Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the this-just-gets-more-interesting dept.

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."

6 of 1,043 comments (clear)

  1. Time to enforce the GPL? by l2718 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So far this was between IBM and SCO. However, now the major copyright holders for the GNU/Linux system can assert themselves.

    In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?

  2. The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Rahga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is that right now, their actions are in violation of the GPL, and while they can claim that they believe the GPL is unenforcable and void, that does not mean it is until the courts say so.

    Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.

    The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.

  3. Re:Hmm.. question.. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?

    Small claims court? If each and every music track put on a publicly accessible share is worth tens of thousands of dollars in fines, think of how much you could get from somebody who is illegally distributing a complete server operating system. With the number of source files involved, you could stand to make $Millions!

  4. DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Wouldn't it be possible to send their upstream provider a DMCA takedown request, alleging illegal distribution of copyrighted works?

    I don't think someone representing the Free Software Foundation would have any problem convincing anyone that at least some of the files in their distro are (c) by the FSF.

    Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the (improper, from their point of view anyway) copyright attributions and continue distributing. ;-)

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  5. Will Linus Sue? by Ridgelift · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

    Since Linus Torvalds is the trademark holder for the name Linux, does this mean Linus will sue SCO?

    --
    Ruby on Rails Screencast
  6. Class Action Lawsuit? by bobbv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's all this talk about slashdotting their mailroom and taking them to small claims court. Hello? This situation is exactly what class action lawsuits are for. Someone needs to hire a lawyer and set up a class action lawsuit about breach of license. RMS seems like the logical person, since he's the one who started the whole thing and has been the strongest defender of the strong interpretation of the License. Then everyone who contributed--everyone who ever checked in (or even checked out)--code into something that SCO is overly restricting can join it.