SCO Madness Reigns Supreme

Sri Lumpa writes "It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories and read their latest filing that an IP attorney, Douglas Steele, Esq., thinks that 'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.' Meanwhile, more lawyers give their opinions, with Eben Moglen saying 'It's just rubbish,' while another says of SCO's defense: 'From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated,' while Blake Stowell of SCO believes Congress has drawn a boundary between proprietary and open source and still insists that IBM should indemnify its Linux users while refusing to indemnify SCO's Samba users against a potential MS lawsuit. More links to related news stories continue to appear in the comment section of the first link, thanks to the Groklaw readers." Read on for another handful of updates in SCO vs. The World.

Roblimo knows good, honest Constitutional argumentation when he sees it, and over on NewsForge amplifies SCO's claims that the GPL is unconstitutional.

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

And perhaps today's most interesting SCO submission: 1HandClapping writes "In alwayson-network.com, Mark F. Radcliffe (HIAL) writes about a little-reported aspect of the SCO vs IBM case: 'Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.'"

Comments

SCO Who?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories.....

Well I would have followed the stories but I read /. and they NEVER post anything.....

Who the hell am I kidding. I've changed my /. bookmark to read "Slashdot, News for Nerds. SCO Matters!"

Who the...

[glenebob]

Who is SCO?

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

Unacceptable. Richard Stallman is the point man for the GPL. I know RMS also founded the FSF and therefore Eben Moglen could be thought of as his spokesman.

However this is RMS we're talking about here. He didn't just market the GPL, he rammed it down our throats. So I think its more than appropriate to expect him to be more forth-coming in his defense of his PRECIOUS! license.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

No one should give a crap about what I think about RMS. But this website, Slashdot is full of people who are affected by Stallman's opinions either negatively or positively. His silence on this matter is disturbing. The free software community could use RMS's moral support right about now and it is not getting it.

Whether you wish to concede it or not the GPL was rammed down your throat if you use GPL software. Were it not for RMS's inhuman persistence in defending his license and the software that covers it the software you use would be issued under another license. Furthermore we would all have been spared such rambling literature such as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar".

Basically what I am saying is that folks like Eben Moglen represent the cold analytical side of Free Software while RMS represents the Lion Heart. This battle so far has no heart. Not a good thing in my personal opinion.