[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:51:40 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcNg4N5EOv6BF/0wRfyTTo8y8V8RGQACB8IQ
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
A major issue is how the code got there (if, indeed, it _is_ there).
Consider that Linux is an open-source development effort. When you
contribute you relinquish your proprietary rights in your code. If
SCO _planted_ code in the Linux project, then by their own actions
they relinquished the rights they are now screaming about. If someone
_else_ stole SCO code and put it into Linux, the legal situation
becomes somewhat murky. I would think that the person who put the
code in would be the only one who could be held responsible, in much
the same way as the person who steals a trade secret is legally at
fault, but the person who uses a trade secret obtained in good faith
from the thief (that is, the 3rd person had no knowledge that the
TS was "hot property") is not liable.
Shades of CSS, eh?
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mickey [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:46 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
> "SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of
> UNIX and is
> therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO
> believes that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of
> the Linux
> kernel are unauthorised derivative works of SCO UNIX IP," it said.
> This is a root issue in the copyright/patent/secret arena. The belief
> that one is *entitled* to be paid for their efforts seems to
> fuel most
> of these arguments.
> So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?