11:17 AM - SCO
SCO asserts that they have not given out code via GPLing it. COME ON.
They claim that under US Copyright law, you can not transfer license to another party without express written concent. Think about that. Digital documents are considered signed if they use a feature like a personal cert from verisign.
If it is true that they did not release code into the public via using the GPL then the GPL is invalid. Further, to use GPL code it would mean that you would have to get a written license from EACH contributor to a project. On the scale of Linux, that is a nightmare.
The nightmare doesn't stop there. If SCO is right, then all software licenses agreed to digitally without signing would be void including Microsoft EULAs, software under the BSD license, Apple, Macromedia, Adobe, Netscape, AOL, etc. I could go on all day. Very few applications contain licenses in "writing" that were written in the last 5 years.
SCO must be wrong or the whole computer industry is screwed. They are not messing with just GNU/Linux here. All software including Mac OS X is in trouble. Apple does include GNU software.