[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy/sco questioning-sco.html
|
From: |
Joakim Olsson |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy/sco questioning-sco.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:42:15 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Joakim Olsson <jocke> 08/07/08 15:42:15
Modified files:
philosophy/sco : questioning-sco.html
Log message:
Converted HTML to well formed XHTML.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
Patches:
Index: questioning-sco.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- questioning-sco.html 19 Aug 2003 14:59:20 -0000 1.3
+++ questioning-sco.html 8 Jul 2008 15:41:54 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,300 +1,281 @@
-<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
+<head>
+
+ <title>FSF: Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous
+ Claims</title>
+ <meta name="description" content=
+ "Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims" />
+ <meta name="keywords" content=
+ "SCO, GNU, Linux, free, software, foundation, freedom, legal, gpl, gnu,
general, public, license, licensing, IBM, attacks, sue" />
+ <meta name="resource-type" content="document" />
+ <meta name="distribution" content="global" />
+</head>
+
+<body>
+ <h1>Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous
+ Claims</h1>
+
+ <h2>Eben Moglen</h2>
+
+ <p>
+ Friday 1 August 2003
+ </p>
+
+ <p><a href="#SECTION00010000000000000000">Where's the
+ Beef?</a><br />
+ <a href="#SECTION00020000000000000000">Why Do Users Need
+ Licenses?</a><br />
+ <a href="#SECTION00030000000000000000">Do Users Already Have a
+ License?</a><br />
+ <a href="#SECTION00040000000000000000">Conclusion</a><br /></p>
+ <hr />
+
+ <p>Users of free software around the world are being pressured to
+ pay The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has
+ "intellectual property" claims against the Linux operating system
+ kernel or other free software that require users to buy a
+ "license" from SCO. Allegations apparently serious have been made
+ in an essentially unserious way: by press release, unaccompanied
+ by evidence that would permit serious judgment of the factual
+ basis for the claims. Firms that make significant use of free
+ software are trying to evaluate the factual and legal basis for
+ the demand. Failure to come forward with evidence of any
+ infringement of SCO's legal rights is suspicious in itself; SCO's
+ public announcement of a decision to pursue users, rather than
+ the authors or distributors of allegedly-infringing free software
+ only increases doubts.</p>
+
+ <p>It is impossible to assess the weight of undisclosed evidence.
+ Based on the facts currently known, which are the facts SCO
+ itself has chosen to disclose, a number of very severe questions
+ arise concerning SCO's legal claims. As a lawyer with reasonably
+ extensive experience in free software licensing, I see
+ substantial reason to reject SCO's assertions. What follows isn't
+ legal advice: firms must make their own decisions based upon an
+ assessment of their particular situations through consultation
+ with their own counsel. But I would like to suggest some of the
+ questions that clients and lawyers may want to ask themselves in
+ determining their response to SCO's licensing demands.</p>
+
+ <h1><a name="SECTION00010000000000000000" id=
+ "SECTION00010000000000000000">Where's the Beef?</a></h1>
+
+ <p>What does SCO actually claim belongs to it that someone else
+ has taken or is misusing? Though SCO talks about "intellectual
+ property," this is a general term that needs specification. SCO
+ has not alleged in any lawsuit or public statement that it holds
+ patents that are being infringed. No trademark claims have been
+ asserted. In its currently-pending lawsuit against IBM, SCO makes
+ allegations of trade secret misappropriation, but it has not
+ threatened to bring such claims against users of the Linux OS
+ kernel, nor can it. It is undisputed that SCO has long
+ distributed the Linux OS kernel itself, under the Free Software
+ Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL).<a name="tex2html2"
+ href="#foot16" id="tex2html2"><strong>[1]</strong> </a> To
+ claim that one has a trade secret in any material which one is
+ oneself fully publishing under a license that permits unlimited
+ copying and redistribution fails two basic requirements of any
+ trade secret claim: (1) that there is a secret; and (2) that the
+ plaintiff has taken reasonable measures to maintain secrecy.</p>
+
+ <p>So SCO's claims against users of the Linux kernel cannot rest
+ on patent, trademark, or trade secret. They can only be copyright
+ claims. Indeed, SCO has recently asserted, in its first specific
+ public statement, that certain versions of the Linux OS kernel,
+ the 2.4 "stable" and 2.5 "development" branches, have since 2001
+ contained code copied from SCO's Sys V Unix in violation of
+ copyright.<a name="tex2html3" href="#foot26" id=
