Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

They did.  They claim the infringing code was in the 2.4 series (prior
to .22, iirc).  And they did distribute the 2.4.x kernel source.

Adam