[linux-elitists] It seems to me. . .

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Fri May 16 07:21:51 PDT 2003


on Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:09:06AM -0400, Mark Stillwell (marklee@ufl.edu) wrote:
> I doubt if SCO's actions before they decided to sue IBM will be able to
> be held against them.  However, they did continue to distribute their
> version of linux (with kernel) for a while after they started the lawsuit.
> This would seem to be a violation of the GPL.

Please review the definitions of the following words and phrases:

  - Estoppel.
  - Bad faith negotiation.
  - Reneging on contract.
  - Corporate due dillegance.

SCO's case is IMO fatally harmed by its three years of distribution of
the works it claims embody trade secrets and copyrighted code.  It may
have a complaint, in the specific instance of the latter, against the
individual or organizations responsible for submitting specific kernel
code.  Not against the broader community or userbase.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Comic tragedy:  MobiliX sued by comix publisher over iX trademark
     http://mobilix.org/mobilix_asterix.html



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list