"One thing is clear by todays article, SCO intends to argue the
IP of Linux is invalid while SCO's IP is valid. SCO is portraying
itself as some great savior of IP in the Internet age, but you
intend to and are violating the IP of the Linux kernel (GPL). Do
you have any explanation of this contradiction?
"Blake Stowell responds:
"Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the right to
regulate copyrights. When Congress enacted the current Copyright
Act, it defined certain exclusive rights that copyright holders can
rely upon to protect their copyrights. These include the rights to
copy, authorize derivative works, modify, and distribute the
copyrighted material. Further, under the Copyright Act an interest
in copyrighted material cannot be transferred unless expressly
authorized in writing by the party transferring that
interest.
"The GPL tries to define the rights of copyright holders
with respect to copying, distribution, and modification of
copyrighted source code. These are the very activities covered by
the Copyright Act. Because the GPL attempts to regulate the same
rights of copyright holders that are already regulated by the
Copyright Act, the GPL is 'pre-empted' by the Copyright Act. That
is to say, the rights and remedies provided by the GPL should be
deemed meaningless by a court to the extent the GPL addresses the
same substantive rights regulated by the Copyright Act.
"I understand that you are upset that we have issues with
the GPL, but we will be working these things out in court in the
near future..."
