[ANSOL-geral]SCO-IBM Vs Timeline Inc-Microsoft : Better off with Linux -recortes-
Ricardo Jorge Godinho Nunes
rjgn arroba netc.pt
Sat May 31 22:28:01 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Title SCO-IBM Vs Timeline Inc-Microsoft : Better off with Linux
Date 2003.05.31 8:41
NZheretic writes, "If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over
intellectual property then you are actually in a better legal position using
GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in
their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US
Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract
Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper
option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts
developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft
product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe
haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual
property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no
protection against threat from current or future intellectual property
"However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL
licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL
license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license
to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and
is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO
intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives
the GPL source.
"The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property
infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e
binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third
party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it
must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has
distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to
SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.
"SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's
intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant
anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions
upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.
"It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the
Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed
sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO
intellectual property to the all the current development.
"You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other
GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source
The opinions in this article belong to its author, and may or may not be
shared by NewsForge editors and OSDN management.
1. "US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft" -
2. "risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc
patents" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
3. "it must by the terms of the GPL license" -
Ricardo Jorge <FSOSS>
GNU/Linux Registered User #190585
Key fingerprint = 478B C11B 3802 D151 CDB1 309E 69BF 6F02 352C 9ED3
- - ----
- - ----
"Some things -and an operating system is one of them- are just too fundamental
to be locked up in a box.
It's basic infrastructure and basic infrastructure must be shared technology"
IBM's Linux Technology Center
- - ----
let's wake up the ECHELON....
"Kill the President" , "nuclear", "assassinate" , "Roswell", "UFO" , "enigma"
, "saucer" , "grudge" , "the farm" , "snowbird" , "dreamland"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----