SCO after BSD settlement

Adam K Kirchhoff adamk at voicenet.com
Wed Nov 26 17:23:17 PST 2003


Sander Vesik <sander at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk at xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79 at xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> If IBM violated their license, I don't see how SCO can be in violation
>>> of the GPL, since the IP claims against Linux can be valid. The GPL
>>> cannot invalidate ownership/license claims. If IBM put SCO's code into
>>> Linux, the GPL has no legal power to _force_ SCO to just accept that.
>>> _IF_ IBM put SCO's code into Linux. The GPL does not say that someone
>>> can steal your code and GPL it to make it irreversibly open sourced. If
>>> it does, it  itself is illegal and its time someone slapped it down.
>>> Are you trying to say the GPL has a piracy protection clause?
>>> Ridiculous.
>> 
>> 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.

> Only if they licenced the *same* code. So linux 2.0.x s 2.4.x vs 2.5.x
> is relevant.

They did.  They claim the infringing code was in the 2.4 series (prior
to .22, iirc).  And they did distribute the 2.4.x kernel source.

Adam






More information about the Kernel mailing list