The part at issue in this case is article 7 of the GPL (see below). If, for any reason, you can't comply with the conditions of the license (which includes distributing as Free Software) then you are not allowed to distribute the software. So, the only way for SCO to distribute linux code legally under the GPL was authorising the use of their patents or any copyrighted code included in it.
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.
A Ter, 2003-08-12 às 21:14, Alex Hudson escreveu:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 20:54, Niall Douglas wrote:
My own opinion is given recent historical judgements by US courts with regard to similar issues, it does not bode well. The fact the GPL has the sweeping power it does it because it can be interpreted in so many ways ie; it's not been fixed.
I guess in a way it might be interesting. But, I don't really think that the GPL is going to be examined much - I would guess the argument would be whether or not SCO's distribution of Linux under the GPL actually means anything.
Personally, I suspect it doesn't. I can't see how it would be fair otherwise. I'm trying to think of analogies, and the best I can think of is a video rental store selling traded second-hand computer games that were originally stolen from them rental some months before. Or something :/
Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I don't think the onus is on the distributor to audit source code before distribution. I can't see how it would benefit anyone for things to be that way. So, my personal feeling is that the GPL issue will be rendered moot. But, who knows?
Cheers,
Alex.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion