Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting article 7 from:
http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent 
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), 
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or 
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not 
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute 
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and 
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not 
distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would 
not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who 
receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you 
could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from 
distribution of the Program.

I.E. if someone has a court tell them they cannot distribute a 
particular GPLed software without royalties etc., then they can't. The 
GPL is not saying IBM can get out of jail free (if SCO's claims are 
correct) or that SCO is in deep do-do. The GPL is saying that at the end 
of day, law rules. You must fulfil ALL your obligations.


>     What IBM is saying is that SCO is violating the GPL license for the
>     GPL'd code that SCO itself is distributing but not claiming to own
>     (and they distribute a *LOT* of GPL'd code such as GCC and Samba).
>     this is simply due to the fact that SCO is suing IBM, making IP claims
>     against the linux community, and trying to hit linux users up for money.


The violator is neither SCO or IBM. If the court rules against IBM, and 
if IBM cannot clean up Linux to SCO's satisfaction, and if Linux must 
therefore be distributed in a manner less free than the GPL permits, 
then the GPL says it shouldn't be distributed at all. Thats a lot of 
if's, even if IBM lifted the code.

>     This is in direct violation of clause 7 of the GPL.  Because SCO is doing
>     this, the GPL states fairly unequivocally that SCO no longer has a right
>     to distribute GPL'd software.  So, for example, SCO no longer has a right
>     to distribute GCC or SAMBA.  "If you cannot  distribute so as to satisfy
>     simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
>     pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute
>     the Program at all".


This would apply to IBM if SCO's claims are true, not the reverse.

>     In otherwords, SCO cannot legally distribute GPL'd software.  SCO's
>     response to this is that the GPL is invalid and all GPL'd code is public
>     domain.  No judge in the land will ever agree with that interpretation.
>     SCO is basically backed into a corner here (a mess of their own making).
>     They can't live without GPL'd software.  SCO's vendors and resellers 
>     absolutely depend on GCC and other GPL'd bits to be able to keep their
>     SCO based offerings up to snuff.  So SCO can't live without GPL'd
>     software, but they can't legally distribute GPL'd software either.
>     Oops!


I don't think that is the correct conclusion.

> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>