+ "tex2html3"><strong>[2]</strong> </a></p>
+
+ <p>The usual course in copyright infringement disputes is to show
+ the distributor or distributors of the supposedly-infringing work
+ the copyrighted work upon which it infringes. SCO has not done
+ so. It has offered to show third parties, who have no interest in
+ Linux kernel copyrights, certain material under non-disclosure
+ agreements. SCO's press release of July 21 asserts that the code
+ in recent versions of the Linux kernel for symmetric
+ multi-processing violates their copyrights. Contributions of code
+ to the Linux kernel are matters of public record: SMP support in
+ the kernel is predominantly the work of frequent contributors to
+ the kernel employed by Red Hat, Inc. and Intel Corp. Yet SCO has
+ not shown any of its code said to have been copied by those
+ programmers, nor has it brought claims of infringement against
+ their employers. Instead, SCO has demanded that users take
+ licenses. Which lead to the next question.</p>
+
+ <h1><a name="SECTION00020000000000000000" id=
+ "SECTION00020000000000000000">Why Do Users Need
+ Licenses?</a></h1>
+
+ <p>In general, users of copyrighted works do not need licenses.
+ The Copyright Act conveys to copyright holders certain exclusive
+ rights in their works. So far as software is concerned, the
+ rights exclusively granted to the holder are to copy, to modify
+ or make derivative works, and to distribute. Parties who wish to
+ do any of the things that copyright holders are exclusively
+ entitled to do need permission; if they don't have permission,
+ they're infringing. But the Copyright Act doesn't grant the
+ copyright holder the exclusive right to <i>use</i> the work; that
+ would vitiate the basic idea of copyright. One doesn't need a
+ copyright license to read the newspaper, or to listen to recorded
+ music; therefore you can read the newspaper over someone's
+ shoulder or listen to music wafting on the summer breeze even
+ though you haven't paid the copyright holder. Software users are
+ sometimes confused by the prevailing tendency to present software
+ products with contracts under shrinkwrap; in order to use the
+ software one has to accept a contract from the manufacturer. But
+ that's not because copyright law requires such a license.</p>
+
+ <p>This is why lawsuits of the form that SCO appears to be
+ threatening--against users of copyrighted works for infringement
+ damages--do not actually happen. Imagine the literary equivalent
+ of SCO's current bluster: Publishing house A alleges that the
+ bestselling novel by Author X topping the charts from Publisher B
+ plagiarizes its own more obscure novel by Author Y. "But," the
+ chairman of Publisher A announces at a news conference, "we're
+ not suing Author X or Publisher B; we're only suing all the
+ people who bought X's book. They have to pay us for a license to
+ read the book immediately, or we'll come after them." That
+ doesn't happen, because that's not the law.</p>
+
+ <p>But don't users of free software make copies, and need a
+ license for that activity? The Copyright Act contains a special
+ limitation on the exclusive right to copy with respect to
+ software. It does not infringe the copyright holder's exclusive
+ right to copy software for the purpose of executing that software
+ on one machine, or for purposes of maintenance or archiving. Such
+ copying also requires no license. But what if a firm has gotten a
+ single copy of the Linux kernel from some source, and has made
+ many hundreds or thousands of copies for installation on multiple
+ machines? Would it need a license for that purpose? Yes, and it
+ already has one.</p>
+
+ <h1><a name="SECTION00030000000000000000" id=
+ "SECTION00030000000000000000">Do Users Already Have a
+ License?</a></h1>
+
+ <p>The Linux kernel is a computer program that combines
+ copyrighted contributions from tens of thousands of individual
+ programmers and firms. It is published and distributed under the
+ GPL, which gives everyone everywhere permission to copy, modify
+ and distribute the code, so long as all distribution of modified
+ and unmodified copies occurs under the GPL and only the GPL. The
+ GPL requires that everyone receiving executable binaries of GPL'd
+ programs must get the full source code, or an offer for the full
+ source code, and a copy of the license. The GPL specifies that
+ everyone receiving a copy of a GPL'd program receives a license,
+ on GPL terms, from every copyright holder whose work is included
+ in any combined or derived work released under the license.</p>
+
+ <p>SCO, it bears repeating, has long distributed the Linux kernel
+ under GPL, and continues to do so as of this writing. It has
+ directly given users copies of the work and copies of the
+ license. SCO cannot argue that people who received a copyrighted
+ work from SCO, with a license allowing them to copy, modify and
+ redistribute, are not permitted to copy, modify and distribute.
