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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]