3 ms·

I wonder if it includes the UNIX copyrights. Novell's waiver got a whole load of SCO's claims rejected. Hands up: who wants to see that particular can of worms

by andrewf 16y ago

I wonder if it includes the UNIX copyrights. Novell's waiver got a whole load of SCO's claims rejected. Hands up: who wants to see that particular can of worms reopened?

wickedchicken 16y ago
Well, those were claims that Linux copied from original UNIX code. Since that was rejected and new code added to Linux is most definitely not from a 30-year-old codebase, I would imagine Linux is safe.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Not only that, but by distributing the code, Novell effectively, under the terms of the GPLv2, granted usage and redistribution rights to all receivers of that code (me, you, Red Hat...), regardless of whatever patents they could violate. I love the way GPL renders toothless some threats. And the claims Linux code was a copy of Unix were completely refuted, IIRC.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would disagree with your view that the GPL grants an automatic patent license. It doesn't. At least GPL v2 doesn't. It was always assumed that there was an implicit grant, but as far as I know, this has never been tested in court. And I'm pretty sure that Oracle doesn't think that this is the case, since this is how they make money on Java. Also, I'm not sure if the copyright question was ever full ruled upon, since SCO never had standing to sue over something that they didn't own. I didn't follow all of the SCO rulings, but since they didn't own any UNIX copyrights, that argument could have just been moot.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." It's quite an unambiguous grant. Not only patents, but of whatever other instrument that could be used to remove the right to redistribute verbatim or modified versions in accordance to the rest of the license. It was never tested on court. This can be a reason.

by andrewf 16y ago

I wonder if it includes the UNIX copyrights. Novell's waiver got a whole load of SCO's claims rejected. Hands up: who wants to see that particular can of worms reopened?

wickedchicken 16y ago

Well, those were claims that Linux copied from original UNIX code. Since that was rejected and new code added to Linux is most definitely not from a 30-year-old codebase, I would imagine Linux is safe.

rbanffy 16y ago
Not only that, but by distributing the code, Novell effectively, under the terms of the GPLv2, granted usage and redistribution rights to all receivers of that code (me, you, Red Hat...), regardless of whatever patents they could violate. I love the way GPL renders toothless some threats. And the claims Linux code was a copy of Unix were completely refuted, IIRC.
- mbreese 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would disagree with your view that the GPL grants an automatic patent license. It doesn't. At least GPL v2 doesn't. It was always assumed that there was an implicit grant, but as far as I know, this has never been tested in court. And I'm pretty sure that Oracle doesn't think that this is the case, since this is how they make money on Java. Also, I'm not sure if the copyright question was ever full ruled upon, since SCO never had standing to sue over something that they didn't own. I didn't follow all of the SCO rulings, but since they didn't own any UNIX copyrights, that argument could have just been moot.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." It's quite an unambiguous grant. Not only patents, but of whatever other instrument that could be used to remove the right to redistribute verbatim or modified versions in accordance to the rest of the license. It was never tested on court. This can be a reason.