SCO Explains a Bit About the GPL

Monday, August 18 2003 @ 09:34 PM EDT

Contributed by: PJ

That's the title of a surreal interview Tuxedo did with SCO's Blake Stowell. Note the Alice in Wonderland logic in this snip:

"Q: Why has SCO not taken any steps to minimize the alleged copyright infractions?

"Blake Stowell responds: 'How can SCO identify this code and still keep it confidential as our contractual obligations specify that we must do? That is the quandary that SCO is in. To address that, we have folks view the code under non-disclosure. The Linux community cries fowl because we require a non-disclosure and refuses to view the infringing code. So what are both sides to do? . . .

"'I'm not sure that there is a law that says we can bill users, but if users are going to continue to use our intellectual property, then they should pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then they shouldn't use it. The law does say that we can keep others from infringing our copyrights.'"

So...we shouldn't use it, but we can't see it, so we can't remove it. Curioser and curioser. It's the second article down. Meanwhile, some open source folks have asked SCO today to come up with an NDA that programmers that actually program can sign without destroying their ability to code in the future. Oh, you mean a normal NDA? Why, yes.

Funny, Alice thought to herself. SCO never answered my email, and this one got answered the same day. How very peculiar.

This article, "Sontag and Heise also presented some short snippets of source code that they claimed had been directly copied from SCO's Unix to Linux" at the James Bond-themed SCOForum. I had it right. The metaphor is that SCO will escape seemingly impossible odds. They are David against Goliath, it seems. In alternate universes, anything can happen. If any of you real coders were there, what, pray tell, did you see? I'm hearing rumors, but I need confirmation before I'll run with it. Anybody attend?