RSS
Twitter
More Bizarre SCO Logic
from the gets-better-and-better dept
The latest insanity coming out of the folks at SCO is a plan to try to convince the government that any GPL license is completely invalid because it violates copyright law. Say what? The argument runs as follows: federal copyright law says you can make a single copy of any software product, and because the GPL says you can make as many as you want, it's clearly in violation of copyright law. What's scary is SCO's law firm actually thinks they can get away with this argument. They're basically saying anyone who happens to give away their copyrighted material for free must be breaking federal law. I'm not sure where these folks got their law degrees, but they seem to have misunderstood the basics of copyright law. Copyright law doesn't enforce mandatory rules on the holders of the copyright, but rather defines their rights over the content should they choose to enforce them. Otherwise, practically all of the internet is illegal. Loading this page would be a felony, since the work is (technically) under a copyright and there are thousands of copies made each day (for free!) as visitors download the page. Update: Anyone else beginning to get the feeling that SCO is like a corporate troll? They're just doing all of this to get a big laugh out of everyone's reactions?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Wounded animal
A wounded animal will bite anyone that gets near.
SCO days are numbered:
- their executives are unloading shares
- they are bogged with many major lawsuits (some with giant corps that can keep them in litigation indefinitely)
- the linux community did not crumble as they expected
- the linux users did not run to them for licenses as they expected
After legal fees, SCO will be lucky to afford the fees for a Chapter 11 filing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wounded animal
Yeah. Okay. How come the Gnazis are trying to limit HP's decision to support their customers' freedom of choice in OSes?
"The basic reason we are at SCOForum is because HP has a huge installed base of customers running SCO Unix," wrote Martin Fink, HP's vice president for Linux, in an e-mail to one such critic. "Just like we support Microsoft Windows, HP-UX and Linux, we need to support our customers and the choices they make."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They are not interested in the law, but to line th
It seems that SCO is not interested in winning on this issue, although they would not mind it. Check and see that every announcement is closely tied with when the principals can sell their stock, and it has worked very well for them so far.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: They are not interested in the law, but to lin
Wake up! The stock is high; of COURSE the principals will be unloading the stock. *I*'m unloading everything I have, in spades.
Please determine which is cause and effect, and see past your own gnazi arrogance for two seconds. What if IBM really were bastards? What if the SCO's initial and root claim is correct?
Yeah, sure, SCO probably wanted it, acting all sexy in those heels and that tube top. What else could IBM have done when SCO was so wantonly asking to be victimized?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where does the Inquirer come up with this nonsense
I really don't know where Inquirer got this from. It sounds like the sort of distorted statement that comes out the end of a game of "telephone".
Surely it would be nice if SCO's lawyers were this stupid, but it just doesn't make any sense. If this were true, wouldn't the sales and licensing models of nearly all software vendors (SCO included) be in trouble? The logical conclusion is that only the original programmer should be able to use his software (and make one backup copy;)...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SCO is simply a tool of a by-gone era who is...
...enjoying new found utility in the hands of Microsoft.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Out of curiosity, where did you get your law degree, Mike?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment