Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: CC 2.0

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: email AT greglondon.com
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: CC 2.0
  • Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:57:45 -0800 (PST)

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?



  • Re: CC 2.0, email, 02/09/2004
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: CC 2.0, melanie dulong de rosnay, 02/16/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page