Comment Re:It's not what WE missed... (Score 1) 738
There's something I quite simply don't understand: although SCO is attacking the GPL in public, why would the GPL be mentioned in court at all?
Let's not forget the actual case is a contract dispute - IBM would have misused code given to them when they contributed to the Linux kernel. The core of the allegation is not the destination of that code (a GPL'd kernel) but rather the supposed origin of it (source code allegedly owned by SCO, and provided to IBM under a restrictive contract).
There's where the lawyers might concentrate their efforts, instead of going after what looks (to me) like a very solid license agreement.
Let's not forget the actual case is a contract dispute - IBM would have misused code given to them when they contributed to the Linux kernel. The core of the allegation is not the destination of that code (a GPL'd kernel) but rather the supposed origin of it (source code allegedly owned by SCO, and provided to IBM under a restrictive contract).
There's where the lawyers might concentrate their efforts, instead of going after what looks (to me) like a very solid license agreement.