+ Those who have received the work under one license from SCO are
+ not required, under any theory, to take another license simply
+ because SCO wishes the license it has already been using had
+ different terms.</p>
+
+ <p>In response to this simple fact, some SCO officials have
+ recently argued that there is somehow a difference between their
+ "distribution" of the Linux kernel and "contribution" of their
+ copyrighted code to the kernel, if there is any such code in the
+ work. For this purpose they have quoted section 0 of the GPL,
+ which provides that "This License applies to any program or other
+ work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
+ saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General
+ Public License." The Linux kernel contains such notices in each
+ and every appropriate place in the code; no one has ever denied
+ that the combined work is released under GPL. SCO, as Caldera,
+ has indeed contributed to the Linux kernel, and its contributions
+ are included in modules containing GPL notices. Section 0 of the
+ GPL does not provide SCO some exception to the general rule of
+ the license; it has distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, and
+ it has granted to all the right to copy, modify and distribute
+ the copyrighted material the kernel contains, to the extent that
+ SCO holds such copyrights. SCO cannot argue that its distribution
+ is inadvertent: it has intentionally and commercially distributed
+ Linux for years. It has benefited in its business from the
+ copyrighted originality of tens of thousands of other
+ programmers, and it is now choosing to abuse the trust of the
+ community of which it long formed a part by claiming that its own
+ license doesn't mean what it says. When a copyright holder says
+ "You have one license from me, but I deny that license applies;
+ take another license at a higher price and I'll leave you alone,"
+ what reason is there to expect any better faith in the observance
+ of the second license than there was as to the first?</p>
+
+ <h1><a name="SECTION00040000000000000000" id=
+ "SECTION00040000000000000000">Conclusion</a></h1>
+
+ <p>Users asked to take a license from SCO on the basis of alleged
+ copyright infringement by the distributors of the Linux kernel
+ have a right to ask some tough questions. First, what's the
+ evidence of infringement? What has been copied from SCO
+ copyrighted work? Second, why do I need a copyright license to
+ use the work, regardless of who holds copyright to each part of
+ it? Third, didn't you distribute this work yourself, under a
+ license that allows everyone, including me, to copy, modify and
+ distribute freely? When I downloaded a copy of the work from your
+ FTP site, and you gave me the source code and a copy of the GPL,
+ do you mean that you weren't licensing me all of that source code
+ under GPL, to the extent that it was yours to license? Asking
+ those questions will help firms decide how to evaluate SCO's
+ demands. I hope we shall soon hear some answers.</p>
+
+ <p>Copyright © Eben Moglen, 2003. Verbatim copying of this
+ article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is
+ preserved.</p>
+
+ <p><em>Eben Moglen is professor of law at Columbia University Law
+ School. He serves without fee as General Counsel of the Free
+ Software Foundation.</em><br /></p>
+ <hr />
+
+ <dl>
+ <dd>
+ <p><a name="foot16" href="#tex2html2" id=
+ "foot16"><sup>1</sup> </a>Linux kernel source
+ under GPL was available from SCO's FTP site as of July 21,
+ 2003.</p>
+
+ <p><a name="foot26" href="#tex2html3" id=
+ "foot26"><sup>2</sup> </a>See <a href=
+ "http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=114170";>SCO
+ Press Release, July 21, 2003.</a></p>
+
+ <p></p>
+ </dd>
+ </dl>
+ <hr />
+
+ <h4><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read
+ related to SCO</a>.</h4>
+
+ <p>Return to <a href="/home.html">GNU's home page</a>.</p>
+
+ <p><a href="http://member.fsf.org";>Support FSF's work by becoming
+ an associate member</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to
+ <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>. There are
