Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant
molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
They distributed the @($& code!
I hate lawyers, I really do.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If a kid hands a kick ball to another kid on a playground, then later sues the kid to pay rent for using that kickball, that is just silly.
If code was released into the GPL public domain, then SCO has the right to get reparations against those responsible for releasing that code, and maybe those responsible for knowingly distributing that code. In this case, they fire the guy that release the stuff into public domain, and request removal of their propritary information. Getting back licensing fees is nothing more than being a playground bully asking for kids' lunch money to play kickball.
In the 'Free World' (tm) SCO wouldn't have any possibility to win a courtfight. Of course in some 'other countries' law isn't always on the side of the innocent.
Have fun with your government and don't cry foul - after all: you get what you vote for.
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
Which is true, so far as it goes. However, GPL section 7 states (emphasis added):
They really should get better lawyers.
See there's the rub. It doesn't matter if the engineers weren't supposed to release it, or if it didn't go through legal. No one outside of Caldera is subject to their internal procedures. They fucked up, they face the consequences. I've said it before. If those engineers did something to cost the company money fine punish/fire them. But those engineers are acting on behalf of the company, it's not our job to police what they do.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
If on the other hand, they claim that their distribution did NOT have any SCO code, then simply diff their distribution against all others to find the files/code sections that they are potentially claiming are SCO code.
And if there is no difference, then we have further proof that their lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.
I thought Linux claimed SCO irrelevant even before suite: I saw SCO customers migrating from SCO Unix to Linux (I've been seeing it for about 8 years, since I did it myself), but I've never seen Linux users migrating to SCO.
Less is more !
Only the actual owner of the code has the ability relicense it. Employees of a company generally do not own the code that they write (and especially code that was not written by them) unless it's specifically stated in their contract. I doubt a contract at MS allows that.
Since they don't own the code, they don't have the ability to relicense the code under the GPL.
They're trying to say that if the person who contributes the code is not the copyright holder, then the GPL doesn't apply, so they're not responsible for GPLing the code, so their distro doesn't count. But it does.
He had this to offer about the GPL and SCO: "The GPL, by its terms, only applies to software programs or works which contain a notice "placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. (emphasis by him)
But they published the code, and it contained a notice, which they also published, saying that it's under the GPL. Even if the code went through other hands first, they are claiming that they are the copyright holder, AND they published it with the notice. So they STILL fall under the GPL provisions.
Simon
home page
I was a Xenix 386 and later a SCO ODT developer. Frankly, their stuff had all the problems of bad open source stuff but without the source code to allow you to repair/rebuild. The Microsoft/Lattice C compiler sucked big time and it was the devil's own job getting gcc up. It was easier to get it up under VAX/VMS (without all the posix support that it had in later years).
See my journal, I write things there
You don't understand. What SCO is saying is that works can only be put under the GPL by their authors. Somebody ELSE can't come along and put a work under the GPL if they don't hold the copyright to that work.
Therefore, the parts of Linux that belong to SCO are NOT under the GPL, despite what the license that's distributed with them says.
SCO, of course, had the right to distribute their own work in their Linux distributions, but since THEY didn't put the GPL on it--somebody else did--what SCO shipped was NOT licensed under the GPL.
I thought this originally, but I think I was wrong. What SCO is claiming is that the SCO code was placed in the Linux kernel by someone other than the copyright holder. In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.
None of this proves that there is actually SCO code in the kernel of course. The longer they delay in revealing exactly what it is, the more I think they're bluffing.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
this is, so far, the clearest description of sco's case i've seen. it's even clearer than sco's own argument.
but it puts sco in the wierd position of having infringed the copyright on their own code.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Someone named an OS for me.
Meaning that SCO has been been knowingly violating the GPL.
Yes, but the question is did they continue to redistribute the GPLed code in question AFTER they knew their "stolen code" was in there. That implies that they continued to accept the GPL license on that code, since they were "aware" of their own copyrighted code in the other parts of the work. Whether or not they "marked" it with a copyright notice is irrelevant as I understand the law (IANAL), but whether they were aware of and intended to license said code under the GPL is eminently relevant. Their continued distribution under the GPL of a work they knew to be composed of their own copyrighted code and others copyrighted code implies that they intended to place that code under the GPL at that time, and only after the fact, decided that it was more beneficial for them to take the "it was stolen, let's sue everybody" approach. They can only do that if they can show they never intended to release the code under the GPL - and it seems like admitting that they waited many months before stopping their own GPLed distribution of the relevant source code certainly does not strengthen their case. It likely hinges on whether a judge deems that they took reasonable efforts to prevent further dissemination of that code by their own organization under the GPL - how many months of lag time is reasonable in your mind?
This is total crap. Under SCO's theory, they are admitting violating many, many authors copyrights. If they are distributing ANY non-SCO GPL code mixed with non-GPL'd code (owned by SCO or not) then they have commited a violation of the GPL'd code's copyright. They are practically stipulating to the fact that they have commited copyright infringement.
The hypocracy of SCO's position is amazing. Let's think about this... Linus and Co. wrote codeset A, the parts of Linux which are their original work. SCO claims it owns codeset B (the UnixWare stuff) and that IBM created codeset C=A+B. If SCO distributed C then they are infringing the licence on A for exactly the same reason that they claim everyone else is violating the licence to B by distributing C. In fact, for them to distribute C is worse from a legal point of view, because they believed that it was infringing, whereas nobody else does. Since SCO has refused to even notify anyone else who distributes C (including the authors of A) of which parts of codeset C they believe are infringing, they are the ONLY ones who could prevent the infringement since they are the only ones with the knowledge to prevent the infringement.
If their view of the facts turns out to be true, then their distribution of Linux was willful for-profit infringement, practically by stipulation, and Linus, Alan Cox, Dave Miller and every other legitimate code author should get statutory damages from SCO as well as any profits that SCO earned as a result of their infringement.
IF YOU WROTE ANY PART OF LINUX, YOU SHOULD SUE SCO FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTING YOUR CODE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENCE
Stock goes up 300% based on FUD. Sell, sell, sell.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
- SCO releases trivial code under GPL.
- SCO sues IBM (Microsoft's most feared competitor) for releasing said code in Linux distro - plans large court battle to find IBM guilty/GPL invalid. Announces intention to sue linux system integrators.
- Major media all run articles spreading FUD as to whether developing for linux is a recipe for disaster. Microsoft purchases advertising in said media.
- Microsoft pays SCO 'undisclosed sum of money' to license code most people think they likely don't and won't use.
- SCO announces GPL irrelevant.
A conspiracy theorist might imagine this scenario:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
-
The code they released in their Linux distro was implicitly covered under the GPL or something compatible. In this case, they don't have a leg to stand on in their suit against IBM.
-
The code was not covered under anything compatible under the GPL; ergo, they violated the GPL by distributing GPL'ed code with their own.
(Disclaimer: Though I am an IBM employee, I am not a party to any "inside information" that makes me any more of an authority on this topic than any typical Slashdot reader. I am merely spouting an unfounded opinion of my own, based on my superficial familiarity with the GPL. See my sig.)Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The difference here is that it was actually Caldera that released the code. They distributed it, they wrote the press release. Once that's done, the fact that they failed to verify what it was that they released seems like their own problem.
That's not correct. Distributing doesn't matter if it is done either accidentally or because of a fraud. The legal point here is due diligence, and cross-checking Linux codebase against their own codebase is everything but routine operation, and might even be impossible.
However, this argument would only matter if they unknowingly distributed something they didn't intend to. That is not the case with SCO -- they continued distributing their (alleged) code under a conflicting license.
It doesn't matter a bit if the copyright holder did not place the code in GPL licensed codebase, if they knowingly continue distributing it under GPL. And if it does, they are breaking GPL by distributing non-GPL code in a GPL program. If they win, sue 'em, I say. Either way, Linux wins legally.
The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday.
Due diligence applies also to this, to some extent. It's a court's decision what diligence is due.
Also notice that proprietary licenses must contain a warranty, and the provider can't disclaim just everything (well they can but it doesn't apply). GPL licensed software, on the other hand, can be provided without warranty, "as is", so diligence is not needed at all.
IANAL, IDKA
> Screwing SCO on a 'gotcha' because they continued to distribute the
> Linux kernel after they filed the lawsuit may seem like just deserts
Perhaps, but how about these ideas?
If we stipulate that there is some SCO IP in the kernel (which I doubt) and that IBM did indeed contribute it to Linus and claim it as their own (which I'd be shocked to find true) and acknowledge that SCO did indeed distribute said tainted code before and after learning it's origins we get the following:
1. SCO can not expect 3rd parties to be any more liable for infringement than SCO themselves are for their own lack of due dilligence. Since SCO is likely to hold themselves and their customers blameless they can't then expect damages from anyone else. After all, only SCO possessed their precious archival UNIX code to compare against so they were in the best position to detect the infringment.
2. Since SCO has yet to formally request a DMCA takedown, no distributer can be held liable up to such time as they file a formal takedown request. Yes, the DMCA is going to work in our favor in this case, especially for kernel.org and mirrors.
3. So we get a best case for SCO, where they prove their case anc get a total legal victory and are unable to collect damages from anyone other than IBM. And IBM can keep the case on appeal until sometime after the final trump blows so they get no money and end up bankrupt.
Democrat delenda est
SCO is also violating the copyrights of anyone that has contributed to any of the modules that they are claiming have been contaminated.
No.
Let's explain it like this. Let's say I create something, and somebody else takes a copy of it from me (either maliciously or accidentally) and sticks the GPL onto it. That somebody else releases it, and lots of people pick it up and start working on it. Derived works are created. I then get one of those derived works--which I don't even know is based on my original work--and distribute it per the terms of the GPL. Who's been wronged here?
Well, obviously, I've been wronged, because my work was taken from me and distributed without my permission. So that's #1.
Somebody then took a copy of that work and created a derived work, and then I distributed that derived work. Did I wrong them? NO! Because they never should have created their derived works in the first place, because I held the exclusive right to do that (unbeknownst to them). So anything anybody does with those derived works is an offense against ME, not against the people who created them based on my work in the first place.
See it now? If the basic facts of the case are correct--code owned by SCO was incorporated into Linux without SCO's permission--then the law is totally cut-and-dried.
Wow. That's a really good point!
If they're claiming the weren't distributing their code under the GPL, they had no right to distribute to Linux kernel at all.
The GPL is one damned clever license. I think it's probably the most important thing the FSF has ever done.
Life is too short to proofread.
Actually, the MS example and the SCO case are almost the opposite. MS releases a non GPL product, and through an error or actions of an employee they ship some GPL stuff along. No problem, they just remove it as soon as they become aware. SCO releases a product that they well know is coverred by the GPL (at least most of the core components), and someone in their organization adds some of their IP to it, they can't claim that their organizational intent wasn't to release a GPLed product. Their claim that a third party introduced the code that wasn't intended for GPL does give them some recourse. We don't expect the SCO release team to know everything that IBM added to the kernel, but as soon as they knew or suspected, they had an obligation to inform the Linux community in a way that makes removing their code easier. If they continue to distribute Linux after being aware of the problems, they are weakening any IP claim they may later bring.
How about we have a Slashdot Interview with an anonymous SCO techie?
A SCO employee would have to be a complete fool to do this right now, regardless of what guarantees of anonymity might be provided. In a situation like this, the possible repercussions of being found out far exceed simply being canned.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That code is under GPL, period, or else they can't distribute without THEM violating the codes license.
I just realized that they might actually intend to go for that.
You see, they might say that the proprietary code that they distributed along with their Linux is not distributed under GPL. In that case, the users have no right to use it without a license from SCO.
Yes, yes, distributing non-GPL stuff in GPL software would be a violation of GPL and copyrights, but so what? That might not nullify their copyrights to their own code. FSF or some other entity would certainly sue them for the violation and demand compensation for...what damages? Yes, there is a concept of statutory damages, but those damages have limits, while the potential profits (hundreds of millions) from a SCO-Linux license do not.
However, it would probably not work that easy. While the statutory damages have a ceiling, a judge can rule that the defendant must pay damages for each violation if he continues to violate the copyright knowingly (after the ruling)! Such possibility makes sense -- a violator should not profit from continuing to break someone's rights.
The problem is that SCO would then have to stop selling their own Linux. That would not stop them from milking Linux users until Linux is dead.
This makes me worry.
IANAL, BIPOOSD, IDKA, IAN.
THe Caldera (SCO Group) -vs- IBM case comes down to three things....
1) Did the SCO Group release code under GPL?
---yes
2) Does the SCO Group have any trade secretes in Sys V?
---no, original authors pubulished source code in journals, text books on Unis OS Design, BSD -vs- USL.
3) Does the SCO Group have a contract with IBM?
---yes, the court will sort that out.
Therefore, SCO has --*NO*-- against Linux. And friend of the court briefs have already been filed saying just that.
Further, if I were Dave McBride, I would bone up on the following legal topics, Libel, Slander, and Prejury!
A corporate officer making a proven false statement is a crimminal offense!
Meanwhile, as long as the suit hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of IT managers considering a move to Linux, it fuels the FUD. It's the threat that Linux could cost some undefined amount if SCO wins that gives MS the ability to scare the crap out of the PHBs.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
SCO's claims have nothing to do with the GPL license. The only impact GPL may have is in a resolution to solve the problem: can the alleged code be extracted from a public work? This question requires that 1) code can be considered trade secret, and 2) the code is still a trade secret, after SCO's complete ineptitude to enforce anything resembling secrecy over seven years.
IANAL
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Seems to me if I remember my copyright law correctly if you don't expressly give up your copyright on something you wire it still belongs to you the author. So wether it's GNU or not it's still covered by whoever wrote it.
-My 2 cents..
Geoff
If I hack into IBM's servers, steal the code for AIX (or whatever), and then shove most of it into my own OS under the GPL, it would not free the OS/2 code, even if IBM put it up on an FTP server somewhere. Because they didn't know.
The GPL is not a law, it's a grant of rights by the owner of the copyright. You can't give up rights unintentionaly.
(not that SCO isn't totaly full of shit)
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n