In August, my two newsletters on the state of the General Public License elicited some thoughtful and colorful reaction from readers. The newsletters focused on the SCO Group's plan to challenge the GPL's validity as part of its lawsuit against IBM, as well as an analysis of the SCO group's claims against Linux.In August, my two newsletters on the state of the General Public License elicited some thoughtful and colorful reaction from readers. The newsletters focused on The SCO Group's plan to challenge the GPL's validity as part of its lawsuit against IBM, as well as an analysis of SCO's claims against Linux.One reader warned that taking on the GPL could open a whole other can of worms:"Yes, the GPL is a 'social contract,' but it is also a commercial contract, albeit with unusual wording and altruistic intent. I feel that to deny the validity of the GPL would cut so deeply into the foundations of the laws of contracts as to essentially deny enforceability of any commercial shrink-wrap contracts and thus bring about a state of total anarchy in the software industry."Other readers took direct issues with SCO and its motives:"SCO's 'anti-GPL' claims you cited are based on a weird and intentional mis-interpretation of the nature of federal copyright law," wrote another reader. "It's sheer nonsense, and irresponsible for a practicing intellectual property lawyer to claim."Another reader put it more bluntly, regarding SCO's attempt to sell a license for Linux, if it can get a court to nullify the GPL:"Paying the SCO Linux license demand sets one up to sue the pants off SCO when\/if [SCO's] suits are dismissed. Suing SCO then would enable me to pound them into the dirt, dismember the bodies, hoist severed heads on spears, eat their hearts and livers, and maybe even probably go after their lawyers also."