SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL. The legal war between The SCO Group Inc. and IBM Corp. took another step forward Friday, with the Utah-based software company asserting that IBM does not have the right to enforce the GPL (GNU General Public License) software license that governs the Linux operating system. [InfoWorld: Top News]

Here's a tasty quote from the article:

"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that the enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived," SCO claimed in papers filed Friday with the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

"The Free Software Foundation is the only entity that can enforce the GPL so, in effect, IBM is barred from trying to enforce the GPL with SCO," wrote Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman, in an e-mail response to questions.

SCO's filings also assert that "the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws."

Nice.  I'm glad to know that the GPL is unconstitutional.  I'm thinking the lawyers for SCO are just out of their minds.  I'm really not sure how anyone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of the US Constitution and copyright law can call the GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional.  Here's the thing: I create something, I own it.  I hold the copyrights to it, all of them.  I can do anything I want with those rights, with a few narrow exceptions involving public safety, etc.  I can license some or all of those rights as I see fit and enforce the license.  I can sell the rights, barter them, release them, do anything that one can do with property (yes, Virginia, I can use those rights as collateral for a loan if someone will take them).   If I choose to adopt the GPL or Creative Commons, or any other licensing scheme for handling my rights, that is my business.

9:29:32 AM