On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:11:40PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL Yet unknown? Isn't this the same thing SCO is doing, spreading FUD about how Linux violated their IP? > license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their license is > therefore void. As to especulate where SCO violated Fyodor's rights, > it's possible that the language at the second half of section 5 explains it: > "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based > on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, > and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying > the Program or works based on it." > But, as SCO stated in *official court documents*, they do not accept the > GPL as a valid license; therefore, they cannot distribute nmap. > One: nmap's license is GPL. the "mention" you talked about is just a > warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is > terminated, in accordance Hm. Fair enough, I guess. -- Birzan George Violence is the last refuge of Cristian the incompetent -- Salvor Hardin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature