[CLUE-Talk] SCO planning to offer licensing for Linux

[Kirk Rafferty]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:31:28PM -0600, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> What about the fact that SCO was a Linux distributor - don't those actions 
> nullify their claim about IP protection?

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a sec.  I am assuming that there
really is violating code in Linux, and that SCO did not intentionally put
it in there.

Section 0 of the GPL says in part:

   "This License applies to any program or other work which contains
   a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
   under the terms of this General Public License."

IANAL, but SCO (the "copyright holder") did not place a copyright on their
"contributions," and so are not bound by the terms of the GPL.  They did
distribute their own code (unkowingly, if they are to be believed), but
they did not re-license it.  Their code is still subject to the same
licenses as before.

This is the argument SCO has put forth all along, in response to the
"distribution" claims.  I hate to say it, but I think this is a valid
claim.  You should not be able to "accidentally" GPL your software.
This would be bad for everyone, not just SCO.  And if your proprietary
software is somehow released into the wild (even accidentally), it
shouldn't automatically mean that you lose your rights. (you might lose
your rights to the code for other reasons, though.)

Imagine the repercussions if a Judge ruled that SCO had, in fact, GPL'd
their own software accidentally.  Other companies would see this ruling
as an extremely bad thing, and perhaps abandon their own open source
initiatives, for fear of accidentally GPL'ing their own proprietary code.
If you think FUD about the GPL being viral is bad now, wait until a
ruling like this came down.  MS for one, would have a field day.
(example: disgruntled <big software house> coder "contributes"
proprietary code to Linux kernel.  Get's incorporated into latest kernel
build--*poof!*-- <big software house> just lost [mb]illions in IP.  This
example doesn't have to be valid, it just has to scare the crap of out
a bunch of CEOs.)

Having said all that, I think IBM can win this suit without having to
resort to the GPL argument.  SCO's claims are weak at best.  They will
lose on the merits of the case, not technicalities.  And if it really does
go to court, I'd rather see a ruling that strenghtens Linux and free/open
source, instead of casting further doubts on it.

-k