All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

SCO declares GPL invalid.

(1/5) > >>

mobrien_12:
Slashdot News Story

excerpt:

chrullrich writes "According to heise (German, fishbait), SCO's chief counsel Mark Heise (unrelated) of Boies, Schiller and Flexner has declared that the GPL violates the US copyright law and is thus null and void. SCO's legal position is actually a little too crazy to believe: The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid. Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."

I wonder if their stock goes up again.

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

jasonlane:
Oh OK then if $CO says it's true.....when do I buy a license???

Pricks

hm_murdock:
FAGGOTS

Great_Satan:
How did SCO get these rights?  It says here in my Unix textbook*:


   
quote:
The UNIX operating system was developed at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey -- one of the largest research facilities in the world.  Since the original design and implementation of the UNIX operating system by Ken Thompson in 1969, many people have contributed to it.   The most recent release and the subject of this book is UNIX System V.
System V is the culmination of the effort of many people over many years and the consolidation of many different strains of UNIX, most notably AT&T Bell Labs UNIX and the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) UNIX.

--- End quote ---


*A Practical Guide to UNIX System V by Mark G. Sobell copyright 1985 page 2

BTW, it doesn't matter if SCO declares the GPL invalid.  What matters is what happens in court.  For example from a related intellectual property area I'm more familiar with, every time someone is accused of infringing on a patent, the knee jerk response of the alledged infringer is to say the patent is invalid.  Then the alledged infringer has to prove it is invalid by collecting copies of references to show the patent is invalid (ie. see 35 USC 102 and 103 which are used most often to reject claims by patent (US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)) examiners and even judges) and to get the patent re-examined by the USPTO and/or prove it in court.

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]

TheQuirk:
It was purchased.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page