Jeden z deweloperów Linuksa postanowił nie być dłużnym SCO i odpłacić pięknym za nadobne. Oskarżył SCO o pogwałcenie licencji GPL. SCO twierdzo bowiem, że kod, którego współautorem jest ów anonimowy deweloper, jest jej własnością. Dokładnie chodzi o jeden z rpm’ów z OpenLinuksa. Oryginalnie kod źródłowy jest opublikowany na GPL. Jednak w OpenLinuksie jest już wg SCO ich własnością. Dowiedzieć sie tego można przykładowo z oficjalnych oświadczeń prasowych firmy. W zamian za odstąpienie od roszczeń i ewentualnego pozwu sądowego programista żąda od SCO opublikowania spornego kodu na licencji GPL.
Trzeba też pamiętać, że w pracach przy jajku uczestniczą tysiące osób, co teoretycznie stwarza możliwość zwielokrotnienia podobnych reakcji.
Dokładna treść listu poniżej.

The author of the following email isn’t seeking any personal publicity, so information that might identify him has been redacted by request
Sunday, 15 June 2003:
Sender information:
Recipient information:
To: The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
Cc: SCO GmbH
Country Manager: Hans Bayer
Norsk-Data-Strasse 3
61352 Bad Homburg v.d.H
Sent via: E-Mail to, cc to
[If your are not the correct recipient for such a notice, please forward this letter to the appropriate recipient, and send me a notice that I can address further mails directly to the appropriate person. Thanks.]
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I’ve noticed that the FTP server from your company contains the file linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm (md5 checksum: 73cad7e5db287a962de14109fa126354) in the directory /pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/ [1].
I’m the co-author and copyright owner of several parts of the source code that is contained in that file[2], among them [snip].
According to your press releases [3], the file also contains source code that you consider as your own property and that you did not license under the GPL.
I’ve granted everyone the right to sell, distribute and use my work under the condition that they obey the restriction of the GPL. The GPL requires that a work that is based on a works that is licensed under the GPL must be put under the GPL. I’ve never authorized any other use of my work.
This means that your distribution of the above given file, and any sale of OpenLinux 3.1.1, is not authorized by me and infringes my copyright.
I demand that you immediately cease and desist the distribution of the above listed file, and any other work that contains my work.
Additionally, I ask you to provide me with a detailed list that shows the amount of unauthorized distribution that happened in the past. As far as I can see, this includes at least any logs from your FTP server for the relevant directories, and a list of the sales of OpenLinux 3.1.1 and any other product that contains my work [4]. I reserve the right to sue you for damages and any profits you made by selling my work. Note that my work is not of U.S. origin, thus the lack of a formal registration at the USPTO does not bar me from filing an infringement suit. I also reserve the right to sue your subsidiary in Germany or any other subsidiary.
As an alternative, I’ll abstain from suing you for copyright infringement if you drop your claims that the source in linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm infringes your copyright, for example by putting the part that you claim copyright on under the GPL. The exact details would have to be discussed [5].
Best regards,
[1] i.e. the URL to the file is I’ve verified the existance of the file on Sat Jun 14 08:44:15 UTC 2003.
[2] Note that I’m not claiming to be the sole copyright owner, I did a significant improvement and partial rewrite of source code written by others.
[3] Among others, the press release titled „SCO Suspends Distribution of Linux Pending Intellectual Property Clarification; Announces Greater Focus on UNIX and SCOx Strategy”.
[4] Virtually all of my contributions to the linux kernel are tagged with either my name ([snip]) or the email address [snip]. Thus you can easily identify the affected products with a global search on the uncompressed sources for these names.
[5] I’m only speaking for myself, I do not know what the other copyright owners will do.
źródło: theinquirer
informację przysłał nam Jerzy Szczudłowski

Archiwalny news dodany przez użytkownika: antymon.
Kliknij tutaj by zobaczyć archiwalne komentarze.

Oznaczone jako → 
Share →