Slashdot Mirror
Culture Clash: SCO, OpenLinux, Linus And The GPL
hobsonchoice writes "SCO has issued a letter saying SCO Linux customers won't be sued. The same does not seem to apply if using a non-SCO distribution such as RedHat." LightSail points to the SCO letter itself, and raises an interesting point: "If they approve the use of 'their' IP in Linux in a single kernel, then the GPL holds that IP SCO allows to be used by a select few must be freely released to any and all. It appears that all Linux users everywhere were just given a license to continued use of Linux even if SCO would win their suit with IBM." And Haikuu writes "eWeek recently posted an interview conducted by e-mail exchange with Linus Torvalds regarding his recent move to the OSDL and the SCO suit."
They said they won't sue people using SCO Linux, not that it was ok with them for the code to be used. There's a difference. If I jaywalk and don't get charged, it's not that jaywalking is not illegal, it's that the law was not enforced. Big difference.
SCO will die
Linux will always prosper
so will IBM
...that is the single most fucked up post i've ever read on..any site..period.
i mean...wow..i'm sitting here at work, and it just blew my mind.
your sins into me, oh my beautiful one.
Set up Scodot.org, and then all the SCO news can be there. That would make me happy.
I mean, should we switch?
How much suffering would you have to endure before you'd use Caldera on all your servers to make it stop?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It continues to seem that most companies simply don't believe that the GPL is a real license. It's as if they think that secretly free software authors "don't really mean it" when they explicitly define rights and restrictions in a license.
It's almost as if the GPL is too "far out" and too liberal for anyone in corporate America to really believe it's real or take it seriously; they seem to think they can just pretend like it isn't there and the courts will wink and understand. As more and more cases end up in court (as the SCO case looks like it will), I wonder if we'll start to see a shift away from "those free software kids don't have a REAL license, this GPL thing is just a toy" to "these are dangerous commies that threaten our entire economy and for that reason the courts must ignore what they're doing and side with us!"
Sort of like the end of segregation and the Vietnam war protests in the US, both things that much of the older generation simply couldn't understand beyond "those silly kids and their silly ideas" and later "those god damned subversive kids and their dangerous ideas..."
SCO can do as they wish with their IP of course, its that simple, truly.
Photos.
How many people will be shorting SCO stock tomorrow morning?
if they are allowing Caldera linux users to continue as it is, I'm fairly certain that as a GPL'ed product, if SCO determines they are going to release their linux kernel as a proprietary object with or without open source, they're opening themselves up to hundreds of lawsuits from kernel developers who haven't licensed that action.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Posting AC for obvious reasons ;)
I guess this is why some advocates of IP do not like like the viral nature of GPL.
BTW not being being caught for evading the law is not same as applying the GPL to peice of source code.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
However, it does seem logical that SCO could _choose_ not to prosecute SCO Linux users. But then, couldn't you argue that any Linux user that ever had a Caldera/SCO OpenLinux CD is a SCO Linux user?
IANAL, but SCO barely had a leg to stand on legally and now it seems like they shot the foot on that leg :)
LordBodak's journal.
A couple thoughts spring to mind:
1. What the HELL were you protesters thinking by putting your arms around this guy and turning it into a photo-op for him? I mean, the windows refund day fiasco was bad enough. But are we serious about protesting or not?
2. The more I read, the more I think this is going to come to a legal test of the GPL.
3. As someone has already pointed out, it's a fine line between granting a license and choosing to not enforce copyright violations from their own customers. It's assinine that they could even suggest their own customers are violating a copyright by using software which THEY sold to them, but it will make for a very interesting legal battle.
4. Does anyone have any stories of how Linux customers of other distributions are being damaged? Of how other Linux-derived companies or employees are being harmed? I think it's time to create a mailing list somewhere of people who feel they are being harmed by SCO's actions.
Of course SCO Linux users won't be sued. There are too few to make it worth while.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Man, just as soon as SCO shoots itself in both feet during the past couple of weeks, it finds a third foot, and shoots that.... ....oh wait... that's not a foot.... ....ouch....
For a good time, get other things blown at work.
Interviewer: SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from.
Linus:I allege that SCO is full of it.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
So SCO lets its customers use it's hypothetical IP as part of the linux kernel. As said in the story, this would then release this code under the GPL. But this does NOT mean they now give the source away to all and sundry - only to their customers (who can then release it to anyone they choose).
Of course this is all irrelevant as the source is out there and available regardless. Can't wait to see this play out in court.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
-Like tears in rain, time to die.
Sideshow Bob: The following neighbourhood residents will not be killed by me: Ned Flanders, Maude Flanders, Homer Simpson, Marge Simpson, Lisa Simpson, that little baby Simpson...that is all.
[Homer runs up to Bart's room]
Homer: Woo-hoo! Did you hear that Bart? Heh--oh...
