Re: SCO laying an ambush for the GPL?

[Robert Newson]

Nick Kew wrote:

...
> Because the GPL concerns derived works, this could set a precedent for
> cases about software alleged to be a derived work of something-GPL.

I don't remember the GPL saying that you can't take the code you added to 
the GPL program (which if you distribute that resulting derivative work must 
be under GPL), and then use it in any way you feel, even putting it in a 
totally different, non-GPL, program.

Or to put it another way, suppose SYSV was GPL'd.  Then if IBM added JFS to 
that, it'd have to release the SYSV+JFS as GPL.  SCO's interpretation of GPL 
would be that IBM would be required to GPL *ALL* software to which it also 
added JFS, eg if IBM gave/sold JFS to Microsoft, then WINDOWS+JFS would also 
have to be GPL'd.

(If GPL'd SYSV+JFS was taken by Microsoft and used as the basis for a new 
version of Windows (eg Mac OS X is BSD based?), then that WOULD have to be 
GPLd - how it would be if Microsoft took the GPL'd JFS and added that to 
Windows is a different matter: that would be a breach of GPL licence terms 
and so copyright infringement?)