Slashdot Mirror

IANAL, but as explained in Novell's motion (and in the ruling, I suppose), the right to jury trial exists only for certain types of legal proceedings, in particular, it does not apply if it's about contracts (presumably, because it would be too difficult for laypersons to understand the intricacies involved) and if the damages asked for are equitable only (not, e.g. punitive). And Novell did drop one of its claims (and SCO moved unsuccessfully not to allow it to) to make the damages at issue fit the bill.
So I do think SCO are treated fairly here.

Sun paid SCO as part of the effort to open source Solaris.

See here.

That's not so true as it was, after some recent Supreme Court decions... See the discussion over at Groklaw

Hungary
Sweden
Norway

Hungary
Sweden
Norway

Hungary
Sweden
Norway

An important thing to remember is that this isn't over by a long shot. There's a military adage about not stopping the fighting when the enemy is momentarily defeated; you need to pursue and keep up the fight or he'll just turn and fight again.

As Sun Tzu put it, defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy, and clearly Microsoft hasn't given up on this yet.

As others above have pointed out, there needs to be a serious push in all those countries with voting irregularities (which includes the US with our last minute vote change) to root out exactly what happened and why, and to bring popular opinion and, if appropriate, legal action to bear against any who acted unethically. Certainly shine a bright light on the activities.

This pressure has to be maintained to discourage others from being corrupted by MSFT shenanigans and to keep up the pressure on "no" voters to not change their vote without their concerns being seriously and legitimately addressed.

This battle is over, and we can all take a few minutes to cheer and congratulate ourselves. But we haven't won the war yet.

Note in particular the importance of taking legal action now in those countries where corruption occurred, in order to discourage corruption from occuring now in those countries that have appropriately voted "disapprove with comments" in this round, but which are still able to change their votes.

Microsoft puts its own spin on the result in this press release.

More information on the upcoming proceedings at ISO are explained in this discussion on the currently slashdotted noOOXML site. (my apologies for poor HTML in the original post that made <no>OOXML come out as OOXML.

Groklaw also has some commentary and more links.

No, the GPL has the problem of co-existing in the same app as CDDL.

While SUN is at liberty to license software under any licence under the sun, they invented some - sorry - rather obscure minority version; long after GPL. Consequently, it was a compatibility problem introduced by SUN; knowing both would be incompatible. It is pretty daring to 'conclude' that GPL was the culprit, after all.

I am pretty sure, Groklaw wrote it up nicely:

If Sun prefers to carve out a smaller community for itself, it is free to build its own little island, with its own big fence. The result will be, though, that Linux will continue to develop more quickly and it will bury Sun's license and its code, because the open, GPL method works better, and the GPL requirement of giving back all modifications results in rapid improvement. Sun is free to cut itself off from that, if it so chooses, but it will reap what it sows. If they imagined that the world would drop the GPL and adopt the CDDL instead, I trust by now they realize that isn't going to happen.

Mutilple technical specifications makes sense, "multiple standards" is an oxymoron.

See also Groklaw on the possibility of creating a single merged standard.

If the BSD license didn't allow relicensing, it would be worthless because it would effectively be a "look but don't touch" license, in that you could see the source code but would be prohibited from modifying and redistributing it. And if it only allowed for relicensing under the same terms of the BSD license, well, it'd be the GPL.

* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

A BSD license that adds restrictions on what you can do with derivative works is essentially the same as the GPL in that regard, because it forces you to license source code--if you release it--under the same license. Otherwise, you could license your derivative work under the less restrictive "traditional" BSD license, then use that version in a GPL project. So, if it is to be enforceable, it is no longer a true BSD license. In fact, it might as well be the GPL.

As always, Groklaw comes to the rescue.

I also recommend reading the top page for info what is happening at other countries.

As always, Groklaw comes to the rescue.

I also recommend reading the top page for info what is happening at other countries.

And it looks like they tried the same thing in Denmark.

The US DoJ report just shows that the current administration is still awarding favors to its friends by saying that anti-competitive measures have worked. Any rational person would think that MS is the same old leopard which hasn't changed its spots.

Isn't it ironic that OSS - in the form of Linux and OpenOffice.org - are starting to show that they are capable of something the US Govt is not - namely, making Microsoft run scared.

Microsoft is using fraud and bribery to make sure that the only company that can be interoperable with Microsoft products is Microsoft itself.

You're full of shit and a simple search on Google would have saved you the embarassment: The GPL is a license, not a contract.

The following link is to groklaw.net and has info about the secret memo sent to Swedish partners of Microsoft. This is damning evidence.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708290 70630660

They are mainly accusing him of ripping out the BSD license from a couple .h files since they didn't have the dual-license notice in them. If they aren't dual-licensed under both, you can relicense as GPLv2, but you have to include the BSD notice under its own terms.

When SCO first raised the ELF claims, the Linux community hooted, because header files are normally not considered part of the kernel and because they are essentially necessary, like 1, 2, 3 is necessary to count to ten and there is no other good way to get there (cf. Groklaw's July 22, 2004 article A Tall Tale About ELF,".) So no one here believed that ELF was subject to copyright, and in fact we burst out laughing. The rules for copyright on software, as you probably know, aren't exactly the same as for a novel. And in general terms, if there is only one way to do an essential step in computing, copyright won't apply.

Headers brings to mind a few more principles:

• Material that is dictated by the compatibility requirements of other programs with which it is designed to interact is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by programming standards is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by standard programming practices is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by computer hardware design standards is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by the practices and/or demands of the industry being serviced is unprotectable.

They are mainly accusing him of ripping out the BSD license from a couple .h files since they didn't have the dual-license notice in them. If they aren't dual-licensed under both, you can relicense as GPLv2, but you have to include the BSD notice under its own terms.

When SCO first raised the ELF claims, the Linux community hooted, because header files are normally not considered part of the kernel and because they are essentially necessary, like 1, 2, 3 is necessary to count to ten and there is no other good way to get there (cf. Groklaw's July 22, 2004 article A Tall Tale About ELF,".) So no one here believed that ELF was subject to copyright, and in fact we burst out laughing. The rules for copyright on software, as you probably know, aren't exactly the same as for a novel. And in general terms, if there is only one way to do an essential step in computing, copyright won't apply.

Headers brings to mind a few more principles:

• Material that is dictated by the compatibility requirements of other programs with which it is designed to interact is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by programming standards is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by standard programming practices is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by computer hardware design standards is unprotectable....
• Material that is dictated by the practices and/or demands of the industry being serviced is unprotectable.

I found what I was looking for. Here. Please, disregard my previous posts on this thread :D .

Now consider what happens next:

Microsoft issues a press release saying, grudgingly, they'll have full 100% read/write compatibility with ODF in Microsoft Office 2007 1/2 within 3 weeks, so that governments and private customers can keep on using Microsoft Office indefinitely.

What's your problem with ODF being the sole ISO standard, now? If all word-processor companies can boast "100% compatible with ODF" and speak the truth?

Or are you saying Microsoft is incapable of allocating the people/time/money to implement a 700 page standard (as opposed to their own 6000 page standard)? In fact there are already several plug-ins with which this can be done (one commisioned by Microsoft from may 2007 which apparently is unusable and one by Sun which apparently works).

The point is, and I think it's a very important point, if ODF is mandated nobody loses (not even Microsoft; I don't believe *everyone* will drop Microsoft Office and switch to different word processors immediately; do you?). But if OOXML is mandated, the whole world ex. Microsoft loses. Government-sanctioned vendor-lock-in to a 3x convicted monopoly-abuser, what an enticing concept!

I'm surprised it has not been covered on slashdot, but similar things have occured in Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Australia, etc. Microsoft is determined to push its proprietary "open" format through by any means neccessary:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708241 23112581

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708151 25524759

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707232 35113424

I'm surprised it has not been covered on slashdot, but similar things have occured in Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Australia, etc. Microsoft is determined to push its proprietary "open" format through by any means neccessary:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708241 23112581

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708151 25524759

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707232 35113424

I'm surprised it has not been covered on slashdot, but similar things have occured in Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Australia, etc. Microsoft is determined to push its proprietary "open" format through by any means neccessary:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708241 23112581

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708151 25524759

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707232 35113424

Would you mind pointing out which of the 712 links in http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=license+co ntract+&keyType=all&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&ty pe=all&author=0&mode=search is the most relevant to learning the difference between a license and a contract? By your vigorous defense of Groklaw, I assume you have a particular page in mind when you write. I'm trying to "get educated", but your lazy "stop talking out your ass, you ignorant n00b" attitude leaves me quite adrift.

Are you sure about the GPL not being tested in a US court? Groklaw says this, in the matter of Wallace v. FSF:

"So, the end result is, the GPL went to court, and the judge not only upheld it, he said this:

        [T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200603202 01540127

The GPL has never been tested in a US court.

False

The difference between 'license' vs 'contract' has been explained on Groklaw, several times. Please visit the site, look it up and get educated.

It depends on what you mean by "tested". It was most definitely at issue in Daniel Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc., where the plaintiff sued the FSF for anticompetitive price fixing (and lost, and had to pay court costs.).

If I recall correctly, the GPL was also at issue in one or more of the SCO cases, though I don't know whether the court ever ruled on it.

Microsoft frequently shill online forums, they're even attacking the venerable ISO! From this Groklaw article:

And if it were me, I'd want to know if there is any Microsoft shadow in the background. Someone placed a threatening comment on Groklaw the other day, saying someday the "darkness" behind PJ would be revealed, and to "sleep well", and because of the threatening tone, I checked the logs and the comment appears to have come from an ad agency that does a lot of work for Microsoft. So I am wondering about things I didn't think about before. I remember what happened to an innocent man's reputation in the Massachusetts ODF affair.

So, this would seem like the ideal time to feed them some of their own medicine. Get over to the WGA forums and do some pro GNU+Linux astroturfing. Here was my message:

I came here not because I have a problem but because the mainstream media is starting to pick up on this issue, I suspect that pressure on MS to fix the problem will tremendously increase once this hits a few news/social networking sites.

The reason I'm not having any issues? I use Ubuntu and have the pleasure of knowing my OS and computer are owned by me. Maybe a few people here should give it a try: you never know, it might work! If it doesn't, all you've wasted are a couple of hours when you couldn't use Vista anyway.

Either way, I hope these problems get fixed for you guys soon.

As long as you're polite and make a point it can only help the adoption of Free software. Show these people that we're not zealots and offer them a way out of the WGA doldrums! :)

A good article about Open Source Definition on Groklaw .. quote:

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.

"I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

What the hell are they going to do now, without this case to report on!?

Oh come on! There's the Microsoft-shilling-ISO problem to report on yet, Groklaw is in the thick of that! Don't forget who funded the SCO attack, Microsoft are not yet defeated, that was just one maneuvre. Meaning there's the end-game of Microsoft's patent FUD attack on GNU+Linux to report, might even be a court case in it too.

I think the site is well established, too many people like PJ's pithy analysis for Groklaw to disappear. Although I doubt your post was serious, it's still worth pointing out all the things the site could do in the weeks, months and years to come. :)

[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.

> So, as you see, the GPL is clearly not viral.

Are you that asinine? Is a "viral video", or "viral marketing" not viral ?
Anyhow, what the grandparent was right, it's viral.

(at this point I took some time to research it myself to prove you were stupid about this)

Oh wait, the gpl is not viral. (no kidding I just realized this myself)

> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/15/20 41236
> Pamela Jones of Groklaw has put together a short FUD-killer on the General Public License that explains why you can't lose your proprietary code if you inadvertently incorporate GPL code. This is not the only text of its kind, but it is so well explained that you might want to bookmark the page for future reference."

The article:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312142 10634851

Suppose a company really did mingle GPL code into a program with their own proprietary code and then distributed the merged product under a proprietary license or without living up to the terms of the GPL? Now what happens? What will the judge do now? Order the code released under the GPL over the wishes of the owner?

Stop and think. What happens if you violate the terms of a fishing license? For example, the license may restrict how much fish you can catch on a particular day or what kinds of fish you can keep, what sizes, etc. Suppose you violate the terms of the license. What happens? You lose your license to fish. There may be a fine to pay, right? That's essentially the same thing that happens under the GPL, except it's nicer, because the company gets to choose what it wishes to do under the terms of the GPL. If it still isn't resolved, and it goes to a judge, however, it's enforced as a violation of copyright law, not contract law. Here is Professor Moglen's explanation of what happens:

Sorry about the insults, cheers.

Dude, at least make a partial attempt to check your facts, especially when you're being snide about someone else's supposed errors. The ruling states "For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights." http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708101 65237718#comments in what appears to be the first sentence of the conclusion.

According to what appears to be someone under Google's control: http://groups.google.com/group/pack-howto/browse_f rm/thread/ae14a8881ea3505

you're perfectly free to use the Google Updater and the rest of the programs in the Google Pack on your home and/or work computer.

I take this to be accurate, since the bona fides for this post are:

• posted on Google Blogs: directly controlled by Google
• posted within the google.com domain
• in a section of "Google Pack Help"
• on a page subtitled "Google Pack License"
• by someone named "Google Pack Guide"
• by someone with 5 stars
• With a "Google employee" icon after the name
• on a post that has been up for seven months

I guess that that in Google Pack's Terms of Use http://pack.google.com/intl/en/eula_print_us.html? hl=en&gl=us

1. USE OF SOFTWARE The Software is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only."

Well, over at http://www.groklaw.net/ PJ says legalese is dangerous for laypeople, because it LOOKS like plain english, but isn't.

My humble (IANAL) guess is that Google would have an extremely tough time causing legal problems for anybody using Google Pack at work. I'd think that the most they could do is say that the above was wrong, and politely ask a company to stop using it. The "terms and conditions" are in legalese and the explanation is in plain english. I doubt regular humans could be faulted for taking google at their simplified explanation's word, when there are so many reasons to believe it's legitimate.

I don't understand the difference either. Perhaps "non-commercial" means 'not reselling'? In any case, I'd be very comfortable saying under oath: "Your honor, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand intellectual property contract law, so I relied on Google's plain language explanation of their license which said it's OK for work and home."

I'm installing Google Pack on my office network tomorrow.

Just to post a backup so it's stored off google's site: #3 is the post under discussion

1. carlosp Jan 2, 4:41 pm
From: carlosp
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:41:22 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 2 2007 4:41 pm
Subject: Google pack licence?

Is google pack an actual free licence software which can be installed on company computers or it is just avilable for personal use?

2. MrTwist Jan 3, 1:40 pm
From: MrTwist
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:40:12 -0000
Local: Wed, Jan 3 2007 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: Google pack licence?
If you're concerned, you might want to read the liscense that is displayed right before you click the Agree and Download button.

3. Google Pack Guide Google employee (1 user) Jan 4, 3:36 pm
From: Google Pack Guide
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:36:34 -0000
Local: Thurs, Jan 4 2007 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: Google pack licence?
Right-o, MrTwist.

And just to summarize, you're perfectly free to use the Google Updater and the rest of the programs in the Google Pack on your home and/or work computer.

-Kal

4. carlosp Jan 4, 10:07 pm
From: carlosp
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:07:29 -0000
Local: Thurs, Jan 4 2007 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: Google pack licence?
Thanks :)

When are we going to get to see Darl McBride's head on the end of a stick?

"This insinuation that MS is causing a 'coming divide' in the Linux community

"is he saying he wants FOSS to become, instead of a competitor, more like a kind of cheap subsidiary that innovates principally for Microsoft's benefit? Microsoft gets innovation and code and makes money from it. Maybe some patents you didn't notice, too. Linux vendors on the bridge make some money. You get nothing"

"Linspire has now signed a patent deal with Microsoft, which I'm sure does not surprise you. They've been foreshadowing it for some time. Linspire says that Microsoft will now help them deliver a "better Linux". As you know, that has long been Microsoft's dream"

"BayStar Capital has invested in SCO to the tune of $50 million. They call it a private investment transaction"

"This insinuation that MS is causing a 'coming divide' in the Linux community

"is he saying he wants FOSS to become, instead of a competitor, more like a kind of cheap subsidiary that innovates principally for Microsoft's benefit? Microsoft gets innovation and code and makes money from it. Maybe some patents you didn't notice, too. Linux vendors on the bridge make some money. You get nothing"

"Linspire has now signed a patent deal with Microsoft, which I'm sure does not surprise you. They've been foreshadowing it for some time. Linspire says that Microsoft will now help them deliver a "better Linux". As you know, that has long been Microsoft's dream"

"BayStar Capital has invested in SCO to the tune of $50 million. They call it a private investment transaction"

"This insinuation that MS is causing a 'coming divide' in the Linux community

"is he saying he wants FOSS to become, instead of a competitor, more like a kind of cheap subsidiary that innovates principally for Microsoft's benefit? Microsoft gets innovation and code and makes money from it. Maybe some patents you didn't notice, too. Linux vendors on the bridge make some money. You get nothing"

"Linspire has now signed a patent deal with Microsoft, which I'm sure does not surprise you. They've been foreshadowing it for some time. Linspire says that Microsoft will now help them deliver a "better Linux". As you know, that has long been Microsoft's dream"

"BayStar Capital has invested in SCO to the tune of $50 million. They call it a private investment transaction"

"If you're not outraged [about the harm MS is doing to society] then you're not paying attention."

Get the facts. Start here...

Amen to your last paragraph. To me, Microsoft is still irrelevant. That might change if they could in some weird twisted way force me to buy their products, which I don't need and don't want. (The Windows-only software I might want isn't made by Microsoft anyway.) I have no need or desire to attack Microsoft; however, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and I'm really happy that there are people like PJ out there working as sentinels.

Given the speed with which Microsoft attempted to ram through their "standard" and the dubiousness of the tactics employed (see discussions over on Groklaw), that was far too close to take any comfort from.

The real questions now are:

(a) how to ensure that the various standards organizations around the world really sit up and pay attention so that the obvious technical deficiencies and the crippling lack of open-ness in the proposal -- which were pointed out over and over again by individuals and companies opposed to the fast-tracking -- will be truly taken into account?

(b) how to keep Microsoft from succeeding with their tactic of stacking attendance at national standards organizations meetings to carry the day for them?

They almost succeeded the last time. If something doesn't change, they won't fail next time.

Please post some citations for your serious accusations.

Don't have much of a memory do you? Try reading some Groklaw. In fact, PJ posted about this just today. Mr. Lyons has quite a history around the SCO case. He's also attacked bloggers for being largely anonymous and lacking credibility. Pot calling the kettle something...

Groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708051 95515884

sums it up pretty well.

An "analyst" who supported SCO Group and is suspected as an MS front man. You wonder why there are conspiracy theories about MS being behind SCO Group's actions?

With 20/20 hindsight, it had to be Lyons, MOG or Dildio.

I haven't seen a copy either, but I did find a couple of interesting links:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705252 11117353/ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705190 90322431/

I haven't seen a copy either, but I did find a couple of interesting links:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705252 11117353/ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705190 90322431/

Here in the US, if you don't sign something, it isn't a contract (yes, dramatically simplified)

Dramatically simplified to the point of having little connection with the law. For starters, just consider the effects of promissory estoppel. The vast majority of legal contracts in the US do not involve a signature.

Go visit http://www.groklaw.net/ if you want to research the differences between contracts and licenses. It has lots of the basics, and targets the geek community

Groklaw often has great legal advice--in the anonymous comments from lawyers correcting the errors in the sites articles. Groklaw is a wonderful illustration of why becoming a lawyer requires four years of college and three years of law school and the difficult bar exam, and becoming a paralegal requires a few evening courses at the community college.

Eben Moglen tells how he enforces the GPL without it being a contract.

Next time do some reading before calling someone a moron.

A license is not a type of contract, at least not in the USA. I'm not sure where you've gotten your legal training, but it doesn't apply here. If you live in a different country with a different legal tradition, you statement might be correct. I can't comment on that.

Here in the US, if you don't sign something, it isn't a contract (yes, dramatically simplified). A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. Each side agrees to do (or not do) certain things and legally bind themselves to fulfill those obligations. Usually one side agrees to perform some action, and the other agrees to transfer money, but the actual mechanism is far more general than that. But the key thing is that multiple parties agree, and sign something that is binding to them. Note that no one else is bound to it, just the signatories (and successors as appropriate).

A license which is one party holds all the cards an unilaterally allows deviations from the norm for use of something. A license cannot be used to restrict actions, that is what a contract is for, but many licenses have gotchas where you gotta do X if you want to do Y. No obligation, but if you don't meet the letter of X, Y is off limits to you.

In this case the GNU General Public License (note - not contract) allows copying and use of software that normal copyright law does not. You have to follow the rules of the GPL if you want to use/modify/whatever the covered software. Without the license the use of the software falls under normal copyright laws, which say you can't touch it without the owner's OK.

Microsoft is completely correct to say that it never agreed to anything GPL. It doesn't matter what they agree to. They are powerless and have no rights what so ever. At square one they cannot touch someone else's software. The only way to move beyond square one is to a) accept the GPL, no matter how distasteful, or b) steal it via copyright violation. They can bitch and moan as much as they like, but the choice is black and white.

Go visit http://www.groklaw.net/ if you want to research the differences between contracts and licenses. It has lots of the basics, and targets the geek community.

- doug