[LAU] A weak link in the license chain: Releasing on false assumptions?

[Folderol]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:53:06 -0700
Ken Restivo <ken at restivo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:19:07AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest <nils at hammerfeste.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Now what happens? Of course the intial release was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived works and their derived works?
> > 
> > there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
> > (which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
> > are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
> > immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
> > distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there
> > are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
> > 
> 
> This sounds similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago.
> 
> Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux.
> 
> As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit.
> 
> -ken

You've got that arse about face. Novel has actually been the 'good guy'
here - see http://www.Groklaw.net and look for SCO in the side bar.

-- 
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.