[CLUE-Talk] SCO providing Linux licenses

[Kirk Rafferty]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:15:17PM -0600, Timothy C. Klein 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.

ObIANAL.

I'm really interested in seeing how this works out.  If SCO are, in effect,
licensing code in the Linux kernel under a different license (via the
Unixware license), then they are in effect "distributing" their code.  But
they're distributing closed-source code within GPL'd code.  This would very
much seem to violate the GPL.

I just can't see how they can have it both ways.  They aledge that Unix
code is in the Linux kernel, but then they seem to "bless" it by offering
a binary-only license.  I think that as soon as the Unixware license
program is official, they have effectively GPL'd their alleged code. (as
opposed to "accidentally" licensing it.)

Imbedded licensing, interesting concept.

-k