The anti-GPL crowd likes to talk about how the GPL has this power to "force" people to do things, like some kind of animated chainsaw that turns on its owner. Now the anti-SCO folks are using the same argument? Sorry folks, that's not how it works.
The GPL is simply a means for a copyright holder to grant others the right to copy under certain circumstances. It can't "force" anyone to do anything.
If the Linux kernel is a derivate work of SCO's (or more likely, certain PARTS of the kernel are derivative works), then SCO can simply claim that ALL copies of the Linux kernel are infringing copies, and ALL public distributions of the code are copyright violations.
The GPL was placed on that code by someone who was not the copyright holder. That person would not have the right to license the code at all. So you'd have to just ignore the GPL, and treat the code the same as if you just downloaded the Windows 95 source code from somebody on Kazaa.
SCO can also say, well, since we don't want you to have to go to all the trouble of deleting your OS, we'll sell you an end-user license and so forth, for $50. Otherwise we'll sue you. Aren't we nice and friendly? And we'll pick and choose who we want to sell licenses to, and who we want to give them to for free.
They certainly wouldn't allow distribution by anyone under the GPL.
The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code. It doesn't matter that they were already distributing it, they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it.
The GPL does not have any magical power to bestow freedom on anything it touches. Especially someone ELSE'S code.
(This is assuming all the bullshit SCO is putting out is actually true.)
must be freely released to any and all. It appears that all Linux users everywhere were just given a license to continued use of Linux even if SCO would win their suit with IBM.
That's not what it means. Nobody can unintentionally make their software GPL through 'infection'. Instead, it means that SCO has just formally violated the GPL and should now be sued for copyright infringement by anybody and everybody who owns copyrights to any part of the Linux kernel. In particular, Linus could generate lots of press by suing SCO for copyright infringement. He might get some good coin out of it too; $3.1-billion ought to do it.
fire your lawyers and PR people...
whoever is giving you advice is getting paid by the hour, and doesn't care how stupid you look or how irrelevant your actions are...
I can't believe this is even a professionally traded company. It feels like amateur hour around there.
RB
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
No, emphatically not.
GPL applies to copyright'ed materials only. If SCO have other form of IP protection (such as patent, or, as they in fact claim, trade secret) the the GPL does not even interact with it. And see below.
Further, it is possible for SCO to liscence their copyrighted code such that all thier customers may use it. That does not make it GPL'd.
The GPL only applies upon redistribution - it is quite valid for me to link in code written under any sort of liscence to the Linux kernel. However, I may not freely redistribute it unless I can meet all the restrictions on it. From the GPl, section 7:
Granted, it is talking principly in terms of patent liscencing, but that's inconsequential.
As a case in point, conside the NVIDIA binary drivers. If you have an NVIDIA card, you have a liscence to use that copyrighted code. You do not have a liscence to re-distribute NVIDIA's code. Yet you may link the two systems together, just fine, provided you don't try to redistribute the combined work.
Now, SCO redistributing binaries from their ftp site, _after_ they make claims about thier code being in Linux is a whole different kettle of fish. That's a different issue however.
I guess we know where all the 2449 votes for "GP-who?" came from now.
"If they approve the use of 'their' IP in Linux in a single kernel, then the GPL holds that IP SCO allows to be used by a select few must be freely released to any and all. It appears that all Linux users everywhere were just given a license to continued use of Linux even if SCO would win their suit with IBM."
.. the software was licensed under GPL. Will SCO be able to _change_ the license terms (if not any existing SCO linux customer can cut & paste and recontribute their code back to Linux). Especially after issuing this statement of saying they will ensure their customers are unharmed. I would consider being revoked and then given shitty license terms as harmed. Dont know about the courts.
Unfortunately, this may be false (IANAL etc.) because SCO can say that "credit" their liability. That is, if the court finds that their IP was stolen and all Linux users must pay $1000 to SCO, SCO can simply credit their own customers as having "paid up" as it were. Now the interesting issue is this
So what do you reckon SCO's chances are of making it to their own "SCOForum" (17-20 August)?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Eye-Bee-Em Linux
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
To 'hold harmless' is far different than a grant of license. Although the analogy in the parent is somewhat misleading, the point is absolutely valid. Eseentially, SCO is agreeing to exclude customers of it's own linux distribution from any future legal action.
The big question is, what constitutes a SCO customer? Must I have purchased SCO services with my download of the SCO linux distro, or can I simply make use of their distro to avoid the threat of legal action? How much of the SCO distro must I use?
Perhaps I should install a few packages on each of my Linux boxes, so as to avoid the the threat of lawsuits.
As I re-read this, it appears the letter is only directed to current and ongoing SCO partners. This suggests that possibly, not only would I have had to have purchase SCO services but I would have to continue to pay for SCO service contracts indefinately into the future. Then again, IANAL, so perhaps I have misinterpreted the legal implications of this letter.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity."
Dennis Ritchie.
