmative Defense - IBM is a company full of poopy-heads and their defense is thus null and void. This affirms our liar-liar-pants-on-fire claim.