DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCO after BSD settlement

From: Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 25 Nov 2003 18:35:31 GMT

Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:

>> Don't forget, however, that SCO was distributing the linux kernel source
>> code from their publicly accessible FTP server under the GPL, well after
>> they started the legal process against IBM.
>> Effectively, they licensed the code (under the GPL) that they claim IBM
>> put into the linux kernel.
>> Adam

> I don't see how that equates to "SCO is violating the GPL" or "SCO has 
> authorized the code". The court case is still pending, i.e. there is no 
> decision on whether or not SCO code is actually in Linux. They will 
> probably keep distributing it as (as mandated by the GPL license by the 
> way) unless a court decision changes that. For example, if the court 
> agrees with them, I am sure that they will release a "purified" version 
> of Linux and tout it loudly.

> Lets say you write a small software program and you put it under the BSD 
> license. Someone downloads your program, likes it very much and lifts 
> large chunks of it into a new program which they then put under the GPL. 
> You, when surfing the net, find this program and it's similar enough to 
> your own that you download it and try it out. You like it and submit 
> some patches that are incorporated. Later on after looking at more of 
> the code, you discover that this person has illegally lifted your code 
> because no where in the code/docs is your copyright notice. Does this 
> mean you have authorized what the person did? You have a copy and 
> submitted patches/modifications under the GPL. What do you think?

> If you license code (e.g. by making modifiations to a GPLed program) and 
> find out it orginally belonged to you later, does that mean you gave it 
> away? How? You would probably say that the relicensing was unauthorized 
> and invalid in the first place, regardless of your first impressions.

Except that they continued to distribute their code explicity under the
GPL.  Let's say that IBM did, indeed, vioalate the agreement with SCO.
This doesn't change the fact that SCO distributed their own code under
the GPL from their FTP server for weeks, even more than a month, after
they decided to sue IBM.

Catch that?  *They* knowingly distributed the code under the GPL. 


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]