On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 09:26, Fred A. Miller wrote:

SCO SUSPENDS LINUX SALES, TORVALDS REACTS

(Source: LinuxWorld.com) SCO CEO and President Darl McBride said the company is 'alerting commercial users to the fact that legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users.'

http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=742372

i just hope a republican judge doesn't handle this case!!!

On Thursday 15 May 2003 06:26, Fred A. Miller wrote:

SCO SUSPENDS LINUX SALES, TORVALDS REACTS

(Source: LinuxWorld.com) SCO CEO and President Darl McBride said the company is 'alerting commercial users to the fact that legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users.'

http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=742372

Now this takes on a two fold aspect. A) The 1st aspect it about the present allegations of IP infringement by IBM that SCO is now inferring may extend to Linux in general. B) The 2nd aspect seems to be wrought from the implications of the 1st, namely a legal challenge to the validity of the GPL and/or the extent to which is is binding and enforcible. It strikes me that SCO developed, distributed, and entered in to partnerships involved and intrinsically part of Linux. Therefore one assumes that SCO was aware of the implications of the GPL when entering into it. As Linus points out "...as long as they distribute Linux, they are themselves bound by the GPL. Which (among other things) clearly states that you can't limit recipients rights, including the right to further distribute it (without any limitations further down the chain either). " And he further points out that by continuing to distribute Linux they may have weakened their own case. However, they had actively distributed Linux "after" filing their tort action against IBM. This is most likely a case of fruit from the poisoned tree. They can't have it both ways. How can one claim abuse while actively participating in actions or behaviors one contends as the abuse? So, is it now to be expected that SCO will challenge the validity of the GPL? Did not SCO fold in their Unix code into at least their own distribution at some point or time? At best they may have some isolated claim regarding the use of their IP in other distributions (though it doesn't really hold water AFAIC). But, how does one rationalize their claims regarding potential liability to their clients? They have stated that SCO Linux clients are, for now, not liable for any infringement. One can only surmize that this it because SCO owns the IP rights they are contending and therefore by holding their own contractually bound clients to any liability the hold themselves in a precarious position. Like I said they can't have it both ways. None of this makes sense, at least overtly. Caldera has been involve with Linux since early on in the development stage and is now a part of SCO. How is it now that they claim infringement? One would suspect that they have been able to use their own IP in their own product. But if in doing so they folding in their IP into the kernel or other code what does this do to their IP? Perhaps this has indeed happened, or perhaps not. But if it has happened then wouldn't one have to challenge the validity the GPL or at least the depth at which it is binding in order to follow through with a claim of IP infringement involving GPL code? What I'm trying to say is that due to the GPL SCO may have poisoned their own case. By distributing Linux, then filing claims of infringement against IBM for giving away their IP but still continuing to distribute Linux they may very well have negated their own claims - hence the backtracking by suspending all involvement with Linux and OSS. But this is after the fact and may be well too late. One would think they might have been better served by simultaneously suspending involvement with Linux and OSS at the same time they filed their Tort against IBM - but such is not the case and gives me reason to pause! What a mess! Curtis :-/