SCO is going to kill Linux. Buy Windows Server or get sued for IP theft.
MSFT was founded on expert legal moves, it's going to thrive on this one.
Linux needs a lawyer to install it.
<look at the commercial software industry. that is, assuming the destructive promise of free software someday bears fruit.>
Big assumption. I don't see any destructive
promise. Evidently IBM doesn't, they have made
back their investment in Linux and are in the
black on it. Likewise HP.
Microsoft employees work on linux projects after-work at their own time. :)
Working with Microsoft software makes you worse and lazy spoiled programmer--more stupid programming methods-microsoft way :)
>I've been told on another board that the GPL has been tested in court. The evidence presented was inadequate and actually showed that the GPL had not been tested.
There have been several cases brought and settled...none that have actually gone to trial (that I'm aware of).
As I said before, however, be careful what you wish for. The GPL has much better standing, in general principles of law, than most (all?) commercial software EULA's (ie, MSFT's).
Keep in mind that the GPL *grants* (by and large) rights to the consumer, where EULA's typically attempt to *remove* rights from the consumers. That's on much shakier ground, particularly when there's a pretty good case to be made that most of them try to take away rights that they aren't allowed to under copyright law.
SCO would be very ill-advised to try to invalidate the GPL as a whole, because, if they did, their *WHOLE* Linux business would have been in violation of copyright from day one and they would then be opening themselves up to lawsuits from each and every developer in the world who's code was included in SCO/Caldera's Linux distribution.
IT Managers are now setting budgets for the next fiscal year.
SCO letters came just in time for Linux shops to add a Legal cost center to last year's Hardware and Software cost centers.
Selling services... selling LEGAL services appear to be coming into vogue in Linux shops.
>No, the GPL doesn't remove any rights of the developer/owner. The developer can choose to give away those rights by putting his/her code under GPL, but the GPL cannot force a developer/owner to give up his/her rights to his/her code. Full stop.
>Give it up Zog...noone believes your contrived, twisted attempts to discredit the GPL.
Jeffrey it always amuses me as to your cocksureness about GPL, and intelletual property rights.
If I recall you are not a lawyer (aren't you a developer/coder?), and even if you were, the jury is very much out on these issues.
So why don't you just admit what you present is your view of things, but maybe how not how things really are or will be--when it comes to GPL?
The achilles heel of Linux and open source is intellectual property rights, everyone knew this.
Well, I will just agree that that is how it generally works in practice, lots of patches will creep in and copyrights not transferred, but that is not 'the law' and the developer always has a say in the matter and is free to start over at any previous 'non contaminated' branch. Obviously in a communist system nobody has any choice. I will take choice and rights thank you.