On GameFAQs: The top 100 most popular games!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 2 of 85:
Next »
« Previous
Is SCO stupid or insane?
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws," SCO Group said in an answer filed late Friday to an IBM court filing.

One way to read this is that SCO is saying that the U.S Constitution does not allow copyright, antitrust, or export control laws. I do not believe that even SCO is stupid enough to think they can overturn much of our federal laws. Copyright is the foundation of many of our big buinesses, including the book, movie, music and software industries. Is antitrust illegal? Please tell AT&T that they could have had antitrust law declared illegal. Are they saying our export controls are illegal? The U.S. court system is not a good place to overturn laws that affect the income of the federal gevernment; they would have a better chance lobbying in D.C.

Let us fix the sentence:
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, copyright, antitrust and export control laws.

The GPL allows people who want to use something copyrighted by someone else may do so if they follow certain conditions. Copyright allows me to offer this writing into the public domain. Copyright allows me to charge others for using works I have created. The GPL says that you can use my work as long as you distribute your contributions to my work if you redistribute my work with your changes. Without the GPL, you could redistribute my work only after negotiating a price with me.

The advantage of releasing work under the GPL is that other people can collaborate with me as long as they all agree to the same terms. This is what has happened to Linux. Millions of people have contributed to Linux. They all agreed to use the GPL to cover their work. It would be impossible to use any significant amount of the Linux code without the GPL, because there are too many contributors to be contacted and negotiated with separately.

I do not remember any of the U.S. Constitution stating it was illegal to collaborate with others. The Constitution itself was a collaborative work that was placed in the public domain (as all laws must be in this country.)

The GPL builds upon copyright law. Without copyright, the GPL is unneeded. Without copyright, the GPL is useless, since all work would be public domain. Having copyright without the GPL, you need to negotiate with every contributor to a work. The GPL sets the terms of copying my work. You do not need to use them; in many cases you could still negotiate with me. There are much software that can be used under the GPL or used under different licaenses if you pay for it. I could release a song under the terms that you must pay $0.08 every time you play it in the radio. That is our current system. There is nothing illegal about setting the price of using a copyrighted work on the package.

I have no idea how the GPL affects antitrust, other than the GPL allows a legal hole in copyright which allows monopolies by definition, but the GPL helps avoid monopolies that would lead to antitrust.

Is SCO saying that SCO violated U.S. export controls when SCO distributed software? This is weird: "Over here! We did it! We think it is illegal and we want to be punished." Huh? I think that this proves SCO is not doing this under their own brainpower. Even a child knows you start with "Not me" then listen to the evidence. Trying to force the government into recognizing you as a criminal usually gets you locked up in an institution for the insane.

