Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Responds to OSDL Legal Aid Announcement

Posted by simoniker on from the business-as-usual dept.

Greyfox writes "SCO has issued a response to the earlier OSDL legal aid announcement. Basically the same old story, noting: 'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification.' The release also refers us to their SCOSource web site, which they claim in their announcement shows 'proof' of infringement. I was unable to find any such 'proof' other than their claim that they own errno.h. Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."

4 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Say..... by JoeD · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tomorrow, according to Groklaw.

  2. SCO's FAQ by fuxoft · · Score: 5, Informative

    SCO has interesting FAQ over here. It seems to me it contains several points I haven't read before.

    --

    --- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)

  3. Re:lets all follow their example. by idiotnot · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are violating the GPL, because they're distributing GPL'd code, and do not accept the terms of its license. Namely, they distribute the Linux kernel to people (still), and they are distributing Samba.

    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.

    So, perhaps, they aren't violating the GPL itself because they don't accept it anymore, but they are violating the authors' copyrights, because the GPL is the only license the authors allow the code to be distributed under. You can hash words all day.

  4. Re:lets all follow their example. by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 5, Informative
    Last I checked SCO was not violating the GPL.

    Well lets see now...

    Section 0. They're charging a fee (other that for the physical act of transferring a copy, or for a warranty)

    Section 6. SCO are attemtping to impose further restictions (binary only licenses)

    And the catch all... Section 4. Attempting to distrubute the software outside of the terms of the licence, terminates the license, therefore SCO is in breech for distributing any copy at all now.

    Any others, anyone?