"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."
'nuff said.
...then they laugh at you, then they fight you...
I know that a lot of people are getting very sick of the SCO stories. Maybe they would consider a SCO catagory and thus a SCO filter.
However, its not THAT bad. On top of that, this whole thing is just facinating. When the dust settles, whoever has been following this and knows some of the inside tracks could seriously write a killer book. The things going on in this case just blow my mind and today is yet another example.
Just when I think I have heard it all...
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
It was the winter of 1988, and I was a student at the University of California at Santa Cruz. One night, I went to the Wednesday juggling group, and I met this woman named Lynn. Lynn was in an on-again, off again relationship that at the moment was off again.
Well, by the end of the evening, Lynn and I had a date to go hiking that weekend. We went out for a hike, and one thing led to another, and the next thing you knew we went back to my dorm and slept together.
We continued on like this for a few weeks, merrily boinking away, and then I went away for spring break. When I returned, Lynn told me that she had gotten back together with her old boyfriend. It was no huge loss where I was concerned, and I was grateful for all the good times.
Now how does this relate to SCO, you ask? Well, it turns out that Lynn worked for SCO. At the time, Santa Cruz had no technology companies to speak of. So it stands to reason that if it weren't for SCO, Lynn likely would have found work in some other town, and we would never have met.
This is all a round-about way of saying that SCO got me laid. Which sort of pales in significance to who owns what lines of code or what licenses were or weren't handed out. Yet it seems the Slashdot crowd is obsessed with this technical minutia, and purposefully ignores all the great things that SCO has undoubtedly contributed to this world. Like getting me laid. So, people, please get it together and be a bit more objective about this great company.
Sure, it appears that they either don't understand or believe the GPL, but I doubt they are that dumb. I think what's going on is that they realize that they can't stop others from distributing Linux because they are still distributing it themselves (despite their claims otherwise), but they want to keep people from distributing it anyway, and spreading FUD like this is how they do it. Why do they want to keep people from using Linux if they would have a hard time legally enforcing it? They want to drive people from Linux to Unix because they believe that they can exert control over Unix. I believe that is their plan. They want to drive people away from what they can't control into the arms of the closest alternative, which they do plan to control.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
they might not be liable for SCO IP, but what about all the GPL IP? SCO is ignoring the fact that the GPL does not apply if they ship royalty generating IP in their distro, so they cannot ship all that GPLed code. So their customers are now liable, instead, for GPL violations (although there may be obscure wiggle room for them based on the fact that it's really the act of copying that becomes prohibited, e.g. SCO is the violator).
Linus, the FSF, and RMS should all SUE!
-pyrrho
So, the SCO back then was GOOD the SCO now is BAD
Don't think that they're the same company cause they're not. It used to be about UNIX, now it's about using UNIX to sue people to earn profit.
McBride: My precious was birthday present YESS
IBM Lawyer: What are you talking about?
McBride: Its what has it got in my pocketses.
IBM Lawyer: You do not even have the source code do you?
McBride:Did we say so, precious? Cross it is, impatient, precious.
IBM Lawyer: Your honor, since SCO can not even have the code they therefor have no ownership. I have the source code here and
McBride: MY PRECIOUS! THEIF, theif IbM! We hates it FOREVER! My PRECIOUS!
http://saveie6.com/
General: "Corporal, the enemy is advancing, fire another round!"
Corporal: "We can't sir."
General: "Out of ammo?"
Corporal: "no."
General: "What is it then!?"
Corporal: "We're out of feet."
PS:
General: "Well go for the knees--- ouch!"
-pyrrho
...then they laugh at you, then they fight you...
And then you find out if you side has what it takes to win.
Ghandi had the plight of the oppressed, the moral high ground, and the triple guilt of the Anglican White Empire.
What does GNU have? Some sour grapes against software developers, and a license designed to turn copyright on its head.
It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others. It's also entirely possible that it'll be upheld lock stock and barrel.
No one, AFAIK, has attempted to challenge the GPL and taken it to court. (If you know otherwise, please site case name and / or court.) Until that happens, it's a license that may have some or more parts of it removed.
(For the GNUelots, the "entirely possible" would require a case getting to the Supreme Court.)
The GPL doesn't mean business. It means common ground and contractorship.
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
Same deal with GNU software. I rely on the GPL to know that my code is going into the public pool. I do it as a hobby and I don't get paid for my time, so my one recompense is knowing that some jerks can't steal my hours of labor. I give them as a gift for all the world and that is good enough for me.
When these "SCO" big-shots start attacking the GPL I take it personal, and so does anybody else who has written for Linux and GNU. I'm certainly not writing code to make SCO rich. They don't pay me, they don't like my "philosophy", well they can go piss up a rope because I'm getting tired of them walking all over the GPL like it somehow doesn't apply to them because they are "big-shots." Bullshit! They are a bunch of crack-heads if they think they can pull this swindle off. They got big balls, I'll give them that, but their big balls are gonna get kicked hard.
