SCO's "Lawsuit"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| theboomboomcars Feb 10, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
This just occured to me, please let me know if I am off on my reasoning or not. SCO is suing IBM about things in the linux kernel that infinge on unix copy rights. It seems that since SCO had their own version of Linux distributed under the GPL that either the then released their code under the GPL, or if they were doing linux before they got the Unix copy right, if they ever got it, that they should then take them selves to court for copy right infingement. Perhaps I am wrong in this mode of thinking, please let me know what you think. |
| number6x Feb 10, 2006 8:49 AM EDT |
Yes. It is called Estoppel, and 'unclean hands' in legal circles. Go here for way too much information: http://www.groklaw.net There are a few ex-lawyers who have posted their views, and the blog is run by a paralegal. The archives and timelines along the left column are good for learning about the SCO lawsuit. |
| dtfinch Feb 10, 2006 3:39 PM EDT |
That's been the general idea since 2003. It took them a couple years to pull the GPL'd source code from their public FTP site. If they didn't want to acknowledge that the code was under the GPL, they should have stopped distributing it under the GPL. They can't redistribute it AND add restrictions. That's a GPL violation. They're screwed either way no matter if there ever was any infringement, which they've acknowledge there isn't by their silence. And they've violated the GPL additionally by putting some of the Linux kernel code into their proprietary Linux Kernel Personality, which they previously claimed was just a wrapper they wrote from scratch. LXer's spell checker thinks GPL is misspelled. |
You cannot post until you login.