Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If IBM violated their license, I don't see how SCO can be in violation
>> of the GPL, since the IP claims against Linux can be valid. The GPL
>> cannot invalidate ownership/license claims. If IBM put SCO's code into
>> Linux, the GPL has no legal power to _force_ SCO to just accept that.
>> _IF_ IBM put SCO's code into Linux. The GPL does not say that someone
>> can steal your code and GPL it to make it irreversibly open sourced. If
>> it does, it  itself is illegal and its time someone slapped it down.
>> Are you trying to say the GPL has a piracy protection clause?
>> Ridiculous.
> 
> Don't forget, however, that SCO was distributing the linux kernel source
> code from their publicly accessible FTP server under the GPL, well after
> they started the legal process against IBM.
> 
> Effectively, they licensed the code (under the GPL) that they claim IBM
> put into the linux kernel.

Only if they licenced the *same* code. So linux 2.0.x s 2.4.x vs 2.5.x
is relevant.

> 
> Adam
> 

-- 
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++