+ also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+ the FSF.</p>
+
+ <p>Please send comments on these web pages to <a href=
+ "mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>, send
+ other questions to <a href=
+ "mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>Updated: <!-- timestamp start -->
+ $Date: 2008/07/08 15:41:54 $
+ <!-- timestamp end --></p>
+ <hr />
+</body>
+</html>
-<HTML>
-<HEAD>
-<TITLE>FSF: Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims</TITLE>
-<META NAME="description" CONTENT="Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous
Claims">
-<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="SCO, GNU, Linux, free, software, foundation,
freedom, legal, gpl, gnu, general, public, license, licensing, IBM, attacks,
sue">
-<META NAME="resource-type" CONTENT="document">
-<META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global">
-
-
-</HEAD>
-
-<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
-
-<P>
-
-<P>
-
-<H1 ALIGN=center>Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims</H1>
-<H2 ALIGN=center>Eben Moglen</H2>
-<center>Friday 1 August 2003</center>
-<P><A HREF="#SECTION00010000000000000000">Where's the Beef?</A><BR>
-<A HREF="#SECTION00020000000000000000">Why Do Users Need Licenses?</A><BR>
-<A HREF="#SECTION00030000000000000000">Do Users Already Have a License?</A><BR>
-<A HREF="#SECTION00040000000000000000">Conclusion</A><BR>
-</P>
-
-<hr width="80%">
-<P>
-Users of free software around the world are being pressured to
-pay The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has
-"intellectual property" claims against the Linux operating system
-kernel or other free software that require users to buy a "license"
-from SCO. Allegations apparently serious have been made in an
-essentially unserious way: by press release, unaccompanied by evidence
-that would permit serious judgment of the factual basis for the
-claims. Firms that make significant use of free software are trying
-to evaluate the factual and legal basis for the demand. Failure to
-come forward with evidence of any infringement of SCO's legal rights
-is suspicious in itself; SCO's public announcement of a decision to
-pursue users, rather than the authors or distributors of
-allegedly-infringing free software only increases doubts.
-
-<P>
-It is impossible to assess the weight of undisclosed evidence. Based
-on the facts currently known, which are the facts SCO itself has
-chosen to disclose, a number of very severe questions arise concerning
-SCO's legal claims. As a lawyer with reasonably extensive experience
-in free software licensing, I see substantial reason to reject SCO's
-assertions. What follows isn't legal advice: firms must make their
-own decisions based upon an assessment of their particular situations
-through consultation with their own counsel. But I would like to
-suggest some of the questions that clients and lawyers may want to ask
-themselves in determining their response to SCO's licensing demands.
-
-<P>
-
-<H1><A NAME="SECTION00010000000000000000">
-Where's the Beef?</A>
-</H1>
-
-<P>
-What does SCO actually claim belongs to it that someone else has taken
-or is misusing? Though SCO talks about "intellectual property,"
-this is a general term that needs specification. SCO has not alleged
-in any lawsuit or public statement that it holds patents that are
-being infringed. No trademark claims have been asserted. In its
-currently-pending lawsuit against IBM, SCO makes allegations of trade
-secret misappropriation, but it has not threatened to bring such
-claims against users of the Linux OS kernel, nor can it. It is
-undisputed that SCO has long distributed the Linux OS kernel itself,
-under the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License
-(GPL).<A NAME="tex2html2"
- HREF="#foot16"><strong>[1]</strong> </A> To claim that one has a trade
-secret in any material which one is oneself fully publishing under a
-license that permits unlimited copying and redistribution fails two
-basic requirements of any trade secret claim: (1) that there is a
-secret; and (2) that the plaintiff has taken reasonable measures to
-maintain secrecy.
