Replies

Glad to see those fauds at SCO are getting what they deserve. For those not familar with the case, SCO has been claiming that its code has been put into Linux - but when IBM & open-source advocates ask exactly WHAT Linux code was stolen, SCO refused to say.

That's not entirely accurate.

They have actually made multiple claims. They have claimed, as you said, that Linux contains SCO's copyrighted code, stolen verbatim. They have also said that Linux contains code 'derived' from SCO's copyrighted code, that is code that was written on a platform running something that SCO wrote. Apparently that's all that they believe is necessary to create a 'derived work'. Of course, like you said, they've failed to actually identify any infringing code, except for a small snippet that they tried to keep secret but got leaked anyway. That code turned out to have been from BSD (or something else, either way it didn't belong to SCO).

They've also claimed that the GPL is an invalid license because it's unconstitutional. Then they said that they didn't mean to say that it was unconstitutional, but that it violates the US Constitution. I'm not sure what the distinction is regarding that. Their arguments gainst the GPL are even more laughable than their claims against Linux, IMO.