http://www.sco.com/copyright/

Unbelieveable.

I think that is an absolute joke. If people decide to give something away.....let them give it away.........don't tell them they have to charge for it.

Dang he's a goof......

He believes that he has the rights to everything....

They took this position swiftly:

Who on earth is he talking to, hes declaring the end of the world to get some higher level people on SCOs side.

He calls himself a "cowboy", but is in fact a drama queen. I wonder what branch of McDonalds he will be working at when all this is over? I doubt anyone else would hire him.

McDonald's has higher standards than that. Hopefully he'll be doing community work picking up trash off our highways in an orange jumpsuit when this is all over.

I imagine Darl in somewhat different surroundings.
Darl is in a section of the room by himself.
One of the "new people" is telling one of the "old people" all about how the big auto manufacturers stole his idea for the SUV. The "old timer" says, "That's nothing. See that guy over there (pointing to Darl)? He thinks he owns Unix and everyone stole it from him."
The "new guy", not being cautious enough, approaches Darl and says, "Is it true you own Unix, dude?"
Whereupon Darl begins to flail his arms, yelling, "You Linux commie bastards..." and pummeling the "newcomer".
Once again they are forced to tie the arms on his "coat" and put him in the "soft, comfey" room.

I'm not clear what his letter means. He seems to be arguing that not exercising your rights is somehow a violation of copyright law. That's wrong and unless I'm missing something about that part of his argument, it simply makes no sense. If someone rear-ends you in traffic, you haven't violated any laws by not exercising your right to sue.

Reading on, he also argues that you are violating the law by choosing to enforce, some, but not all, of the bundle of rights a copyright gives you. I am by no means an expert in copyright, but I can't see how agreeing not to sue someone is a violation of the law. If I had a patent on a new machine, I could let anyone use it and promise not to sue. Part of having a right is the right not to exercise it.

It's really just poorly written. If his argument is that there is SCO property being used improperly, it has nothing to to with someone decision to not exercise rights.

And the news from today's hearing:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...31205161348100