Re: IBM countersues SCO... again

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, David Van Horn wrote:

> > IBM says in its counterclaim that SCO violated the general Public
> > License under which Linux is distributed. The GPL requires Linux
> > distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.
>
> It bugs me that they didn't say GNU anywhere in this article.

Also note the numerous incorrect misrepresentations of the GNU GPL.

This would be the first court action for the GNU GPL.  and it's setting-up
to be a poor one (interpretation-wise), but might be okay (success-wise)
because SCO is dumb.

and concerning the validity of the GPL in the workplace, note:

FSF Corporate Patronage Program
http://patron.fsf.org/

and the

GPL Compliance Lab

"The GPL Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of FSF since 1992
and was formalized in December 2001. The Compliance Lab is our department
that handles the investigation of reported GPL (and LGPL) violations and
subsequent license enforcement when violations are confirmed. The Lab also
assists other copyright holders (besides FSF itself) when they wish to
enforce the GPL. Finally, the Lab provides general "knowledge
infrastructure" concerning the GNU GPL and Free Software licensing; we
answer many licensing questions from the public and from lawyers working
in the field each day.