Clickety Click
Interviewer: ...where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from.
Linus: I allege that SCO is full of it.
Watch out, SCO is just nutty enough to take that the wrong way.
The coolest voice ever.
that if I download a copy of Caldera Linux (someone can tell
you the link to get it), then I won't have to worry about them suing me?
Even if I don't actually use it? Or do I have to use it
at least once then I can claim I have permission to use
the kernel in another Linux OS I'm running?
I think that they should sue their customers. Why stop while they're on a role. Really if they fire up another couple of billion dollar lawsuits against their biggest customers they're likely to get there stocks up into the teens. Then they could sue themselves (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sc
Which, of course, proves being drunk and typing with your feet doesn't work.
BIll Gates must be sitting back in his $5000 leather chair, with his feet up on his $10000 mahogany (oak, teak or whatever) desk, smiling a smile bigger than the cheshire cat and thanking his lucky stars that those stupid Linux developers adopted the GPL.
One side of me says that if SCO doesn't enforce it's "rights" against everyone, including its own users, then there might be a danger of someone claiming that because SCO failed to defend their "rights" against everyone, there is a danger of making the "rights" null and void. After all, if you don't defend your rights vigorously, you have a danger to lose them.
The other side, as I see it, is if someone paid money to SCO/Caldera/Whoever and accepted an EULA from SCO/Caldera/Whoever, then they have a license to use the code anyway....
I think they are simply saying they don't want license fees and/or won't sue (not sure which - probably means same thing) existing SCO customers. I personally don't think the letter necessarily implies that SCO thinks that SCO Linux customers will be able to keep on distributing source, GPL style.
One thing that I haven't figured out, is what about UnitedLinux? (which I believe SCO to be a member of). Is SCO Linux = a standardized UnitedLinux distro, or is it more complicated than that?? And if yes, or nearly, how do SCO think customers of their UnitedLinux partners should act??
Another thing that isn't clear, is whether you will be able to become a SCO Linux customer (not saying I want to, just whether it will be possible) - i.e. what if you want to buy SCO Linux - could you? I realize they have stopped selling it for now, but will this continue?
shorting SCOX would imply that people would buy it again after the price plummets. Not likely, since this company, run by incompetent execs, is destined for bankruptcy.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
They will dye Linux will live lond and prosper?
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
"The less I have to do with suits, the happier I am. That said, if I'm called as an expert witness, I'll go if only because I'd be curious about the process."
I'm sure he'd also go if he was compelled by subpoena, too. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the process works, wouldn't he be compelled to testify if called upon by the courts? You can't just volunteer to testify, right?
Just a little joke. We're on a long winning ride! It should be over in a cool century.
SCO's "protest" images were not in good taste; portraying Torvalds as a puppet of IBM is a pretty cruel thing to do; equating hard work banging out code with piracy is a pretty cruel thing to do.
Ha, I pity SCO with their static IP!
I have dynamic IP.
Yesterday I owned the rights to Wireless Toasters, and the day before it was me who invented a certain sort of plastic sheathing suitable for undersea cables, tomorrow it may be me who invented tcp/ip!
Oh the excitement of dynamic IP...
graspee
WTF are you drooling about, moron?
The GPL specifically states that if you ship the code, the GPL applies, and that if you ship your proprietary IP it has to be available for a royalty free non-terminable licence.
So SCO is clearly in violation of the GPL to be doing this.
Further, since it's distributed under the GPL and they have confirmed this now, their IP can be redistributed, as the GPL allows, by their customers.
I do not share you confidence in SCO's lawyers, so I'll call your SCO lawyers and rais you a pack of IBM lawyers.
-pyrrho
head? I'm sick of hearing this.
It does NOTHING to take away ANYONE's rights under copyright.
Free software authors, like ANY authors, have the right to choose how their works are licensed, and under what terms derivitave works can be made... and that choice includes saying "Anyone can use this as long as they abide by the GPL".
You are always free to contact the copyright holder of any work available under the GPL and request licensing under different terms, you know. Think the author of a GPL work is perhaps a bunch of people? That depends on the project.. often copyrights are assigned to the project leader... and depending on how contributions are made, that may still be the case despite having lots of authors.
I'm really unclear on what aspect of the GPL needs to be "challenged". If the GPL does not apply, then copyright law forbids the things people are doing with those works the authors placed under the GPL. It's not a use license, but if you don't accept it, the law is clear: you don't have the right to do certain things with that code.
SO unless the argument is "THE gpl doesn't apply, so all works available under the GPL are actually in the public domain" there is no argument.
IT doesn't have to be tested in court... copyright is already testd in court, and the authors of any GPL software are free to sue anyone who is not abiding by the license, and hence, has NO right to do what they are doing.
