Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:

> >
>
> Don't forget, however, that SCO was distributing the linux kernel source
> code from their publicly accessible FTP server under the GPL, well after
> they started the legal process against IBM.
>
> Effectively, they licensed the code (under the GPL) that they claim IBM
> put into the linux kernel.
>
> Adam

I don't see how that equates to "SCO is violating the GPL" or "SCO has 
authorized the code". The court case is still pending, i.e. there is no 
decision on whether or not SCO code is actually in Linux. They will 
probably keep distributing it as (as mandated by the GPL license by the 
way) unless a court decision changes that. For example, if the court 
agrees with them, I am sure that they will release a "purified" version 
of Linux and tout it loudly.

Lets say you write a small software program and you put it under the BSD 
license. Someone downloads your program, likes it very much and lifts 
large chunks of it into a new program which they then put under the GPL. 
You, when surfing the net, find this program and it's similar enough to 
your own that you download it and try it out. You like it and submit 
some patches that are incorporated. Later on after looking at more of 
the code, you discover that this person has illegally lifted your code 
because no where in the code/docs is your copyright notice. Does this 
mean you have authorized what the person did? You have a copy and 
submitted patches/modifications under the GPL. What do you think?

If you license code (e.g. by making modifiations to a GPLed program) and 
find out it orginally belonged to you later, does that mean you gave it 
away? How? You would probably say that the relicensing was unauthorized 
and invalid in the first place, regardless of your first impressions.