www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy/sco questioning-sco.html


From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: www/philosophy/sco questioning-sco.html
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:40:25 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   08/07/28 13:40:25

Modified files:
        philosophy/sco : questioning-sco.html 

Log message:
        Templated.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5

Patches:
Index: questioning-sco.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- questioning-sco.html        8 Jul 2008 15:41:54 -0000       1.4
+++ questioning-sco.html        28 Jul 2008 13:39:54 -0000      1.5
@@ -1,281 +1,272 @@
-<!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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;&nbsp;</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 &amp; GNU inquiries &amp; 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 />
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<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" />
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims</h2>
+
+<p> by <strong>Eben Moglen</strong><br />
+Friday 1 August 2003
+</p>
+
+<p>Users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay
+The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; claims against the Linux operating
+system kernel or other free software that require users to buy a
+&ldquo;license&rdquo; 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>
+
+<h3>Where's the Beef?</h3>
+
+<p>What does SCO actually claim belongs to it that someone else has
+taken or is misusing?  Though SCO talks about &ldquo;intellectual
+property,&rdquo; 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 href="#foot16">[1]</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 &ldquo;stable&rdquo; and 2.5 &ldquo;development&rdquo; branches,
+have since 2001 contained code copied from SCO's Sys V Unix in
+violation of copyright.<a href="#foot26">[2]</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>
+
+<h3>Why Do Users Need Licenses?</h3>
+
+<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&mdash;against users of copyrighted works for infringement
+damages&mdash;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.
+&ldquo;But,&rdquo; the chairman of Publisher A announces at a news
+conference, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
+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>
+
+<h3>Do Users Already Have a License?</h3>
+
+<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
+&ldquo;distribution&rdquo; of the Linux kernel and
+&ldquo;contribution&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;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.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;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,&rdquo; what reason is there to expect any better faith in the
+observance of the second license than there was as to the first?</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<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>
+
+<h4>Footnotes</h4>
+
+<hr />
+<ol>
+<li id="foot16">Linux kernel source under GPL was available from SCO's
+FTP site as of July 21, 2003.</li>
+<li id="foot26">See <a 
href="http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=114170";>
+SCO Press Release, July 21, 2003</a>.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<h4><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read related to
+SCO</a>.</h4>
+
+</div>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to 
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the 
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright &copy; 2003 Eben Moglen</p>
+<p>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></p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/07/28 13:39:54 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!--  - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!--  - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!--  - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!--  to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html">English</a>&nbsp;[en]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
 </body>
 </html>
-




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]