SCO has no right to distribute Linux whatsoever, since they know 'their' code is in Linux without giving up the rights to that code. However, as long as they are not distributing any GPL'd code, they are in the clear.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, the worst that can happen to you if you violate the GPL is that you lose your rights to distribute the code, and you might have to pay a civil fine for the GPL infringement.
But the point is moot anyway, since SCO isn't distributing anything right now, they are not GPLing anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
And how should they get more clarifications.. I mean
- Linus knows where HE got contributions from
- Those people know where THEY got them from
- The code is available for the WHOLE WORLD to see, and let Linus et-al know if something isn't right.
Like a lot of people around here, I've been watching intently as I perceive something that seems to represent freedom to be under assault from a bunch of greedy and self-serving corp-lawyers. Taking a step back, I've begun seeing this as a good thing because this is exactly the kind of threat that the GPL has been begging for over the years: a battle for legitimacy. Did you think that testing the GPL was going to be a small potatoes deal? The way it's playing out is perfect: a single-minded company wants to pull itself out of a GPL-induced (I'd say, given their Caldera competence) downturn, and an opponent who can well afford the time, money, and expertise to fight this without weaseling out into a settlement. Well, I hope for that last part, but you know what I mean.
Counterintuitively - and not a little bit idealistic about the legal system's ability to judge without outside influence - perhaps the thing to do is to root for SCO a little bit. Egg them on with false love! Give them a hand up the hubris ladder! Kneel down as they fawn over their petards! Make this the fight that covers many bases as possible so that these things we seem to share an attachment with are the stronger for it.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
SCO have stirred the international hornets nest. And soon a lot of angry people are going to start stinging SCO.
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
People don't buy "software". People buy solutions to problems. This is way more money is made by contract programming than by selling boxes of software.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
What do you mean by "welfare". I don't see contract programming as "welfare", even if it is done for the government. Welfare is a hand out, not the exchange of programming for money.
--fatboy
You seem to forget, even if SCO is a copyright holder (doubtful at the moment), they are not the only copyright holder! If you lose Linux because the GPL doesn't hold --- SCO CAN'T GIVE IT BACK TO YOU.
It's not clear to me if the customers can be sued, but SCO certainly can, they are knowingly and wontonly violating the license on other people's IP, which is what these kind of cases hinge on, the intentionality of it.
-pyrrho
now they don't get anyone laid! well, at least not before the marriage(s).
If I where a kernel developer or I had any knowledge that sco had ever sold and or distributed any code that I had developed I would be visiting the courthouse in the morning. It would be terribly easy to win a lawsuit against them for knowingly distributing and selling my IP while not abiding by the GPL license under which I distribute my code. SCO's supposed 80 lines of code does not make up for the millions of lines of other peoples IP they have illegally sold and distributed.
Got Code?
Actually, not in this case (IANAL). They have indicated that their customers won't be held accountable to SCO... but that makes the code in question (all of it) a violation of the license under which it was distributed. Which means the users have NO right to run the code.
One of the first things it says is that you don't need to agree to the license to run the code, only to distribute the code.
Even microsoft can run GPL'd code.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
With each statement made by SCO, I become more and more confident that the Iraqi Information Minister is alive and well and it is HE who is truly behind all of this. Who else could possibly have such a complete grasp of the opposite of reality?
Think about it - he disappears and the SCO FUD machine cranks up. Coincidence? I don't think so.
As we all know, Orin, Fritz, and the usual suspects are interested in letting the copyright industry attack those who are accused of copyright violations.
If they pass such a law, can we all go black hat on SCO based on their alleged GPL violations?
what's harry potthead?
Linus didn't have to say a whole lot. The suit doesn't involve him yet and he's not obligated to remove any code from the kernel because A) no one has asked him to and B) the pending lawsuit seems to be the way SCO wants to handle this. Linus does give his opinion of the lawsuit though and I think he would like it if SCO just said, "You know what, we're morons. Sorry about the mess." But, SCO is too deep into this now.
Just a reminder. I'm consolidating the "worthwhile" points of the lawsuit at the link in my sig. If anyone would like me to add something to that page or would like to contribute commentary on this subject please don't hesitate to contact me.
"The GPL was placed on that code by someone who was not the copyright holder." Impossible, under the GPL. Perhaps you meant "no liscense was attatched". Then everyone is in violation of copyright (since parts would still be under GPL, and the combined work would fail the GPL).
Likewise its impossible for SCO to try to sell an end-user liscense, since the code in question is combined with GPL-ed code, and hence can't be distributed. Anyone who purchases such an end-user liscense would be buying the Golden Gate bridge based on SCO having a van on the bridge at the time.
SCO may have never intended to distribute the code...LOL...but they are distributing now, even as I type this. They were "duped" into continuing distribute? Is that what you really mean? If they don't grant their IP under the GPL, then distribuing their distribution is a violation of the GPL. If they had shutdown their FTP servers when they quite selling, your position might have be viable, but they didn't and they haven't.
The only reason NVIDIAs drivers are not covered by the GPL is because binary only kernel modules using existing kernel interfaces were expressly permitted from the beginning by Linus, as an EXCEPTION to the GPL. This means these drivers can be under any license NVIDIA wants. The only reason you can't distribute thsoe drivers with the OS is because NVIDIA says so, not ebcause of the GPL.
Note - I'm trying to find the clause that allowed it, I'm sure I've seen it before, and it's common knowledge.. but I can't find it, anyone know where it is?
The license on the linux Kernel itself is not just the GPL, it has an additional clause.
You quoted Section 7 of the GPL.. let's look at more of it:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "
That's pretty self explanatory.. if SCO cannot distribute copies that allow ANYONE to redistribute in the same manner, they cannot distribute at all.. Therefore, they cannot just license their version of linux to their users only, and impose restrictions on others.
In other words, they have every intention of continuing to distribute Linux to at least some of their current customers. They have not only violated the GPL in the past, but they are planning to violate it in the future.
eweek: Has this legal matter affected in any way how you or any of the kernel developers are working on the current kernel?
Linus: Not that I know of, although I do suspect a fair amount of time has been wasted just worrying about it.
Perhaps this really isn't about Linux at all? Maybe SCO is actually going for the GPL's throat. It would seem to make sense in light of the anti-protest signs where they tried to paint Linux and it's users with the broad brush of "communism" and "piracy". I know there is a lot of disgust with the GPL in the corporate world because it creates a truly level playing field which is something no good little capitalist wants. I've heard over and over on this board from several neocons that it's always better to have every unfair advantage over your competitors as possible. That's pretty much the complete opposite of what the GPL stands for. If they wind up winning AND proving that corporations can break the GPL and get away with it, then they will have gained the ultimate unfair advantage indeed.
Un-news
We look forward to helping you and your customers meet your business needs for the next twenty years. -- Optimist Darl
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Is that linux developers simply 'roll back' to wherever Linux was before IBM first contributed, and start again from there. I doubt it would take much time to get back to where they where, especialy if programmers simply 'resubmitted' patches that they were sure they owned the rights to and had not been tainted by IBM.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
could you explain your reasoning further? and please go a little further than parroting the idiotic viral claim: if you use somebody's code you have to do it under the terms of the copyright holder. you are also free not to use that code or try to negotiate a different license. so how is this different from any other license?
It's pretty clear.
They realize how hopeless and preposterous it is, to get licensing fees from Linux users in general. Instead they try to get what they can by bullying people into using (paying for) "their" Linux.
It suggests they're aware of how thin the ice is where they're standing...
I'm really getting tired of this crap. When are kernel developers going to sue SCO for violating the GPL? All of SCO's past profits from selling Linux are a direct result of their piracy. This is a big pot of gold -- why is nobody going after it?
If you're really pissed at The SCO Formerly Known As Caldera, and you've ever purchased one of their Linux distributions, sue them to get your $50 back. They claimed they were selling you code under a certain license, now they're retracting that claim. If they can get away with that at all, it shouldn't be without at least giving you your money back.
Of course, it's not mainly about the money: it's about thousands of people dragging SCO to small claims court as their own personal way of saying, "Fuck you, too!"
Don't ya think SCO should have'ta PROVE that there was copying taking place first?...I mean, why bother with the merits of the GPL and if it's enforceable here. The relevant issue is about illegal copying and supposed "obfuscation" of code to make it look "not copied." We have not even gotten to trial yet!....until the judge rules guilty, or I see the evidence myself, it's all a bunch of accusations to me. We are entitled to our innocence right up to the verdict, or even after the verdict if we can get a good PR firm.
Slashdot should be helping to shape the language of this media hype event, we shouldn't even be debating this crap until the evidence is presented....we should be encouraging the press to do likewise....all press comments should be "we are within our rights, we obey the law, we are unconcerned, we'll see the bastards in court, business as usual..." That's precisely how IBM's handled the case so far..."we are right, we know it, we'll be seeing ya' in court."
Even answering their charges only serves to shift the debate and allow them control over the media "language" of the case. With their weak case, they will attempt to shift the spotlight to anything BUT proving that copying took place, who did it, and the chain of custody along the way.
The best answer is to deny, deny, deny....then claim that you can't recall, but you are sure that you didn't do it, 'cause you never break the law. That's how Bill G. does it...it seems to work pretty good....
go to ftp.sco.com and browse around.y are distributing YAST.
(/pub/scolinux/ipfserver/4.0/SRPMS)
The
THIEF!!!
