Z:gnu-www-ja-questioning-sco--f2efae-In response to this simple fac/en

In response to this simple fact, some SCO officials have recently argued that there is somehow a difference between their &ldquo;distribution&rdquo; of the Linux kernel and &ldquo;contribution&rdquo; of their copyrighted code to the kernel, if there is any such code in the work. For this purpose they have quoted section 0 of the GPL, which provides that &ldquo;This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.&rdquo; The Linux kernel contains such notices in each and every appropriate place in the code; no one has ever denied that the combined work is released under GPL. SCO, as Caldera, has indeed contributed to the Linux kernel, and its contributions are included in modules containing GPL notices. Section 0 of the GPL does not provide SCO some exception to the general rule of the license; it has distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, and it has granted to all the right to copy, modify and distribute the copyrighted material the kernel contains, to the extent that SCO holds such copyrights. SCO cannot argue that its distribution is inadvertent: it has intentionally and commercially distributed Linux for years. It has benefited in its business from the copyrighted originality of tens of thousands of other programmers, and it is now choosing to abuse the trust of the community of which it long formed a part by claiming that its own license doesn't mean what it says. When a copyright holder says &ldquo;You have one license from me, but I deny that license applies; take another license at a higher price and I'll leave you alone,&rdquo; what reason is there to expect any better faith in the observance of the second license than there was as to the first?