[MLUG] The Newest Garbage From SCO

[Robert West <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

"SCO believes that copyright and patent laws adopted
by the United States Congress and the European Union
are critical to the further growth and development of
the $186 billion global software industry, and to the
technology business in general."

Certainly correct, very good for software companies,
however very bad software quality.

"Internet chat boards are filled with attacks against
SCO, its management and its lawyers. Personal threats
abound. At times the nature of these attacks is
breathtaking – the emotions are obscuring the very
clear and important legal issues SCO has raised. This
is to be expected when the controversy concerns such
deeply held beliefs. Despite the raw emotions,
however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights
and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned
by our elected officials in Congress and the European
Union, or do you support “free” – as in free from
ownership – intellectual property envisioned by the
Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There
really is no middle ground. The future of the global
economy hangs in the balance."

No sympathy, the mailboxes of several companies are
filled with threats of lawsuits.  And what's with this
drawing the line in the sand.  Are they saying it's
impossible for free and commercial software to exist. 
If that's their point then they obviously won't stop
until they've destroyed open source altogether.  Then
their point that this is just a case between two
corporations over licensing issues would be a false
one, given their stated opinion here.

"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is
distributed, violates the United States Constitution
and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional
authority to enact patent and copyright laws was
granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers under
Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution:"

First off, Linux isn't GPL, it's Linux license last
time I checked.  As far as violating the constitution,
total BS.  The software distributor can't be forced to
distribute software under the GPL.  The GPL doesn't
infringe on congress' ability to issue copyrights, it
doesn't violate any of the US laws or tax codes.  Is
it SCO's belief that any other license other than a
patent or copyright is unconstitutional.  What about
the microsoft EULA?  Or is it only licenses that allow
people to freely use and distribute software that is
unconstitutional.  I'm curious.

Roger

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingeltöne fürs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members