Last night I download the source for the 2.4.20 Linux kernel from SCO's website. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by its authors, as all computer code is, and in the case of the Linux kernel, the authors have chosen a Copyright License called the General Public License or GPL. In SCO's latest court document in its suit against IBM, its Reply to IBM's Amended Answer with Counterclaims, SCO claims in its Sixth Affirmative Defense, "The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred." and in its Eighth Affirmative Defense they say, "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred." So, it is clear that SCO does not accept the GPL or find it to be a valid Copyright license.
That is, of course, problematic for SCO, since just last night, they distributed the Linux kernel to me without any license to do so. One is always free to reject the license terms offered. SCO apparently rejects the terms offered to them by the Linux kernel's authors. The problem then is that without that license SCO is bound by the default standards of Copyright, which is "All Rights Reserved" which includes the rights to copy, modify, or distribute. SCO is copying, modifying, and distributing the Linux kernel without a license, and as a result can face pretty steep damages under Copyrihgt Law for each infringement, up to $150,000 per instance.
My download was just one such instance. If you downloaded the source too, it might create another. The damages for SCO would pile up. They might want to rethink this...
Posted by Brian at October 28, 2003 07:53 AM | TrackBackas i understand it, the linux operating system as invented by a private individual. was patented as public property for anybody to use, without aking anybodys permission. now it may be that someone has improveed upon the original and thinks that gives them the right to declare that thier own but still the original idea is public. now if all theyer really doing is just stretching the operating system so it can do a little more or something like that then the foundation of whatever the do is still a public operating system, and that part of thier system is public asnd the property of the original inventor and cannot be sold by them,, that would constitute theft by the sellor. and you cannot legalize theft, no matter how many lawyers you get.
Posted by: marvin at November 26, 2003 11:51 AM