Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

Combatting SCO with Fire for Fire

4 replies [Last post]
supermike's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-02-17

It dawned on me just now that FLOSS developers would do well to change their licensing such that their software cannot be redistributed for any SCO OS and especially cannot be used for commercial purposes on a SCO OS. If they started doing this, then SCO would be feeling fire for its own fire.

dylunio's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-12-20

Indeed, but then it wouldn't, in my view be Free...

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04

I think SCO should be feeling quite a bit of fire under their heels already. Changing licenses to lock SCO out may add up to that fire, but I think that it would also have some adverse effects on the community too due to some possibly complicated licensing issues and accidental incompatibilities in between various Free Software projects.

Also, what dylunio says, I'm not sure if something like that could be done without endagering four freedoms that make software be free (as in freedom).

tbuitenh's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-12-21

Some licenses have a "if you sue us, you will lose your right to use this" clause, but this is problematic. What if the software actually violates someone's copyright? For example it could be released under a custom license with this clause but without share-alike, and contain some code from a GPL'ed project.

Do we need to defend ourselves against SCO anyway? To me it seems like building an electric fence to protect yourself against a chihuahua.

Finally, I think we should not lower ourselves to the level of SCO. It would only make their (nonsense) case more convincing to outsiders.

Whistler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-03

there is actually an "Aladdin Free Public License" which comes with restrictions on distributing proprietary software on the same media as AFPL'ed software, but this is exactly why this license is non-free.

Also I think that "if you sue me, you lose your right to use it" clause is only valid if it's only about patents, not copyrights, because of the case may be "you" sue "me" for GPL violation (as tbuitenh already pointed out).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.