Re: [MLUG] The Newest Garbage From SCO

[Mark Haidekker <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

What can you say? I agree with all your comments. Except maybe the addition 
that it is not only good for software giants, but also for lawyers.

I wonder how much Microsoft is behind this? It just sounds like another wave 
of FUD, where people are made to believe that right is wrong and wrong is 
right. Violates US constitution? What nonsense.

Besides, AFAIK, once IP has been published, it cannot be patented. So post 
your code on the Web and advertise it. 

Mark


On Friday 05 December 2003 12:35, Robert West wrote:
> "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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark A. Haidekker, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Missouri-Columbia
Department of Biological Engineering
252 Ag Eng Bldg, 1406 E. Rollins St
Columbia, MO 65211
Phone: (573) 884-4943
Fax: (573) 884-5650
Email: EMAIL:PROTECTED
Web: http://haidekker-lab.missouri.edu


_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members