The open letter of Groklaw was in reponse to Darl's open letter, so there was no need to discuss some FAQ of "The SCO Group".
"The SCO Group" does nod hold any patents concerning Linux and does not claim to. They did not prove to have any rights in any patents and it is pretty unlikely that they would ever be able to do so. This has already been discussed at many places, one of them being Groklaw. You acknowledge that yourself, turning your posts pointless.
The right to control the usage of computer programs in the sense of executing or running them is, contrary to your implications, based on copyright, not on patents, at least in USA, Commonwealth, and the European Union and for two simple reasons: 1. Any non-trivial computer program is copyrighted, but there is no requirement to have it patented. Even worse, patenting of computer programs per se is often illegal. 2. In order to be able to run a program in the real world, you need at least one copy, but you do not need to know whether there are any patents involved.
It is true that the owner of the copyright is not the only one whose rights might be infringed by running a computer program. But this is only relevant if the user has to know about this from contracts or law. There is no special "Darl codex". The only text that comes with GPLed software and that contains information about rights and duties that may, at least in most legal systems, be considered as a "contract", or at least as the main part of a contract, is the GPL. The GPL does not put any restrictions on running the program. Thus, only a court decision that attributes certain rights to another party might restrict the usage of GPLed code. Then section 7 of the GPL prohibits further distribution under the GPL, as freely distributing source code without restrictions on "the act of running the Program" would clearly be incompatible with protecting the rights of that other party, just as stated in the Groklaw letter, and regardless of the kind of those "certain rights".
According to GPL section 7, patent licences that "permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly" are acceptable to the GPL. Therefore, there is no general problem with patents and GPL. Again, collecting licence fees for running a program, not for distributing, is only possible with contracts that significantly deviate from the rights granted by GPL, as the GPL does not contain any means to ensure the "transport" of that restriction on usage with each copy.
Of course there is copyrighted material in the Linux kernel. In fact most of it is copyrighted, it is just not under the UNIX copyright of "The SCO Group", therefore they can not legally charge for licences on Linux kernel usage.
You seem to seriously believe that your postings make any sense. So please let me know which law in which country (preferably on this globe) links the execution of computer programs to patents and not to copyright. You may need to learn the difference between "using a copyrighted work" and "using a patent to create a work, for example writing a program". You might as well check your logics about how to combine distribution under GPL, and GPL only, and simultanously legaly forcing any user to pay for a "Linux Intellectual Property" for binary-only use. The GPL clearly states: "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
Slashdot Mirror
The open letter of Groklaw was in reponse to Darl's open letter, so there was no need to discuss some FAQ of "The SCO Group".
"The SCO Group" does nod hold any patents concerning Linux and does not claim to. They did not prove to have any rights in any patents and it is pretty unlikely that they would ever be able to do so. This has already been discussed at many places, one of them being Groklaw. You acknowledge that yourself, turning your posts pointless.
The right to control the usage of computer programs in the sense of executing or running them is, contrary to your implications, based on copyright, not on patents, at least in USA, Commonwealth, and the European Union and for two simple reasons:
1. Any non-trivial computer program is copyrighted, but there is no requirement to have it patented. Even worse, patenting of computer programs per se is often illegal.
2. In order to be able to run a program in the real world, you need at least one copy, but you do not need to know whether there are any patents involved.
It is true that the owner of the copyright is not the only one whose rights might be infringed by running a computer program. But this is only relevant if the user has to know about this from contracts or law.
There is no special "Darl codex".
The only text that comes with GPLed software and that contains information about rights and duties that may, at least in most legal systems, be considered as a "contract", or at least as the main part of a contract, is the GPL. The GPL does not put any restrictions on running the program.
Thus, only a court decision that attributes certain rights to another party might restrict the usage of GPLed code. Then section 7 of the GPL prohibits further distribution under the GPL, as freely distributing source code without restrictions on "the act of running the Program" would clearly be incompatible with protecting the rights of that other party, just as stated in the Groklaw letter, and regardless of the kind of those "certain rights".
According to GPL section 7, patent licences that "permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly" are acceptable to the GPL. Therefore, there is no general problem with patents and GPL. Again, collecting licence fees for running a program, not for distributing, is only possible with contracts that significantly deviate from the rights granted by GPL, as the GPL does not contain any means to ensure the "transport" of that restriction on usage with each copy.
Of course there is copyrighted material in the Linux kernel. In fact most of it is copyrighted, it is just not under the UNIX copyright of "The SCO Group", therefore they can not legally charge for licences on Linux kernel usage.
You seem to seriously believe that your postings make any sense. So please let me know which law in which country (preferably on this globe) links the execution of computer programs to patents and not to copyright. You may need to learn the difference between "using a copyrighted work" and "using a patent to create a work, for example writing a program".
You might as well check your logics about how to combine distribution under GPL, and GPL only, and simultanously legaly forcing any user to pay for a "Linux Intellectual Property" for binary-only use. The GPL clearly states: "The act of running the Program is not restricted".