Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 30th Apr 2004 18:21 UTC, submitted by Tudy Parghel
SCO, Caldera, Unixware In The SCO Group Inc.'s latest U.S. District Court filing as it battles IBM over Linux, the company is no longer using the affirmative defense that the GNU General Public License (GPL) is unconstitutional. SCO president and CEO Darl McBride took aim at the GNU General Public License, under which Linux is distributed, in a December open letter. He said the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution as well as U.S. copyright and patent laws.
Order by: Score:
v What do they have left?
by Just some dude on Fri 30th Apr 2004 18:40 UTC
come on
by Matt S. on Fri 30th Apr 2004 18:55 UTC

I found this bit of the article some what amusing!

"By taking action, our company has become a target for sometimes vicious attacks—including online attacks that have repeatedly shut down our company Web site," McBride continued in his letter to federal officials. "Despite this, we are determined to see these legal cases through to the end because we are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of open-source software, under the GPL, is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S corporations realize."

Is this guy truly for real!? Would you like some fries with that whine!

What a grasshole
by shucky ducky quack quack on Fri 30th Apr 2004 19:42 UTC

"...we are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of open-source software, under the GPL, is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S corporations realize."

What an utterly greedy and idiotic argument!

Idiotic because he's equating the GPL with free (as in money) software. The GPL doesn't restrict software at no charge!

Greedy because, assuming GPL software is free (as in money), he's saying no-cost software is so bad that it should be punished in court. What's bad about no-cost software? He's implying that making money is more important than customer satisfaction. If no-cost software provides a better solution than capitalist/SCO software (another assumption), shouldn't the consumer have that choice? He's basically saying that no-cost software (which remember isn't even really GPL software per se) is a threat to businesses, so litigation is needed instead of improving their own product.

What an insensitive d!!!

Linuxtoday counters this report
by CdBee on Fri 30th Apr 2004 20:54 UTC

http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2004043002726OSCDLL

This link (linuxtoday - a portal for OSS news) suggests the opposite, that SCO maintains its claim

So
by Silver City on Fri 30th Apr 2004 21:14 UTC

Now they're just saying it in public but not in court. Where's the sense in that?

darl mcbride is just a microsoft puppet
by b-slap-the-e on Fri 30th Apr 2004 23:42 UTC

So of course Darl is going to say some outrageous things regarding GPL/open source.

As Microsoft well knows, there is no way to compete with a monopolist on price. So Microsoft wants to make sure they do their best to cripple any sort of free software that is not encumbered by all sorts of laws that will increases costs well beyond 'free'.

The more Microsoft can shut out small players, the less competition they have from small companies delivering innovative solutions to the market.

And we all know Microsoft believes in their right to innovate:

Microsoft... "innovating new ways to crush competition"

SCO Backs Off GPL Claims - CEO Darl McBride
by daeH_taeM on Sat 1st May 2004 06:46 UTC

Good Dog. Sit. :>

@ CdBee
by dpi on Sat 1st May 2004 14:48 UTC

"This link (linuxtoday - a portal for OSS news) suggests the opposite, that SCO maintains its claim"

Really? SCO "maintains some claims", yes. What's their source?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040428235932742

"DROPPED: "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.""

PDF is there, straight from the courtroom.

IP rights? yeah, right
by Lanjoe9 on Sun 2nd May 2004 17:24 UTC

"It undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights"

Yeah? Well, when I see an individual name in any Mocosoft products, I'll believe in intellectual property rights.

How can you speak of intellectual property rights when what you think about, even in your spare time, automatically becomes the company's property??

SCO stinks, SO much.

Re: unconstitutional what ?
by old faithful on Sun 2nd May 2004 18:25 UTC

If GPL is unconstitutional so is "The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies" ?

From a dictionary:

Noun: independence

1. Freedom from control or influence of another or others
2. The successful ending of the American Revolution


Respectfully I quote one the most important documents of the humankind !!!!


The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit

of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

and to institute new Government, [{(New Operational System !!!!! )}]

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will ...

US law
by Jarek Pelczar on Sun 2nd May 2004 21:50 UTC

Is US law the law of the world ?

v Re: US law
by Will T on Mon 3rd May 2004 18:23 UTC
RE: US law
by old faithfull on Tue 4th May 2004 03:39 UTC

Did you read the article ? SCO, an USA business, claims GPL is unconstitutional in USA the land of "The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies"

Notwithstanding, the "The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies" has an Universal value !!!!

Best regards.