The Free Software Foundation apparently disagrees.
If you look at the terms of the GPL and the terms of copyright law, copyright law governs. It is the exclusive authority regarding the use, distribution, etc., of copyrighted material. In the GPL, (there is a section that) specifically says it applies only to the use and distribution. In other words, the exact same topics that are covered exclusively by the Copyright Act are covered by the GPL. Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law.
If SCO were to prevail, do you think it would poke holes in the GPL?
The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. SCO is not the one that put in these derivative works, which, as SCO has maintained, these companies were not allowed to do pursuant to their license. SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
You're not going to see that when you go into Linux. You're not going to see "copyright, The SCO Group." You'll see copyright IBM; you'll see copyright any other UNIX licensee, but it's not coming from us. The difference is that other companies have donated their copyrighted material, and they did so knowingly, and they're free to do that. But you're not free to take somebody else's copyrighted or otherwise protected material and put it into the GPL and suddenly it's for everybody.
Talkback
What box of cracker jacks did the SCO attourney get his law licence from? The US copyright law places no restrictions on a copyright holder to licence others to produce their works and the single copy exclusion is for single copy licences only. If this were not the case then every book printer in the US would be in violation even though they have a licence from the copyright holder. In the case of SCO and the GPL/Linux there are two issues to consider. First, SCO has failed to show any SCO copyrighted code in Linux. Secondly, even if they found code they have already licenced the free use and distribution of the 2.4 kernel code( all of it) under the GPL. Let's take the kid gloves off the next time you interview one of these idiots and have some fun. At this point, if I was one of this guys law partners I would be looking at loosing him before the corporate name is soiled too badly. Cleraly he dosen't know copyright law or common sense. Oh yes, to his paranoid friends, IBM did not, I repeate, did not put me up to this!
Is this about thier contract issue with IBM as the court case seems to state it or is it about SCO's view that they own all UNIX and all UNIX source code.
They are not going to convince others of that belief. Its easy enough to see where UNIX code has been released under other licenses by previous copyright holders. SCO owning UNIX now doesn't change the those facts.
SCO is certainly not endearing UNIX users or Linux users to them. This doesn't seem a good course for a company planning to survive on their software skills.
What a softball interview. Did SCO pay you to place this ad for their thievery. If only they spent as much on developing software that works.
Whether SCO even has copyright over the _alleged_ _offending_ code has STILL to be determined.
Read the above line again PLEASE.
A point this article seems to have omitted for whatever reason... who knows??
It does unfortunately however perpetuate the FUD that SCO have been trying to spread. Sloppy journalism or the boys from Redmond exerting their influence. Who knows??
What I do know is the whole thing stinks. ;-(