[Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?

[RRuegner]

Hi Folks,
i would be very pleased if you dont spam me
with sco brain fuck features.
This is a technical samba users help list, why dont you flame this on a
private list ?
Regards
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Marcus" <cmarcus at media-brokers.com>
To: <samba at lists.samba.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about
Samba?


> >> Actually, didn't SCO make the arguement that any GPL'd software should
> >> actually be declared "public domain"?  If that's so, doesn't allowing
them
> >> to continue using the software under the GPL put the copyright at risk?
>
> > In their site they write (these are not THEIR words !):
> >  "Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and
> > useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
> > exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
> > Thi later cite a sentence that want to show they are right. The sentence
> > is about extension of terms, that is how much "limited time" is
excluseve
> > right !
> > The only things that GPL license differ than a "normal" copyrighted work
> > are: 1. the license does not "expire" 2. The license force you to
license
> > derived works with the same license.
> > There are the points that SCO try use to show it is illegal.
> > Observations:
> >  1. : Yes, they are right on this point, but -apart that this would
> > apply to any of the computer licenses- this would only have the effect
to
> > set a limit on the time it would apply, and since they see "right" to
> > increase the spanm of tiome this would not be a problem now, and for may
> > years to come [incidentally: each update of programs would shift further
> > later expiring !]. The fact that whitin a certain time it would become
PD,
> > as many patents, should not worry much.
>
> Ahem...
>
> Many people have a hard time understanding American Constitutional
issues...
>
> The delegation of authority to Congress:
>
> "...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
> for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries."
>
> is NOT an exclusive one. In other words, it does NOT preclude any
> PRIVATE association from creating their OWN system for protecting the
> works of authors via contract, which is all the GPL is. It is valid, and
> any judge with half a brain working at 50% efficiency can see this plain
> as day - the problem will be finding a judge of this caliber who has
> ever read the Constitution and studies it's application.
>
> Charles
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>