[Samba] Samba, the GPL and SCO

[August Zajonc]

For those of you following the IBM vs SCO legal case, you have probably 
noticed that SCO has said that the GPL is invalid. IBM appears to make 
the reasonable case that you can't say something is void, and then rely 
on it. INAL, but why is SCO allowed to distribute Samba without agreeing 
to the GPL? That's like buying a car, then claiming the sale agreement 
is bogus but you still want to keep the car. You can't have it both ways.

----
Quick clipping from the case:
According to SCO, the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) "is unenforceable, 
void and/or voidable" (Ex. 2 at 20 (Sixth Affirmative Defense)); 
"violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and 
export control laws" (Ex. 25 (Amend. Ans. to Amend. Countercls.) at 16 
(Eighth Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:15-20); is unenforceable or 
inapplicable in this litigation (Ex. 2 �� 24, 28, 155, 157); and is 
preempted by federal copyright law and unenforceable under state law. 
(Ex. 22 (SCO's Resp. to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories) at 38-39.) 
SCO also claims all rights to enforce the GPL (and thus also the LGPL) 
are waived and all are estopped from enforcing the GPL. (Ex. 2 at 20 
(Seventh Affirmative Defense); Ex. 23 at 213:14-215:7.)

As a result, SCO cannot here rely on the GPL or the LGPL (which is 
identical to the GPL insofar as relevant here) as a grant of license or 
permission to copy and distribute the IBM Copyrighted Works.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba