[linux-elitists] SCO claims the GPL is invalid...?

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Fri Aug 15 11:48:19 PDT 2003

Quoting Karsten Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com):

> WRT the issue of GPL validity in light of 17 USC 117:
>     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=113860

What he said.

Essentially, USA Federal law says you have a right to (minimum) one
archival copy _even if_ nothing else grants you that right.  Obviously,
that doesn't mean the copyright holder cannot grant the right to more
copies -- which is precisely what (among other things) GPLv2 and various
other open-source _and_ proprietary licences do.

Jon, since this twinkie lawyer at Boies Schiller and Flexner actually 
_did_ (if you believe the Wall Street Journal) raise this sort of
kindergarten debating point for the credulous[1] -- an all-time low for
the plaintiff so far -- I think it suggests an answer to the nagging
question "If this lawsuit is such an improbable longshot, why is David
Boies involved?"

Boies is getting paid.

In my experience, an attorney's primary criterion for successful client
relations is whether the cheques clear.  A losing case with paid-up
legal fees will subsidise the firm's golf club membership better than a
winning case with little remuneration.

[1] I call your attention, yet again, to the gaping chasm between what
Caldera/SCO assert in court and the utterances during their increasingly
goofy press appearances.  There's a reason:  If Mark Heise, Esq. were to
raise that fraudulent argument in Federal court, the judge would throw
him out on his ass so fast he'd have scorch marks.

Cheers,                                      "My file system's got no nodes!"
Rick Moen                                    "How does it shell?"

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list