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

Giuseppe Zompatori siliconjoe at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 20:54:21 UTC 2010


2010/7/2 Folderol <folderol at ukfsn.org>:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>

And it wasn't Linus himself who fought back, but IBM.

-Giuseppe


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list