>>> "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
> code.
> 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.
--
Jesse Hughes
"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
by