Guy,
The chances of the GPL being declared
unconstitutional under US law is about as
close to zero as one can get.
5 Points:
1) The Constitution does NOT require Congress to have a patent law, it only give it the power to create one if it so desires.
Article 1, Section 8 says "The Congress shall have the power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
2) Congress can set the parameters of the
that law in any way that does not violate
other provisions of the Constitution. I can
see no provisions in the present Copyright
law that says only items written for profit are
protected (as a matter of fact, there are
many provisions that say just the opposite)
3) The GPL is a contract freely entered into
by those that publish their works under it.
The provisions of the GPL are outlined in
publically available documents.
4) If you choose to avail yourself of GPL-
licensed software, you MUST accept the
provisions of that contract. However, you are
not compelled to use GPL-licensed software
- you can always write your own that
performs the equiv. function.
5) Given the 4 items above, I see no reason
why any court could claim that the GPL is at
conflict with the present Copyright laws of
the US.
Now let me add I am NOT a lawyer, but I
have spoken with my cousin, who IS an IP
attorney, and he agress with my line of
reasoning. SCO's problem with the GPL is
they believe that the profit motive should be
the ONLY "safe harbor" under which
software should be protected. Case law is
not on their side.
Bottom line: the whole SCO "thing" is a full-
face attempt at extortion, both of companies
like IBM and the user community.
BTW, when is someone going to sue
Microslime for their numerous and on-going
violations of the GPL?
Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA
Date sent: Fri,
30 Apr 2004 15:01:48 -0600
From: Guy
Fraser <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The Internet Centre
To: For
users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re:
SCO: GPL not unconstitutional
Send reply to: For users of Fedora
Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe>
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> jludwig wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 03:38, bulent wrote:
> >Snip;
> >
> >
> >>algat/ANKARA/TURKIYE
> >>
> >>There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield
> >>of law and in the name of justice.
> >>
> >>
> >Your quote sums it up nicely. I forgot, what Software monopoly is
> >financially backing SCO ??
> >
> They are now claiming {like Microsoft did} that GPL is not enforcable and is
> un-American.
>
> I don't know what rock they have been living under, but America is not the
> whole world. And just because the GPL isnot a licence to rip people off does
> not make it un-American {I hope}.
>
> If SCO wins, on the basis that the GPL licence is un-American, the all the
> American Linux Distros are affected, but what do Norweigens and the rest of
> the work care because they are by definition not American, and in most cases
> glad of that fact. America can keep SCO and Microsoft, the rst of us will
> happily use Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and other worthy operating systems.
>
> Actualy it would be a good thing, the current anti-American sentiment around
> the world would cause an increase in Linux use if it were to be deemed
> un-American. Bill Gates and SCO can be as American as they want and if they
> get what they want, that's all the market they may have.
>
>
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
