Eben Moglen, Professor of Law, Columbia University, FSF pro bono general counsel for last decade, says no need to fear GPL being tested in US Court, astonished by latest SCO legal tactic to reject GPL validity. [The Register]

Reports say SCO may have violated GNU General Public License, GPL; eWeek says parts of Linux kernel code were copied into Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees. [The Inquirer]

CEO issues another open letter; challenges legal status of GPL with what SCO says are legal precedents that will terminate the idea of copyleft. [SCO]

Today's Wall Street Journal quotes SCO outside lawyer Mark Heise saying GPL is preempted by US federal copyright law; GPL license lets software and work derived from it be copied by anyone at no charge. [The Inquirer]

Reader email shows that SCO-Caldera changed their policy about GPL quickly, documents this with quote from SCO website: this material is provided AS-IS and at no charge. [The Inquirer]

Reader letters with links and quotes from SCO website showing SCO use of GPL principles, with some insightful comments. [The Inquirer]

According to Mark Heise of Boies, Schiller, and Flexner; SCO outside law firm, GNU GPL, by which Linux kernel and much other code is licensed, is invalid due to being preempted by US copyright law. Forum comments. [LWN: Linux Weekly News]

SCO response to IBM countersuit; GPL never faced full legal test, SCO says it will fall in court; SCO continues to base its legal claims on well-settled United States contract and copyright laws. Forum comments. [Linux Today]

SCO press release says nothing about IBM description of SCO conduct; but instead attacks GPL as, in part, created by Free Software Foundation to supplant current US copyright laws. [PR Newswire]

Samba team issued statement on SCO including Samba in its latest release of Unixware. Samba is distributed under GNU GPL. For SCO to keep using open source software when attacking others for such is hypocrisy. [The Inquirer]