Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

SCO: GPL is constitutional after all

Groklaw reports that SCO has retracted its claim that the GNU GPL is unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and violates export control laws:

DROPPED: "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

Well, that's a relief. The US constitution permits copyright holders to publish their work under a licence? How remarkable.

PJ writes:

This is the happy day that SCO acknowledges by its actions -- although it failed to put out a press release -- that the GPL isn't unconstitutional after all. A little smear here, a little smear there, and then, poof. All gone. "Sorry for having questioned your legality and trying to make people think you are subversive and unconstitutional and all. Our mistake." Of course, they didn't actually apologize. I'm just horsing around and pretending to apologize in their voice. You wouldn't want to hold your breath waiting for them to say they are sorry.

They are probably too embarrassed to do anything but quietly drop it and then skulk away. They do still claim the GPL is void or voidable, that it is unenforceable, and that the FSF selectively enforces it, so not all the silliness is gone. But they have tucked tail and begun to back down. They are getting their PhD in the GPL, and in time it will gradually dawn on them that they are wrong about all the rest too. Then they will completely throw in the towel, with a snarl, I have no doubt, and then we will have a party, an international celebration, which I will attend in a red dress. [...]

Humorously, SCO says the following allegations by IBM are "wholly irrelevant":

58. SCO submitted an Amended Complaint on July 22, 2003 and a Second Amended Complaint on February 27, 2004.

59. In its succession of complaints, SCO has asserted legal theories that are meritless , such as that SCO has ownership rights with respect to all of the code in AIX and Dynix . SCO has also sought relief to which it is plainly not entitled, such as a permanent injunction terminating IBM's ability to possess and use the software products it licensed from AT&T Technologies, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that those rights are expressly "irrevocable" and "perpetual".

60. SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a single trade secret that IBM allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its Second Amended Complaint.

73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a week."

posted Fri 30 Apr 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.