[Samba] Samba, the GPL and SCO

[rruegner]

Hi,
we had posts about this before...this is a tec list, not for discuss
brainbugged sco phantasies
Best Regards

August Zajonc schrieb:
> For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably 
> noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make 
> the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely 
> on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing 
> to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement 
> is bogus but you still want to keep the car. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> ----
> 
> Quick clipping from the case:
> 
> 
> According to SCO, the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) "is unenforceable, 
> void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); 
> "violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and 
> export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 
> (Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or 
> inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 ¶¶ 24, 28, 155, 157); and is 
> preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. 
> (Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) 
> SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) 
> are waived and all are estopped from enforcing the GPL. (Ex. 2 at 20 
> (Seventh Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:14-215:7.)
> 
> As a result, SCO cannot here rely on the GPL or the LGPL (which is 
> identical to the GPL insofar as relevant here) as a grant of license or 
> permission to copy and distribute the IBM Copyrighted Works.
> 
>