Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6

Posted by Zonk on from the use-it-if-its-good dept.

William Robinson writes "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products in their Unix product. Among the included packages are MySQL, PostgreSQL, Samba, Apache, Tomcat, and FireFox. SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't' he said."

4 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they're consistent by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. "We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't,"

    From Groklaw:
    In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:

    "The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

    The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:

    "The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."

    The Eighth adds:

    "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."


    So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.) ;-)

    P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?
    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. Does this mean by m50d · · Score: 4, Interesting
    that they acknowledge the GPL as a valid license? Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).

    I know there was never much doubt, but IIRC one of SCO's arguments was that the GPL was invalid.

    --
    I am trolling
  3. Does that mean by joeflies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that they've checked those projects for infriging intellectual property too and certify it's clean?

  4. Curious by augustz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SCO has very publically disclaimed the GPL. Letters to congress, letters to fortune 1500, and in sworn statements in court.

    "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

    Given this position, isn't there standing for a contributor to actually litigate the validity of the GPL? You've got a company that has disclaimed the GPL, but still uses the software.

    That's not the way it works, you can't have it both ways. Either you agree to play fair, or you have to create your own software, not take others.

    And of course, the PR spin on this being "consistent" is hillarious.