Rjack
2009-11-18 01:07:34 UTC
Over at Groklaw, Pammy Jo has finally come to her senses and admitted
that an idiot plaintiff like SCO can't attempt to license code under
the GPL to the general public and then later sue that purported class
of licensees for copyright infringement. She refers to Eben Moglen's
comment:
"From the moment that SCO distributed that code under the GNU General
Public License, they would have given everybody in the world the right
to copy, modify and distribute that code freely," he said. "From the
moment SCO distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, they licensed the
use. Always. That's what our license says."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2207791
To see her admit that a GPL plaintiff cannot release code under a
non-enforceable license like the GPL and then evade the consequences
of promissory estoppel claims by a defendant is a breath of fresh air.
Sincerely,
Rjack
that an idiot plaintiff like SCO can't attempt to license code under
the GPL to the general public and then later sue that purported class
of licensees for copyright infringement. She refers to Eben Moglen's
comment:
"From the moment that SCO distributed that code under the GNU General
Public License, they would have given everybody in the world the right
to copy, modify and distribute that code freely," he said. "From the
moment SCO distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, they licensed the
use. Always. That's what our license says."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2207791
To see her admit that a GPL plaintiff cannot release code under a
non-enforceable license like the GPL and then evade the consequences
of promissory estoppel claims by a defendant is a breath of fresh air.
Sincerely,
Rjack