For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement is bogus but you still want to keep the car. You can't have it both ways. ---- Quick clipping from the case: According to SCO, the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) "is unenforceable, void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); "violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 (Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 ?? 24, 28, 155, 157); and is preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. (Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) are waived and all are estopped from enforcing the GPL. (Ex. 2 at 20 (Seventh Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:14-215:7.) As a result, SCO cannot here rely on the GPL or the LGPL (which is identical to the GPL insofar as relevant here) as a grant of license or permission to copy and distribute the IBM Copyrighted Works.
Since IBM and friends are doing a fine job of reducing SCOX to a pile of rubble, it hardly seems worth the karma to stress over whether or not SCOX is distributing other projects. Besides, making public statements about the GPL (or your lease agreement, for that matter) don't constitute violation of that agreement. On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:46:13AM -0700, August Zajonc wrote:> For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably > noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make > the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely > on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing > to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement > is bogus but you still want to keep the car. You can't have it both ways. > > ---- > > Quick clipping from the case: > > > According to SCO, the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) "is unenforceable, > void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); > "violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and > export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 > (Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or > inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 ?? 24, 28, 155, 157); and is > preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. > (Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) > SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) > are waived and all are estopped from enforcing the GPL. (Ex. 2 at 20 > (Seventh Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:14-215:7.) > > As a result, SCO cannot here rely on the GPL or the LGPL (which is > identical to the GPL insofar as relevant here) as a grant of license or > permission to copy and distribute the IBM Copyrighted Works. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Hi, we had posts about this before...this is a tec list, not for discuss brainbugged sco phantasies Best Regards August Zajonc schrieb:> For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably > noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make > the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely > on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing > to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement > is bogus but you still want to keep the car. You can't have it both ways. > > ---- > > Quick clipping from the case: > > > According to SCO, the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) "is unenforceable, > void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); > "violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and > export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 > (Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or > inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 ?? 24, 28, 155, 157); and is > preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. > (Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) > SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) > are waived and all are estopped from enforcing the GPL. (Ex. 2 at 20 > (Seventh Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:14-215:7.) > > As a result, SCO cannot here rely on the GPL or the LGPL (which is > identical to the GPL insofar as relevant here) as a grant of license or > permission to copy and distribute the IBM Copyrighted Works. > >