-
-<P>
-So SCO's claims against users of the Linux kernel cannot rest on
-patent, trademark, or trade secret. They can only be copyright
-claims. Indeed, SCO has recently asserted, in its first specific
-public statement, that certain versions of the Linux OS kernel, the
-2.4 "stable" and 2.5 "development" branches, have since
-2001 contained code copied from SCO's Sys V Unix in violation of
-copyright.<A NAME="tex2html3"
- HREF="#foot26"><strong>[2]</strong> </A>
-
-<P>
-The usual course in copyright infringement disputes is to show the
-distributor or distributors of the supposedly-infringing work the
-copyrighted work upon which it infringes. SCO has not done so. It
-has offered to show third parties, who have no interest in Linux
-kernel copyrights, certain material under non-disclosure agreements.
-SCO's press release of July 21 asserts that the code in recent
-versions of the Linux kernel for symmetric multi-processing violates
-their copyrights. Contributions of code to the Linux kernel are
-matters of public record: SMP support in the kernel is predominantly
-the work of frequent contributors to the kernel employed by Red Hat,
-Inc. and Intel Corp. Yet SCO has not shown any of its code said to
-have been copied by those programmers, nor has it brought claims of
-infringement against their employers. Instead, SCO has demanded that
-users take licenses. Which lead to the next question.
-
-<P>
-
-<H1><A NAME="SECTION00020000000000000000">
-Why Do Users Need Licenses?</A>
-</H1>
-
-<P>
-In general, users of copyrighted works do not need licenses. The
-Copyright Act conveys to copyright holders certain exclusive rights in
-their works. So far as software is concerned, the rights exclusively
-granted to the holder are to copy, to modify or make derivative works,
-and to distribute. Parties who wish to do any of the things that
-copyright holders are exclusively entitled to do need permission; if
-they don't have permission, they're infringing. But the Copyright Act
-doesn't grant the copyright holder the exclusive right to <I>use</I>
-the work; that would vitiate the basic idea of copyright. One doesn't
-need a copyright license to read the newspaper, or to listen to
-recorded music; therefore you can read the newspaper over someone's
-shoulder or listen to music wafting on the summer breeze even though
-you haven't paid the copyright holder. Software users are sometimes
-confused by the prevailing tendency to present software products with
-contracts under shrinkwrap; in order to use the software one has to
-accept a contract from the manufacturer. But that's not because
-copyright law requires such a license.
-
-<P>
-This is why lawsuits of the form that SCO appears to be
-threatening--against users of copyrighted works for infringement
-damages--do not actually happen. Imagine the literary equivalent of
-SCO's current bluster: Publishing house A alleges that the bestselling
-novel by Author X topping the charts from Publisher B plagiarizes its
-own more obscure novel by Author Y. "But," the chairman of
-Publisher A announces at a news conference, "we're not suing Author X
-or Publisher B; we're only suing all the people who bought X's book.
-They have to pay us for a license to read the book immediately, or
-we'll come after them." That doesn't happen, because that's not the
-law.
-
-<P>
-But don't users of free software make copies, and need a license for
-that activity? The Copyright Act contains a special limitation on the
-exclusive right to copy with respect to software. It does not
-infringe the copyright holder's exclusive right to copy software for
-the purpose of executing that software on one machine, or for purposes
-of maintenance or archiving. Such copying also requires no license.
-But what if a firm has gotten a single copy of the Linux kernel from
-some source, and has made many hundreds or thousands of copies for
-installation on multiple machines? Would it need a license for that
-purpose? Yes, and it already has one.
-
-<P>
-
-<H1><A NAME="SECTION00030000000000000000">
-Do Users Already Have a License?</A>
-</H1>
-
-<P>
-The Linux kernel is a computer program that combines copyrighted
-contributions from tens of thousands of individual programmers and
-firms. It is published and distributed under the GPL, which gives
-everyone everywhere permission to copy, modify and distribute the
-code, so long as all distribution of modified and unmodified copies
-occurs under the GPL and only the GPL. The GPL requires that everyone
-receiving executable binaries of GPL'd programs must get the full
-source code, or an offer for the full source code, and a copy of the
-license. The GPL specifies that everyone receiving a copy of a GPL'd
-program receives a license, on GPL terms, from every copyright holder
-whose work is included in any combined or derived work released under
-the license.
