The Pragmatic Craftsman         :: Simplicity from complexity :: | About Me |

If you follow the SCO vs Linux case, as I have, you might find this interesting. I totally agree with Mr. Eben Moglen, general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, who's saying that SCO's legal situation contains an inherent contradiction.

- SCO distributed, and continues to distribute, Linux under the GPL (General Public License), thereby giving permission to copy, modify and redistribute

- No distributor of GPL code can add any terms to the license, yet SCO has demanded that parties buy a license

- Anyone who violates the GPL automatically loses the right to distribute (here, IBM is right, saying that SCO has no right to distribute Linux kernel)

This is interesting, but what SCO is doing is starting to irritate me. I wish, once for all, that if they feel that some work has been copied, show exactly which code, and the case would go from there. Stop spreading the FUD. I don't know who's trusting SCO and buying products from them, I really don't.