Did SCO Violate The GPL?
from the back-and-forth...-back-and-forth dept
The latest charges in the back and forth between SCO and Linux is that SCO, themselves, illegally borrowed code from the Linux kernel to improve the kernel of their own Unix System V. Of course, since it’s open source, there’s nothing wrong with using the code – but under the GPL, they are then required to release the code of any commercial product as open source as well. While this is just a rumor at this point, it’s yet another datapoint suggesting that Robert Cringely’s original assertion that SCO, as Caldera, is responsible for any similarities in the code, since the company had clearly stated plans to merge the two technologies in some format. Either way, this whole debate is getting ridiculous. Everyone is “asserting” this and that, when such things could be cleared up if the specific code were opened up so people could see it.
Comments on “Did SCO Violate The GPL?”
Yes, it is ridiculous.
SCO’s refusal to show what code its talking about to anyone with any competence (without hamstringing them with that stupid NDA) seems calculated to spread the maximum amount of FUD.
They say it’ll hurt their case if the code was known…how? They cannot erase the millions of CDs, ftp sites and mirrors that contain this alleged infringing code in the linux kernel…all it does is allow us to make a responsible good faith attempt at correcting the situation (yeah…hundreds of lines..think that couldn’t be fixed in a few hours??) as the law requires.
Basically there’s no way they could ever claim damages because they refused to allow us to investigate and fix the situation…
SCO is acting in very bad faith and frankly I doubt they are being honest…
You know, if we sued SCO under the terms of the GPL and they were found to be in violation of the GPL, then their suit against IBM would be null.