Development of Creative Commons licenses

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:28:55 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> >>>>> "ML" == Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> writes:
>     ML> Question: AFAIK none of the major open source licenses contain
>     ML> a CC1.0-like warranty clause.  Is this a problem?
> 
> Are you _joking_? Absolutely.
> 
> SCO has been able to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt amongst the
> technical press and IT departments with claims of copyright violations
> in Linux (under the GNU General Public License). They've got a plan to
> extract license fees from Linux users.

copyright violation was only added to the suit last week.

a couple quick links I found for those interested:

in an article dated 6 Feb 2004:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1518765,00.asp
only just last week did SCO add copyright violation to its 
lawsuit against IBM. SCO didn't even register its Unix 
copyright until June 30, 2003, months after its initial 
lawsuit against IBM.

according to an article when teh lawsuit was first filed:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32645.htm
SCO sued IBM on the basis of misappropriation of trade 
secrets, unfair competition and other illegal actions 
related to IBM's Linux business.

so can you create a warranty that protects against
unfair competition?