SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL

Pogue Mahone writes "According to The Register, SCO is now distributing Linux code under a more restrictive license than the GPL. This is a violation of copyright, since only the GPL gives them any rights to distribute the code. Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO."

Comments

Re:Get over it

[Curtman]

Nice troll.. But copyright law is exactly what this is about. If, the GPL was invalid copyright law would still hold. It's the GPL that gives them distribution rights. Without that, they are violating copyright law.

Hippies unite! Have a nice day.

Re:That's right

[jchawk]

IANAL, but we have had to send a handful of cease and desist letters. Our lawyers advised us to send 2 copies of the letter. 1 copy goes by certified mail and the other goes in the regular mail. Get a recept that both were sent, that way if it goes to court you have proof you sent the letter, even if they don't sign for the certified letter.

Finally if you are really worried you can pay a constible to serve them papers. Once they are served, they are responsible for this information even if they throw the papers in the trash without reading them.

SCO Was in total violation anyway

[JamesSharman]

To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.

Lets go on and look at another clause.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.

And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.

IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[TWX]

But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[John Hasler]

> Most states you cannot take a corporation to
> "small court."

You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.

> If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign
> corporation ... you have to serve papers on
> their registered agent in your state....

Which is exactly the same procedure as for a local corporation. That is why such agents are required (if they don't have such an agent they lose all lawsuits by default).