SCO-duggery (code comparison)

bitbitch bitbitch at
Fri Aug 22 13:07:40 PDT 2003

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 18:43, Robert S. Thau wrote:

 >> it's conceivable that someone may have
 >> grounds to sue for negligence or fraud.

And Luis Villia noted:

If what we're seeing so far is correct, I'd hope it's more than
lawsuits- the SEC apparently has the power to prosecute and jail
executives responsible for these types of scams. Eben Moglen also
suggests that the company lawyer who claimed that the GPL is
unconstitutional is so wrong as to make his claim constitute
professional misconduct. That's one I'd definitely love to see.
[Some details on that here:
I'd love to actually see Mr. Heise's full remarks. First off, I'm 
sketchy about any lawyer-cum-FSF advocate making a sound and rational 
decision :) (Kidding). Seriously though, its a little premature, 
especially if Mr. Heise was trying to somehow rope this back to SCO's 
position (re:  the code that they consider to own.)  Mr. Moglen is right 
if Heise went overboard and claimed that truism for the lot of GPL.

Here's the other bit that bothered me from the article:

"You don't need permission to use copyrighted work - there is no 
exclusive right to use, unlike in Patent law which involves the rights 
to 'make, use or sell'," he says. SCO could argue that users themselves 
are infringing (copying) but in the US the copies are exemptions from 
the inclusive right. And furthermore, most don't even install the source 
code. So no infringement there.


Sure, there isn't an issue with use, but there are issues with 
reproduction, derivation and distribution.  Isn't that part of the Linux 
bit too?

I like the evangelism.  Its good, but I've been scanning a few of the 
boards as of late and have come across a lot of folks who seem to have 
sacrificed logic for love.

Just my half a cent, post sleep.


More information about the FoRK mailing list