The GPL spesificaly say you don't need to agree to it to distribute the to use the stuff
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Even if SCO can somehow win against IBM, they really can't go after anyone else now that they've willingly released code to others under the GPL. Their argument is that they didn't know that the code they willingly released was theirs, but they knew they released it - they were quite willing to let their customers have the rights granted by the GPL over the code so long as they thought someone else owned the original IP, even though the GPL says they're licensing their IP royalty-free. I don't see any way they can navigate this legal minefield and not get a limb blown off.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Okay. I'm nodda Loi-yer. But I've played one on TV. And this is one thing I have learned...
In every contract I have written, signed, and/or approved there has been a clause that says something to the effect of...
"Just because I decide not to enforce a particular section of this contract today, doesn't mean I don't have the right to call for enforcement tomorrow."
I don't know all the details of the GPL, and I don't know all the details of any agreements that SCO has with other companies. But, at first glance, I rate it this way...
"Any and all" > "Just because I decided to sue you and not him"
Of course, as some have pointed out, If SCO can prove that their IP was given out, without their knowlege, then the "any and all" may be pre-empted.
Then again... If the IP was given out, and SCO did know about it, but they chose not to enforce it at all for a given length of time, then their rights are forfeit BECAUSE they didn't enforce it.
So.. Here's the question.... Did SCO own something, and not know what they owned, and who was using it, for a really long time?
A) No. They didn't know, and they didn't enforce their rights. Therefore, SCO is dumb and they lose.
B) Yes. They knew, but didn't enforce. SCO loses again
No witty signature here. Nothing to see. Move along.
You could end up like... what's his name?.... Dave from the LRP witcho bad-ass attitude.
however, someone's sure to be a dumbass and turn it into a class-action, which is never worth it
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Ian
I need to patent my ip before someone steals it: 127.0.0.1
It really makes no difference at this point whether they declare that they won't sue their own Linux customers: they had already accepted their obligations under the GPL when they distributed their version of Linux in the first place. The only thing that it underlines (again) is how poor their understanding of their obligations under the GPL is.
What then? Do we just shut down our Unix and Linux boxes and go home? Frightening thought, isn't it? Think about the possibilities. Maybe someone (smarter than myself) should write a Friend of the court brief on the results of such a thing.
Here is the problem. You are basing your conclusions on "logic", or as it shall be known now, Old Logic. Old Logic is no longer in effect: we are now operating under New Logic, also known as SCO Logic. Here is how it works, taking the simple example first.
Sequent has licensed Unix from AT&T. Sequent develops some nifty stuff like NUMA, RCU, etc. for large parallel computers. They then incorporate this into Unix. The result is now a derived work of Unix, and AT&T/successors have "sole relicensing rights" to that derived work. But here's where the New Logic comes in: Not only that version of Unix, but also the original implementations of those technologies themselves, are also derived works, and the Unix license grants them to AT&T, or their successor in holding the license, in this case SCO. You'd think that Sequent's copyrights (now held by IBM) would let them do whatever they want, but this is erroneous: The Unix license grants these rights to SCO, and IBM can distribute implementations of these technologies only according to the terms of the System V license. This is what SCO has claimed all along.
Now lets apply this to Linux. IBM has incorporated implementations of these ideas, which can only be licensed through SCO even though IBM owns them, into Linux, under the GPL. Under Old Logic, even if we accept the above, IBM has simply broken the GPL, and the kernel without these parts still belongs to the original contributors, and can be licensed under the GPL. But as always, New Logic changes everything: Since Linux, with RCU and NUMA support, is now a derived work of System V Unix (even if it has been created illegally), SCO now has "sole right of relicense" to not only this derived work, but as with Sequent, all previous implementations, even those without the licensed code (just as it applies to implementations of RCU and NUMA before they were incorporated into Unix). And under the New Logic, Linus' copyright matters no more than Sequent's.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Good SCO... bad SCO... I'm the SCO with the lawyer.
(oh man, that was really bad)
The SCO seems to have fead its bait to a big fish, with the bait being their System V code release with somewhat misleading terms of use, and the fish being Linux. However, the fish may just be big enough to swallow SCO. This is why some analysts say that GPL will be tested.
I have actually read through the GPL license and I am convinced that:
1. If SCO releases Linux, it has to release it under GPL.
2. If SCO releases Linux under GPL, then they have to make it available for download and anyone can get it for free.
3. If SCO's version of linux contains the copyrighted System V code, than there is somewhat of a mess:
SCO gets linux under GPL from the linux community. It contains the copyrighted System V code. SCO releases the code back to GPL as its Linux release. This is like GNU's Not Unix, or SCO's Controversial Obfuscation. In any matter, it seems we have a semidecidable problem on our hands, where SCO holds the halting switch. They will probably try to convince court that GPL's re-feedback effect makes GPL illegal because it allows copyrighted or patented code to become vertually impossible to remove from Linux.
...that I can even tie it back to a slashdot article from 1998! ...now SCO has indeed been corrupted by The One Ring, but Linux is still like Tom Bombadil.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, none of the protesters carried the sco signs. The person who stated that didn't know what they were talking about. The only people who carried the sco signs were sco employees. They kept following us wherever we went.