--
Make your sig "Still no Preview button" until ZDNet fixes it.
Posted by: solprovider   Posted on: 10/29/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SCO.....becoming less of an entity  ONEstar | 10/28/03
Is SCO stupid or insane?  solprovider | 10/29/03
Use Windows at home  markj44 | 11/04/03
General Public License  decourl | 10/28/03
You are incorrect  Robert Crocker | 10/28/03
Story is still incorrect  decourl | 10/28/03
that's why it pays  lmaxwell | 10/28/03
LOL - another m$ blunder  stephen732@... | 10/28/03
Ah, the missed details...  John Le'Brecage | 10/28/03
Why settle for just snippets?  Robert Crocker | 10/29/03
More misconceptions  escoles@... | 10/29/03
You're seriously confused  gath | 10/29/03
Oh, yeah?  Yen_z | 10/29/03
Why you you code for GPL?  IT_User | 10/29/03
Your crazy... and these message boards really suck  FreeBSD | 10/29/03
Am I required to publish my modifications?  csk_1975 | 10/28/03
Point well taken  decourl | 10/28/03
Distribute source code upon request  dscherf | 10/29/03
Depends on what you mean...  jmoconnor | 10/28/03
Sweet (and these new talkbacks suck)  Patrick Jones | 10/29/03
GPL is easy to read !  mgalle | 10/29/03
Come on SCO, we support you!  pa2004 | 10/29/03
Say what!?!  Laff | 10/29/03
Nice to know...  IT_User | 10/29/03
I see a different issue with GPL  screaming silence | 10/29/03
Re: I see a different issue with GPL  Chris Moller | 10/29/03
Is this a loophole or a GPL violation?  screaming silence | 10/29/03
Re: Is this a loophole or a GPL violation?  Chris Moller | 10/29/03
Programs without a purpose?  in-DUH-vidual | 10/29/03
Unlikely to arrise, I'd guess  dw@... | 10/29/03
It's already happening  screaming silence | 10/29/03
RHEL - You're way off base  TechnoGypsy | 10/29/03
Hmmm...  screaming silence | 10/29/03
Re: Hmmm...  rhavyn | 10/29/03
Pass on legal guidance, but....  Dr.C | 10/29/03
Misprint.  gulic | 10/28/03
Unbelieveably desperate  zd-spam | 10/28/03
This is great news!  George Mitchell | 10/28/03
No-research - ignorant ZDNet reporter strikes again  Robert Hahn | 10/28/03
But interesting ... Samba example  Fred Fredrickson | 10/28/03
Two Samba issues  Robert Crocker | 10/29/03
SCO Legal Moves  Chad_z | 10/28/03
When will SCO give it up? . . Don't they know nobody is listening any more?  Plain Logic | 10/28/03
Re: When will SCO give it up?  Chris Moller | 10/29/03
Flailing in the 'net  bidemytime | 10/28/03
Balderdash.  Rednoise | 10/28/03
good article; bad title  error27@... | 10/28/03
morals -- lol  blahblahblah | 10/29/03
SCO: "GPL Violates laws of gravity"  dw@... | 10/29/03
Ok, do they REALLY expect to have customers?  BitTwiddler | 10/29/03
customers  blahblahblah | 10/29/03
Let's just say...  BitTwiddler | 10/29/03
Would otherlicenses then get overturned?  Robert Crocker | 10/29/03
The really intersting questions...  escoles@... | 10/29/03
Don't be so sure...  BitTwiddler | 10/29/03
Re your post  none none | 10/29/03
Man, these new Talkbacks stink!!  none none | 10/29/03
ZDNet, you suck...  none none | 10/29/03
GPL and EULA  dkwiatkowski@... | 10/29/03
EULA worse than GPL  rgriffith64@... | 10/29/03
Very interesting even if completely useless.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/29/03
What version of the US constitution .....  Terfenol_D | 10/29/03
Not the same version the US Army is reading...  dw@... | 10/29/03
LAND WARRIOR Article  MarcB_z | 10/29/03
ERROR  Update victim | 10/29/03
A sign of weakness  voska | 10/29/03
What If This Forces Software Licensing Legislation  andyhayes1 | 10/29/03
Your crazy..  FreeBSD | 10/29/03
Does anybody know .....  Dr.C | 10/29/03
Legitimate concern  pschroeder@... | 10/29/03
You're right  IT_User | 10/29/03
Market  pschroeder@... | 10/29/03
The GPL violates the constitution?!  HypnoToad | 10/29/03
Enough windmills to tilt at  rbethell | 10/29/03
SCO's Real Goal  BanjoPaterson | 10/29/03
Could SCO....  KMAG | 10/29/03
SCO and Microsoft... winning big by losing big  Knorthern Knight | 10/29/03
'SCO offered no details in its court filing,'  jgmsys@... | 10/29/03
SCO, is not the only game in town.  netalff@... | 10/29/03
Good Question...  John Zern | 10/29/03
sell sell sell   afterbrnr | 11/04/03
The GPL virus  markj44 | 11/04/03
Many big companies violate the GPL  markj44 | 11/04/03
It really doesn't matter what people think  markj44 | 11/04/03
what do you mean - untested  wessonjoe | 09/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here