SCO Backs Off Claim That GPL Is Unconstitutional

Those following the legal goings on of Utah-based SCO might say they saw this one coming: eWeek and other news sources around the Web are reporting that SCO has backed off of its assertion that the General Public License (GPL) is unconstitutional and violates antitrust and export-control laws. The GPL is used by supporters of Linux and other Open Source software to regulate and enforce the idea that Open Source software remain open for others to use. eWeek is reporting that SCO has specifically dropped the portion of its suit against IBM in which it claimed that the GPL is unconstitutional:

In The SCO Group latest US District Court filing as it battles IBM over Linux, the company is no longer using the affirmative defense that the GNU General Public License (GPL) is unconstitutional.

In the filing, called SCOis Answer to IBMis Second Amended Counterclaims, here in PDF form, it appears that Lindon, Utah-based SCO is no longer stating in court that one reason why it should win is that "the GPL violates the US Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export-control laws, and IBMis claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

SCOis earlier contention that the GPL, the open-source license used in Linux, is unconstitutional sparked controversy and brought cries of outrage from Linux and open-source supporters.

Stop By eWeek News for the full story.