Daniel Wallace, where are you?

Can't backup your claims of the GPL being pre-empted and invalid? Let's see some proof, back it up, you know, like Caldera/TSG is doing with their copyright, trade secret and contract violation claims vs. IBM.

Don't be shy, step right up.

DearMr. Wallace,

GPL is pre-empted by what exactly. Name the case or evidence supporting your claim, please.

GPL is invalid by what exactly. Name the case or evidence support your claim, please.

And, IMHO, from the extensive research I have done on the SCO vs. IBM (and their other suits), Maureen does not have a clue what she is talking about. Darl spewed some stuff, she repeated it. Obviously no research into the veracity of Darl's claims. This is, by far, not the first time Maureen has done such a thing.

I am waiting for your evidence, Mr. Wallace.

"Sorry, Maureen, you've fallen for SCO FUD. SCO is
desperately trying every avenue of attack to avoid a
pre-emptory declaration that IBM does not infring on SCO's
IP with their contributions to Linux"

Why take potshots at Ms. O'Gara as the messenger?
It seems as if a lot of blogs report on SCO's bogus claims.
It almost seems as if there is an agenda led by someone
to caste certain reporters at certain blogs as "dumb".

The facts are that SCO released the same source code
under the preempted and therefore invalid GPL license as
did IBM.

Everyone who can demonstrate "detrimental reliance"
upon the code distributed by SCO can claim
copyright permissions to use the code through the
mechanism of "promissory estoppel" just exactly as IBM
claimed in their pleadings:

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Promissory Estoppel
113. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1
through 112, with the same force and effect as though they
were set forth fully herein.

114. SCO made a clear and unambiguous promise to IBM and
others that SCO would copy, modify or distribute programs
distributed by IBM and others under the GPL only on the
terms set out in the GPL; and would not assert rights to
programs distributed by SCO under the GPL except on the
terms set out in the GPL.

115. IBM and others reasonably, prudently and foreseeably
relied upon these promises, such as by making contributions
under the GPL and committing resources to open- source
projects.

116. SCO knew or should have known that IBM and others would
rely and in fact relied upon SCO's promises and knew or
should have known that those promises would induce and in
fact induced action or forbearance on the part of IBM and
others.

117. SCO was and is aware of all material facts relating to
IBM's reliance on SCO's promises including but not limited
to IBM's contributions under the GPL, SCO's distributions
under the GPL and the intent, meaning and import of the GPL.

118. As a result of its reliance upon SCO's promises, IBM
has sustained injuries and is entitled to an award of
damages in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition
to an award of damages, IBM is entitled to declaratory and
injunctive relief, including but not limited to a
declaration that SCO is not entitled to assert proprietary
rights with respect to products distributed by SCO under the
GPL except upon the terms set out in the GPL.

Daniel Wallace

Sorry, Maureen, you've fallen for SCO FUD. SCO is desperately trying every avenue of attack to avoid a pre-emptory declaration that IBM does not infringe on SCO's IP with their contributions to Linux

God, you're dumb, Maureen!

I guess SCO's stock price must be falling again ...

To those who want to know, have a look at http://www.groklaw.net to see the history of this whole seedy affair.