Simon Males wrote: > Main story: > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822601_tc102.htm
Typically, the article misinterprets the GPL (for Linux itself), and ignores the fact the many products running on Linux use licences different from the GPL: "Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it." Nobody signs anything, as we all know. And if you do not distribute a system built on open source, you do *not* have to make your changes / innovations available under the GPL. One worry raised in the article concerns existing Unix patents: "What could derail Linux? The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of Linux. " Sounds nasty. I really don't have enough background to speculate whether SCO Group would be successful in persuing this line of litigation. IMHO, Linux was written from scratch from the ground up, and copied no code from SCO Unix's patent-held software. There might be in some wild judges eyes a violation of "copyright" (i.e. copying of an idea) but the "patent" (of an invention or process) should not be able to affect other work written from scratch. Imagine trying to enforce patent protection for, say, the 'cp' command. Or for the concept of a 'socket' or 'file handle'. cheers rickw -- _________________________________ Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Old MacDonald had an agricultural real estate tax abatement. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
