SCO Looking To Ditch Actual Business To Try To Keep Lawsuit Going

from the going-full-on-patent-troll dept

Slashdot points us to the latest in the never-ending saga of SCO trying to claim infringement in Linux. Despite massive setbacks that should have just ended the quixotic campaign, it appears that SCO is looking to sell off its actual businesses in order to keep the lawsuit campaign going. It's amazing that after losing pretty much every aspect of this campaign from the very beginning, that folks at SCO still think it's worth pursuing.

Filed Under: copyright, linux, patents
Companies: sco


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2009 @ 1:21pm

    The advertising clause was removed from the official BSD license text on July 22, 1999

    http://www.owlriver.com/redhat_versions.html

    RedHat 5 series Oct 12 1998 to Nov 10 1997

    Thus they would have been under the BSD 4 clause license at the time of release and held to the terms.

    wouldn't the GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license

    No. The GPL is additive, like how a virus adds its DNA to a cell it infects - if describing it in biological terms helps you understand.

    People "thinking" like you do is why the 2.0.36 violation happened.

    Finally, I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand.

    Which issue is this? The complex nature of IP law? That there are unclean hands WRT IP? That you don't understand the IP laws - so your qualifications to judge what is in violation is suspect PaulT?

    The reason for the lawsuit, the code in suspected violation, has never been released to the public. Claims that there is no violation made by people who also say "the GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license and therefore allow the copyright notice to be omitted" just shows how out touch the GNU/Linux side of the fence is. When there is a public showing of the code that may be in violation, then a determination can be made by informed people.

    VS people who say "GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license".

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.