[clug] sec: unclassified - Samba Team, on SCO and sweet irony

[Sam Couter]

Kim Holburn <kim.holburn at anu.edu.au> wrote:
> So if I buy a book from a bookshop and the "copyright holder" revokes my "license" to own the book, I have to send it back?

When you buy a book you're not licensing the work. The publisher has a
licence (or owns the copyright). Considering the nature of printed
works, I'd say that the licence would be considered irrevocable.

I don't know if the licence for a work can be revoked so that you can no
longer keep your copy of a work. I think the most they can do is revoke
your right to copy and/or distribute the work, assuming you had that
right in the first place.

In the case of SCO vs IBM, I believe SCO told IBM their licence to
distribute AIX was revoked. I don't think that means that IBM customers
who purchased AIX have to destroy their copies. SCO vs Linux is
different: They're claiming Linux was never properly licenced in the
first place, so should be paid for or destroyed.
-- 
Sam "Eddie" Couter  |  mailto:sam at couter.dropbear.id.au
Debian Developer    |  mailto:eddie at debian.org
                    |  jabber:sam at teknohaus.dyndns.org
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20030821/6ce56105/attachment.bin