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
Kernel Coder Puts SCO on Notice of Copyright Infringement
Sunday, June 15 2003 @ 07:26 PM EDT

Kernel Coder Puts SCO on Notice of Copyright Infringement
Here Comes the GPL!



The Inquirer is reporting that a kernel developer, currently anonymous, has sent a notice of copyright infringement to SCO by email. As the article correctly points out, there are hundreds of others who have also contributed to the kernel and thus would have similar claims.

On Friday, I mused aloud:

" GPL or Copyright Law -- Pick Your Poison SCO has been saying that they didn't know they were releasing under the GPL. What if that were true? Then it would mean that they never had the right to release a Linux product in the first place. If the GPL is found invalid, then you revert to copyright law.

"Now here is the detail that just occured to me: Linus Torvalds isn't the only individual who has contributed to the kernel and his policy is, or at least it was the last time I looked, that each contributor retains his or her own copyright rights, even though the kernel itself is under GPL v2. So... if SCO released a product outside of the GPL, then couldn't any of the copyright holders bring an action for copyright infringement against SCO?"

Now someone, evidently in Germany, has had the same thought and is doing it.

The email points out that Linux is still available from SCO's web site. Then the coder points out that as co-author and copyright owner of several parts of the kernel, he released his code solely under the GPL and that SCO is claiming that in that file is proprietary code belonging to them, so their continuing to offer that file is a violation of the terms of the GPL:

"I've granted everyone the right to sell, distribute and use my work under the condition that they obey the restriction of the GPL. The GPL requires that a work that is based on a works that is licensed under the GPL must be put under the GPL. I've never authorized any other use of my work.

"This means that your distribution of the above given file, and any sale of OpenLinux 3.1.1, is not authorized by me and infringes my copyright."

In addition to money damages, the emailer reserves the right to sue the German branch of SCO and suggests as an alternative:

"As an alternative, I'll abstain from suing you for copyright infringement if you drop your claims that the source in linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm infringes your copyright, for example by putting the part that you claim copyright on under the GPL. The exact details would have to be discussed."

On June 5th, I posted some other places I was able to find SCO's OpenLinux for sale, including at Tucows, InActSys.com, even from Shop Caldera.

As is not uncommon, SCO too seems to have underestimated the GPL. However, because they are such strong believers in the sanctity of intellectual property rights, no doubt SCO will immediately comply. I'm sure they have no desire to infringe on anyone's rights under copyright while holding that holy banner so high in their own IP Crusade. If not, I'd say the GPL may be heading to court.


  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 )