[CLUE-Talk] SCO providing Linux licenses

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Dennis J Perkins (djperkins at americanisp.net) wrote:
> I wonder if they lawyers counselled for or against this?  The possible 
> consequences are very intriguing.  SCO is acting like they own Linux... 
> binaries only, no source.  Now what, will Linus et al. sue SCO for 
> violating the GPL and their IP?  SCO hasn't proved its case yet, after 
> all.  How would a judge view this, especially if another court rules 
> that SCO's IP was not violated?
> 
> I think this was their intent all along.  Normally, a company would try 
> to buy a competitor, but that's not possible in this case.  So they 
> claim violation of their IP and attempt to hijack Linux.  And the GNU 
> project, XFree, KDE, GNOME, etc. as well, since they are not releasing 
> any source code.  They aren't even interested in the standard approach 
> of the offending party removing what was supposedly stolen.
> 
> Most, if not all of these projects could also sue.  
> 
> 
> Jef Barnhart wrote:

Even if every claims SCO made comes true, this strikes me as very dumb.
Just because someone has violated your copyright, does not give you the
ability to violate thiers, esp. before a court has even proved that
there has even *been* a copyright violation.

Seriously stupid.  They seem to be *wide* open to counter-attack now.  I
suspect they are just hoping that the sword of litigation only cuts one
way in this case.

Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
======================================================