-
-<P>
-SCO, it bears repeating, has long distributed the Linux kernel under
-GPL, and continues to do so as of this writing. It has directly given
-users copies of the work and copies of the license. SCO cannot argue
-that people who received a copyrighted work from SCO, with a license
-allowing them to copy, modify and redistribute, are not permitted to
-copy, modify and distribute. Those who have received the work under
-one license from SCO are not required, under any theory, to take
-another license simply because SCO wishes the license it has already
-been using had different terms.
-
-<P>
-In response to this simple fact, some SCO officials have recently
-argued that there is somehow a difference between their
-"distribution" of the Linux kernel and "contribution" of their
-copyrighted code to the kernel, if there is any such code in the work.
-For this purpose they have quoted section 0 of the GPL, which provides
-that "This License applies to any program or other work which
-contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
-distributed under the terms of this General Public License." The
-Linux kernel contains such notices in each and every appropriate place
-in the code; no one has ever denied that the combined work is released
-under GPL. SCO, as Caldera, has indeed contributed to the Linux
-kernel, and its contributions are included in modules containing GPL
-notices. Section 0 of the GPL does not provide SCO some exception to
-the general rule of the license; it has distributed the Linux kernel
-under GPL, and it has granted to all the right to copy, modify and
-distribute the copyrighted material the kernel contains, to the extent
-that SCO holds such copyrights. SCO cannot argue that its
-distribution is inadvertent: it has intentionally and commercially
-distributed Linux for years. It has benefited in its business from
-the copyrighted originality of tens of thousands of other programmers,
-and it is now choosing to abuse the trust of the community of which it
-long formed a part by claiming that its own license doesn't mean what
-it says. When a copyright holder says "You have one license from me,
-but I deny that license applies; take another license at a higher
-price and I'll leave you alone," what reason is there to expect any
-better faith in the observance of the second license than there was as
-to the first?
-
-<P>
-
-<H1><A NAME="SECTION00040000000000000000">
-Conclusion</A>
-</H1>
-
-<P>
-Users asked to take a license from SCO on the basis of alleged
-copyright infringement by the distributors of the Linux kernel have a
-right to ask some tough questions. First, what's the evidence of
-infringement? What has been copied from SCO copyrighted work?
-Second, why do I need a copyright license to use the work, regardless
-of who holds copyright to each part of it? Third, didn't you
-distribute this work yourself, under a license that allows everyone,
-including me, to copy, modify and distribute freely? When I
-downloaded a copy of the work from your FTP site, and you gave me the
-source code and a copy of the GPL, do you mean that you weren't
-licensing me all of that source code under GPL, to the extent that it
-was yours to license? Asking those questions will help firms decide
-how to evaluate SCO's demands. I hope we shall soon hear some
-answers.
-
-<P>
-Copyright © Eben Moglen, 2003.
-Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium, provided
-this notice is preserved.
-
-<P>
-
-<P><em>Eben Moglen is professor of law
- at Columbia University Law School. He serves without fee as
- General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation.</em>
-
-
-<BR><HR>
-<DL>
-
-<P><A NAME="foot16"
- HREF="#tex2html2"><sup>1</sup> </A>Linux kernel source
-under GPL was available from SCO's FTP site as of July 21, 2003.
-
-<P><A NAME="foot26"
- HREF="#tex2html3"><sup>2</sup> </A>See <A
HREF="http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=114170";>SCO Press Release,
July 21, 2003.</A>
-
-<P>
-
-<P CENTER></P>
-
-</DL>
-
-<HR>
-
-<H4><A HREF="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read related to
-SCO</A>.</H4>
-
-<P>
-Return to <A HREF="/home.html">GNU's home page</A>.
-<P>
-
-<a href="http://member.fsf.org";>Support FSF's work by becoming an
- associate member</a>.
-<p>
-
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to
-
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
-There are also <A HREF="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to
-contact</A> the FSF.
-<P>
-
-Please send comments on these web pages to
-
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>,
-send other questions to
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
-<P>
-Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2003/08/19 14:59:20 $ $Author: bkuhn $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-<HR>
-</BODY>
-</HTML>
- www/philosophy/sco questioning-sco.html,
Joakim Olsson <=