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