[linux-elitists] The breadth of SCO's claims

Aaron Sherman ajs@ajs.com
Fri Jun 27 15:50:26 PDT 2003


On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 15:57, Karsten M. Self wrote:

> I *strongly* discourage private responses to list mail, particularly for
> general questions.  It borders on extremely rude.  Often on the far
> side.

Another topic for another thread, I suppose. I have different opinions,
but they've evolved out of what are clearly a different set of
experiences, and I don't have STRONG opinions either way.

> > I was saying that you cannot recieve a copyrighted work under more
> > than one license,
> 
> Wrong.
[...]
> Before you launch off into this, I'm curious at what makes you think
> that there cannot be multiple, possibly conflicting, claims to a single
> property. 

I don't think I ever said that. A single property might be the result of
combinging and arbitrary number of works, so clearly it can be governed
by an arbitrary number of claims.

What I said was that between you and I, there will be an agreement that
governs my use of a piece of software. That is the license, and that's
the only thing I care about. The nature of the license that you have (or
do not have) the right to draw up between us is your concern, not mine.
It might come to pass that you wrote a license that you didn't have the
right to, and that might result in my license going away, but only you
and I (by mutual agreement, or as spelled out in the existing license)
can alter the existing license. SCO cannot alter my license (GPL) with
IBM, even if it is shown to be invalid. They can turn around and say
*we* will license that same thing to you, but then I have an agreement
with SCO.

I might create a derived work, and that derived work might be licensed
from many sources, but for each source, there is a work that is licensed
and a single agreement that governs that work. My derived work will, in
turn, be licensed under a single agreement per recipeient. I was
questioning who the parties to those agreements were, and I think the
answer is: ask a lawyer.

> > here... THE BSD LICENSE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SUB-LICENSING. 
> 
> You're ranting, Aaron.

Hmm, you're reading an emotion into it that isn't there. I was just
emphasizing the point because I thought it was useful.

Thanks for the discussion, and good luck.

-- 
Aaron Sherman <ajs@ajs.com>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20030627/73dfdebc/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list