Re: [Acx100-devel] SCO licensing clause?

[Andreas M. <an...@us...>]

Hi,

wow, sooo many replies on such a trivial subject!
I'd *love* to receive a flood of even slightly less replies
on actual very critical technical subjects.
But usually nobody cares there. ;-)

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:43:43AM +0100, Stefan Winter wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> concerning
> a) I don=B4t believe it is necessary or advisable to change the license=
. SCO=20
> will die without that, and the acx100 project might get negative public=
ity if=20
> you do that (just think about McBride saying "The Open Source community=
 is so=20
> afraid of us that they even leave their path of "freedom" just to prohi=
bit us=20
> from getting our rights.").=20
True, it's not very important. Negative publicity could be avoided if you
word it in a not-so-negative way, though, so if anything, it might even
generate positive press.
But since SCO has shown repeatedly that it is perfectly capable of diggin=
g
their own grave, I decided to leave it alone for now.

> b) I am not a licensing expert, but I doubt that the notice below actua=
lly had=20
> _any_ effect. You state "to the extent of prohibition that is possible =
using=20
> the existing [...] GPL [...] license." Well, the existing license makes=
 it=20
> quite clear (and is famous for it) to NOT prohibit _anyone_ from using =
the=20
> software. So the "extent" you write about is exactly 0, IMO.
Such a clause might very well not have any effect, but it would show that=
 we
do care about the crimes SCO is committing (well, certain things are not
completely proven yet, but their activity is highly suspicious) against t=
he OSS
community.
Statements may matter more than actual enforcibility here...

Oh well, back to driver debugging for now :-)

Greetings,

Andreas Mohr