According to Darl's argument (if applied consistently), no copyright holder could choose to let others use the works he has created under contract, or allow redistribution under limited terms. Of course, the argument is nonsensical gibberish, and --if it were true-- would invalidate SCO's entire business, as well as that of the software industry his transcribed grunting noises here make reference to.
The GPL and other software license, whatever their ideological underpinnings, intent, or country of origin, are at least in the United States dependent on copyright law -- because that is the framework within which they are valid. This goes for Microsoft's secret-source Office suite as well as emacs.
Further on that point: this letter is some serious, energetic handwaving on SCO's and Darl's part, perhaps because it's now obvious that the company has now become, among the other things it has been (some of them good, like a supporter of Linux kernel development) an enthusiastic, willful violator of copyright.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
According to this argument ...
Posted by: timothy on December 05, 2003 05:09 AMThe GPL and other software license, whatever their ideological underpinnings, intent, or country of origin, are at least in the United States dependent on copyright law -- because that is the framework within which they are valid. This goes for Microsoft's secret-source Office suite as well as emacs.
Further on that point: this letter is some serious, energetic handwaving on SCO's and Darl's part, perhaps because it's now obvious that the company has now become, among the other things it has been (some of them good, like a supporter of Linux kernel development) an enthusiastic, willful violator of copyright.
timothy
#