User: nparikh

Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla

On: SCO Prepares To Sue Linux End Users

Actually, the FSF was considering denying rights to use GCC on SCO Unix as a retaliation. Unfortunately I can't find a link to the statement anymore, but it involves a README.SCO file being distributed with GCC from now on, or something along those lines. In any case, they decided against doing it yet, because it would ultimately inconvenience users of SCO Unix more than SCO itself (at least in the short term). I can sympathize with your sentiment in wanting to yank support for SCO from all the major projects, but I can't help but agree with the FSF's reason for not wanting to go through with it yet. On a slightly different topic, there's a rebuttal of SCO's claims about the GPL from the FSF's General Counsel. This is perhaps the best -- and funniest -- part:

This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.

He goes on to say that he believes that SCO is deliberately misreading section 117 of the US Copyright Act and so on, but you can read the rest of the article yourself.