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]
Some organizations argue SCO shipping a Linux product undermines its current attack on Linux intellectual property underpinnings; SCO says argument baseless; issue spotlights key tenet of GPL governing Linux kernel. [CNET News.com]
Some open source community members claim SCO violated GNU GPL by copying source code from Linux kernel into SCO Unix Linux Kernel Personality feature without releasing changes publicly or showing attribution copyright notice. [eWeek]
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]
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]
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]
Open letter by CEO Darl McBride gives view on key issue of US copyright law versus GNU GPL; warns that current legal controversies will rage for at least another 18 months, until original case against IBM goes to trial. [eWeek]
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]
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]