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

Jonathan Corbet corbet-elite@lwn.net
Fri Aug 15 12:13:40 PDT 2003

> 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

FWIW, I've got a message into the Florida office of Boies et al asking if I
can have a little conversation with Mr. Heise.  I've told them I want to be
able to report accurately on what he is really saying...  

...because this whole line of reasoning makes no sense to me at all.  As
you pointed out, Rick, if they kill the GPL they don't really advance their
case in any useful way.

I had anticipated an attack on the sections 6 and 7 of the GPL, so that
*they* (or people who paid them off) would be able to distribute Linux code
under something other than the GPL.  Of course [checking...] the GPL has no
severability clause (other than a specific one for section 7), so, if I
understand correctly, you can't get a court to just invalidate parts of

>  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.

At the teleconference yesterday, Darl indicated that it was mostly on a
contingency basis.  I always assumed that they are doing it for the
spotlight and the chance to bet on a billion-dollar horse.

But, then, I still feel like I'm missing something important here.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list