[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Jetzt wird die Strategie von "SCO" klar



In slide 20, SCO alleges that it owns essentially all of the
code in Linux that has been touched at all by IBM, SGI, and
other Unix licensees. These contributions constitute over 1.1
Million lines of code, 1549 files, totalling 2/3 of the new code
developed between the releases of Linux 2.2 and 2.4. But how
could SCO possibly own all of this code that is copyrighted by
other companies and individuals? SCO's legal theory, explained
in slide 6, is that the AT&T Unix license compelled all of these
companies to assign to AT&T, and later SCO, all derived works
that they created incorporating the Unix source code. Here is
the key clause on slide 6:

  Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE
  PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE
  PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated
  hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

>>>Under SCO's theory, if any code created by a Unix licensee ever
touches Unix, SCO owns that code from then on, and can deny its
creator the right to make use of it for any other purpose.<<<
   [ Emphasis mine -- KK ]


Es geht eigentlich um die GPL, und um die Schaffung von legal
precedent gegen die GPL. Die Initiative geht wahrscheinlich
nicht wirklich von SCO aus.

Wenn SCO dies gewinnt, ist Linux schwer beschädigt. Wenn SCO
dies verliert, ist SCO pleite, und jemand anders hat legal
precedent gegen die GPL, die ganz ähnlich argumentiert ("viral

Wie viel juristischen Halt das ganze in amerikanischem Recht
hat, kann ich natürlich nicht realistisch beurteilen.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de