...etc...more repeats of old arguments already corrected.
I find this thread interesting in that it shows that it is not just the lawyers for SCO that have problems understanding copyright law. While this is not to excuse all the confusions here, I do suspect that it lends some credibility to the theory that SCO may have started their case in an honest belief that it had merit. All the assumptions that this is a pump-and-dump and that it was another ENRON style business model may not be entirely true. Now, if people were to be taking some of those extremely long EULA's from certain "software manufacturing" firms and putting them through the burners, that could turn up some interesting things. I do believe that there are many clauses in most EULA's that would be stricken if taken to a court. Each EULA version likely has had far less legal analysis time spent on it than various Open Source licenses are put through in this forum alone. Discussion of any EULA would be off-topic for this forum, but would be interesting to read elsewhere. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html Discuss at: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2757 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
