decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
No Licensing Suspension
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT

I know you've seen the reports, and I have too. I haven't published the story up until now, because I couldn't confirm it. When I saw it in the Inquirer, I decided it was time to call SCO. I asked if they would confirm or deny the report that the Linux licensing program had been suspended. The woman said, "I haven't heard anything about it." She asked me where I'd heard or seen this. I told her. She then said she'd heard that someone told her it was on Slashdot, but she couldn't find the story.

What does it mean? Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I'm taking it as a denial. First she said something that could be interpreted a couple of ways, and then said something that indicates one interpretation is that she wasn't completely forthcoming. But what I think she actually meant is that she hadn't heard anything about the program being suspended. Perhaps if I'd tried to get a license, I'd have gotten more information or even different information, but I would have had to lie to do that, and I won't do that. Until there is more than a Slashdot comment to go on, I consider it unfounded, and I think it would be unfair to SCO to spread this story.

Obviously, if I hear more, I'll let you know.

By the way, an alert reader sent me the part of the Wall Street Journal article that the Salt Lake Tribune cut: "It's not hard to imagine a comparable denouement this time. Microsoft has long warned that Linux is a ticking copyright time bomb. Naturally, it's delighted with the lawsuit. But those warnings could have a kernel of truth. It wouldn't be shocking if, scattered in Linux's millions of lines, there were other examples like the one seen by Mr. Taylor: incidental and easily excised. In fact, few pieces of software this big could survive the same sort of review.

"What if, thanks to SCO, Linux could rid itself of any such questionable lines, and end up with a court-issued seal of copyright approval? Then what would Microsoft complain about? And what would SCO's new business plan be?"



  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )