Distribution GPL Clause and SCO's Licence
SCO think they have been very clever.
SCO's recently announced licensing scheme applies only to Linux end-users, and does not permit redistribution or access to source.
Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there really is SCO copyrighted code in the Linux kernel, unlikely though that presently seems. Let's also ignore, just for the time being, that SCO have in the past and continue to distribute the kernel under the GPL, thereby granting a perpetual licence to modify and redistribute it.
The GPL would not allow SCO to distribute the kernel under a proprietary licence. SCO aren't doing that: they're allowing Red Hat et al to continue distributing it, but in addition SCO are demanding fees from end users. I think this doesn't put Red Hat in breach of the GPL, because they're not the ones imposing the extra conditions. And the GPL (leaving aside SCO's previous distribution) doesn't apply to SCO, because they're not the ones distributing it. SCO think they're very clever.
There's a catch.
Even assuming there is proprietary SCO code in the kernel, SCO are not allowed to demand money from end users. As Eben Moglen pointed out, copyright holders can't use of a work, only distribution. SCO has no grounds to demand money from people who are merely using Linux and not distributing it — and these are the only people to whom their new licence applies!
SCO is playing up a misperception that you there is some kind of "right to use" in copyright law, which must be purchased. There is not.
Check and mate in two moves.
posted Wed 6 Aug 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Archives 2008: Apr Feb 2007: Jul May Feb Jan 2006: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Jan 2005: Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2004: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2003: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May
Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.