Open source Free software 2616
Uh, no. They said that this particular defense claim was not investigated at all because it would be irrelevant. For that reason, the court would have overstepped the bounds of the case by bothering to make a statement one or the other way.
Alexander Terekhov Just in case you (like Mr. GNU President himself1) are unable to read PDFs: (quoting from that section of 794 memorandum) ------- ... per se illegal under anbreastrust law. NYNEX Corp...
At one point of time you'll realize that all of the courts end up "GPL-moronized". You get your comfort from harping on irrelevant tangents of cases and on law commentators that create highly speculative theories that don't stand up in court.
SCO also does a really nice job trashing its case. It is not to be expected that all too much makes it actually past the summary judgment motions.
SCO has so far vacillated a lot between conflicting theories about what their case is supposed to be about, with their chairman writing about the presumed unconsbreastutionality of the GPL to congress, while they later in case claimed that they never doubted the GPL's legality and heeded it all round.
And they produced tangible proof for almost none of their claims.
Clauses usually aren't that blatantly illegal. If they are, you'd complain during the license negotiation process. It would be strange for a licensee to say "hm, we can't do this because of clause...
They are likely to crash rather hard. Again, this will not set much of a legal precedent for the GPL, since its character as a license means that the "I considered it invalid" excuse does not fly at all, and so SCO's legal department (in contrast to its PR machinery) has been smart enough to already abandon that approach.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum