[clug] Fw: Linux licence

[Conrad Canterford]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 18:57, Ian McCulloch wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2003, Conrad Canterford wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 12:02, Kim Holburn wrote: 
> > > I would think that before SCO asks for licenses for linux they would
> > > have to specify in detail what code in the linux kernel they think
> > > they own.
> > No, its not illegal. <snip> Now, if they continue to extort licence
> > fees after a court has laughed them out the door, that's a different
> > matter - that might be illegal.
> Violation of the trade practices act?  If they get to the point of 
> actually billing people it is surely illegal, obtaining money under 
> false pretences or some such.

As I said, once there is a court ruling that they don't have any rights,
things may well be different. That will depend though exactly what the
court says, and I certainly am not going to make definitive statements 
until that happens and I can see what loopholes have been left. Its
likely a safe bet that if such a ruling does happen, and if SCO continue
to try charging a licence fee, then their lawyers have spotted some
point which they think is arguable.

Prior to there being a ruling (not necessarilly in Australia, mind)
settling if SCO have the rights they claim or not, SCO are still
entitled to claim that they do, and can request licence fees. The only
way I can think of that would stop the whole show is if someone can
conclusively prove to a court that SCO KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that their
cliams are untrue, and I'm afraid that's practically guaranteed to fail
(it would require some pretty damning evidence from SCO itself, I
expect).

Note that none of the above should be taken as legal advice. If anything
I have suggested looks like it might apply to your situation you MUST
get your own legal advice.

Conrad.