IBM/SCO/GPL (Was: Re: (L)GPL remarks and FreeGIS licensing)

[Alex Hudson]

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.

Clearly, the GPL wouldn't allow SCO code to be distributed as a derived
work. However, that doesn't nullify the case that SCO have that their
code has been misappropriated. (And there is a separate argument that
says SCO are still distributing Linux, and are therefore contravening
the terms of the GPL in bad faith; I think that's a separate issue
again).

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.

Cheers,

Alex.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20030812/d9108e73/attachment.sig>