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

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free



On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:

> >Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing 
> >solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, 
> >opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no 
> >legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and 
> >give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets?

> No, I'm saying that companies change. SCO didn't use to be like that. 
> SCO used to be Caldera, which had bought the original SCO. The original 
> SCO used, AFAIK, reputable tactics to sell its version of Unix.

> Companies will do what best suites their share holders. We shouldn't 
> rely on corporate goodwill to protect us; instead, we should rely on 
> legal documents like licenses.

[IANAL; TINLA.]

I don't believe the current lawsuits initiated by SCO have any legal
merit; so if the danger from Sun is analogous, I believe the threat of
Sun going berzerk and filing frivolous lawsuits is out of scope for this
mailing list.

We most definitely *should* rely on legal documents like licenses, and
ignore the spectre of being sued for something we didn't do, or that
wasn't against the law.  If Sun, like SCO, is a party to the GPL or the
LGPL by virtue of having distributed code they received under that very
license, we have a good reason to think we have a valid license from
them for any code they own which has been distributed in this fashion,
and we also have a good reason to think that if they decided to become
sue-happy, they would quickly be met with a countersuit.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpzGQRDsk4ii.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: