>>> "A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK
>>> that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V
>>> source tree by former or current SCO employees."
>>> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "basically
>>> re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix
>>> kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP)
>>> in SCO Unix."
>>> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?
>> As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for companies
>> in violation?
>> I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in violation
>> of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties being applied to
>> companies that are in violation and will not back down.
>> Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?
> As I pointed out elsewhere, it is pointless to fight out the GPL in court.
> Under existing copyright law, SCO would not be able to use the code at
> all, presumably, without permission.
> The GPL _grants_ privileges not allowed under copyright law. Thus,
> fighting GPL "successfully" means you've just moved from a position of
> being granted rights to one of _not_ being granted rights, pretty
> effectively eliminating any hope you may have of claiming legal use of the
> Were the GPL restrictive or prohibitive in nature, perhaps fighting it
> would make sense. However it isn't; it gives rights where none existed
> before. As the "consumer", I am perfectly within my rights to absolutely,
> completely and totally ignore the GPL and just be bound by copyright.
> Somehow I can't see anyone seeing a point in attacking the GPL; it just
> doesn't make any sense. There's nothing to be gained by doing it.
It's not a question of "fighting" the GPL. It's a question of whether
courts agree that the GPL grants only those rights that its adherents
claim it grants, or whether it grants greater rights than intended.
If I write a bad contract, I may accidentally grant you more rights
than I intended to grant. In particular, if a court claims that some
of the requirements I placed on you are unenforceable, then you may
come away with all the benefits I intended, but with none of the
onerous requirements I also intended.
So, a test of the GPL in court is decidedly not pointless.
"Yes, I'm one of those arrogant people who tries to be quotable.
There is actually at least one person who quotes me often."
-- James Harris