Toolkit

Story: SCO to attack validity of Linux licence

Posted by: Jeremy Stanley (Friday 15 August 2003, 3:25 PM)

Heise's argument is absurd.

Copyright law does indeed allow end-users to make a backup copy of software, but this is only a minimum. It most certainly does NOT disallow the copyright holder from setting the terms for further copying to be allowed.

Case in point: Some of Microsoft's site licenses allow the installation media to be copied and used throughout the site. Also, the MS Office 2000 license allows the end-user to install it on a desktop and a laptop. By Heise's argument, these licenses are trumped by copyright law.

Another example: Shareware programs. These have been around for over a decade, and no one has challenged their legality or implied that they are not copyrighted.

In addition, I fail to see what SCO has to gain by invalidating the GPL. The GPL is the ONLY thing that gives them the right to distribute Linux. If they claim it is invalid, they have no right to distribute Linux and, since they continue to distribute it (even if it is just to existing customers), they are infringing on the copyrights of countless kernel contributors.

The only way SCO could benefit from breaking the GPL is if they could convince the court that GPL software is actually in the public domain. It seems inconsistent, though, that the self-proclaimed Royal High Guardian of Intellectual Property in the Internet Age(tm) should attempt to protect its own intellectual property by voiding the copyrights of every Linux contributor.

McBride has stated many times that there are two kinds of people: those who respect intellectual property and those who don't. It's painfully clear what side he is on.