A Ter, 2003-08-12 às 21:48, Alex Hudson escreveu:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:37, João Miguel Neves wrote:
The part at issue in this case is article 7 of the GPL (see below).
No, I understand that. I just don't see that it applies.
People seem to be saying that section 7. is saying that since they distributed Linux (with their code) they were giving licence for people to use their code. I don't believe that could ever be the case. It does mean that the code was unlicensed for use, and cannot be distributed, but SCO cannot be made to turn their act into a legal one retroactively. They were breaking the licence unknowingly, I can't see how it can be argued otherwise.
They have been warned about the need to license the allegedly infringinf linux code before distributing (even through cease&desist letters) and they keep distributing it. They have the right to do it, as long as they license the alleged infringing code under the GPL.