[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Red-Handed SCO ?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:36:16AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> [Please avoid posting messages that aren't about Debian development to
> -devel. Moved to -curiosa, although -project or -legal would probably be
> OK too.]
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Jos? Luis Tall?n wrote:
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
> > 
> > OK, it's the inquirer....
> > 
> > 
> > It it was proved to be true, shouldn't we *all* Linux users ( as well as 
> > Stallman plus the FSF as a whole ) sue SCO for copyright infringement ???
> > That could be *quite funny* <g> <g>
> I can't see any basis for the Inquirer's claim that anyone with a copy
> of Linux could sue. If SCO copied GPLed code into UnixWare, then the GPL
> only requires them to provide the source to those to whom they
> distribute object code or executable form, not to the whole world. (It
> can't restrict those people from passing on the source either, but
> that's another step further on.)

Actually, the GPL does require that. Section 3, concerning distributing
object code, gives you the choice of either accompanying it with source
code, or 'with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give
*any third party* [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding code.' The third option (to pass on the received written
offer) is only valid for non-commercial redistribution, which is not
what's being done here.

Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.

Attachment: pgpPV9EDiojFx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: