> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rex Deaver
> It might not be that simple.  
> 
>http://www.linuxpipeline.com/trends/index.jhtml;jsessionid=NLAXSPSVQSBEIQSNDBGCKHQ
>
> "But the copyrights of individual elements of the code are not all that SCO's 
> case is resting on. As intellectual property attorney Mark Radcliffe notes, 
> SCO can also win on issues of patent, contract law, and possible copyrights 
> pertaining to the overall structure and organization of Unix. SCO can also 
> win  by successfully challenging the legitimacy of the General Public 
> License underlying Linux. Is the GPL legal? We don't really know. Thanks to 
> SCO, we're going to find out."
Let me dismantle this illogical statemnet bit by bit.

1) He appears to be mixing multipple things together that are actually very
seperate thing.
2) The cases with IBM, Novell, Autozone, and Daimler-Chrysler all have contract issues. The general 
Linux community does not. SCO cannot sue individual users of Linux based on contract law. If they 
sue any individual Linux user it must be on anything but contract law.
3) The patent issue is dead, they have taken that one out of the picture. That is not to say they 
wouldn't or couldn't try to make a new lawsuit based on that. But bear in mind that Unix version 32 
was deemed by the court to be in public domain in the BSDi case. Any case that SCO makes pased on 
patent must exist solely in sysV. So all those header files and ABI stuff that predates sysV can't 
be admitted as evidence of patented technology. Or SCO would have to get the BSDi case reopened and 
have the Unix v32 code declared not in the public domain.
4) Even if the GPL is decalred not legal all that will do is invalidate the license to distribute 
Linux (a very big if). All the copyrights will remain in force and the authors will merely have to 
grant rights to users to distribute.
5) It has already been determined by the courts that you cannot copyright 
ideas and structures. That is why "clean-room" defenses work. This dates way back to the days of 
Ford, early 1900s if not earlier. A specific case involving computer software is the 
Apple-Microsoft-Xerox case. I don't have the specifics of it. But as we know MS copied (poorly 
granted) the look and feel of the Appple (aka Xerox) desktop.

I think that pretty much debunks this author. Just more FUD, nothing to see here, move along.

Humbly submitted for you viewing approval,
Brian