Original sentence: In response, supporters of the GPL, such as Eben Moglen, claimed that SCO's right to distribute Linux relied upon the GPL being a valid copyright license.Later court filings by the SCO group in SCO vs IBM use SCO's alleged compliance with the license as a defence to IBM's counterclaims.SCO has also claimed in early stages of the litigation, that the GPL is invalid and non-binding and legally unenforcable.Some, like Eben Moglen, have suggested that because Caldera distributed the infringing code under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, that this act would license any proprietary code in Linux
Edited sentence: SCO has also claimed in early stages of the litigation, that the GPL is invalid and non-binding although they have stopped taking that stance after realizing that by their own distribution of Linux code, they are liable for multiple copyright infringement instances unless they accept and respect the GPL.Some, like Eben Moglen, have suggested that because Caldera distributed the infringing code under the GPL that this act would license any proprietary code in Linux