Nobody liked having the sco folk with the signs, we just showed enough restraint to not do anything stupid.
IANAL. Also, I don't think any of SCO's code is actually in the kernel. I'm describing a safety net, possibly the last, but I don't think it will go nearly that far.
Litigious bastards
Space for rent, inquire within
The bad news:
Licensing lawsuits (or lawsuits in general) are rarely about right and wrong and are more about which side can afford better lawyers. Even an egregious violation of the GPL by SCO would still come down to this. To some extent, this is why companies don't take the GPL seriously. Under any other circumstances, who is going to cough up the big bucks to challenge some company's higly paid legal team?
The good news:
IBM can afford very good lawyers and has a huge economic incentive to fight SCO "to the death." IBM has been moving to a "services" based business model for some time and free, cross-platform operating systems and software fit into this plan nicely.
The unknown:
So far, IBM has publicly been asserting only that they have a valid license to use System V Unix as per their original license agreement. They have not asserted anything regarding the GPL with regard to either the code in question or SCO's use of GPLed software in SCO Linux. This whole mess could and probably will get settled without the GPL even being brought up in the courtroom.
SCO's action of attempting to stop IBM from shipping AIX by revoking the license is fairly weak since it requires SCO to show that IBM *as a corporation* deliberately assisted Linux development by violating the SCO copyright on certain code. All IBM has to do is say "No we didn't. Prove it." (which they have) and SCO is faced with the task of finding e-mails or memos or whatever that directed some of IBM's kernel contributors to copy code. Barring finding such evidence, SCO would be stuck going after the individual contributors. In this matter, the question of whether or not some Linux code may be lifted from SCO's codebase only proves that their was a violation of the SCO copyright; not that IBM as a corporation is responsible for the copyright violation. More likely, all SCO will "discover" is a memo from IBM's legal department to one or more of the contributors involved stating that it is a copyright violation if you cut and paste but its not if you simply apply techniques learned to the Linux code. Hardly a smoking gun.
SCO could sue the individual contributors involved in which case IBM would probably still foot the bill for their legal defense since IBM would just say they are standing by their employees in a business related matter and chances all SCO could get out of it even if they win is a retraction of the code (chage a few variable names and the indentation and comments and someone else can re-submit it) and maybe a few bucks since chances are we aren't talking milionaires here.
My guess:
This is primarily a FUD campaign on SCO's part to try to derail Linux. They don't have a good case but they sure are making a lot of noise to make up for it and IBM knows it. Unfortunately, there's no good legal way to say, "Put up or shut up!"
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Linus isn't the only one capable of practicing "due diligence".
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Can users of products that contain unlicensed code or patents be sued directly? If so, this seems to cause a huge problem with *all* software, since anything I use could potentially have legal problems.
Finding Nemo?
I don't see the connection. If SCO were to somehow have an actual case and win, they've mentioned that they are interested in going after the free BSDs after that. The license doesn't really interest them as much as their claim of owning the rights to every OS on the planet outside of Windows.
GPL: Free as in will
Ha got them, I use Solaris on Ultrasparc. Good luck lamers.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I have indeed been a SCO sysadmin, and it is an ugly hard-core Unix with no frills, no hand-holding, and it ain't Linux. If you think that Linux isn't ready for the desktop then SCO Unix is about ten years behind Linux in this regard. Basically it sucks in every respect except that SCO will come in and hook up a bunch of consoles for you and will write you some lame app in Unibasic to run on your terminals. That was the old SCO, the new SCO probably doesn't get their hands dirty with such stuff like writing programs.
Having run their OS, it was OK, nowhere near as good as GNU+Linux but it was OK, something like NetBSD with FVWM2 I suppose, except not as good. SCO reminded me of Ultrix on the university terminals about ten years ago.
But Linus did a clean-room implementation of the Unix kernel, and Stallman's FSF wrote the rest of the GNU OS as a clean room implementation as well. This was so that you and me could piss around with a real Unix-like system at home without having the bankroll to install AT&T UNIX. I don't know what you know about how SCO operates, but they implement the High Priesthood almost as good as IBM does.
When I was the SCO sysadmin, the management totally freaked out when they found out I had even touched the SCO box! But the mods I made (since I had learned using Linux) pleased them so they let me keep working with it. I replaced as much as I could with GNU so I was running SCO/GNU which was better than SCO. The little box was humming better than it ever did. I hacked the Unibasic code and implemented ANSI-BBS terminal support in addition to Wyse-30 "magic cookie codes" and Whoaa! We could use the "telnet" thing just as good as the Wyse-30's!!! Amazing! No more garbled screens ... don't have to walk over to the termial anymore!
Linux exists as a learning tool. How else are you going to learn Unix as a home user? No it isn't ready for the desktop, and it may never. It is an old-school "big iron" OS and you ought to thank your lucky stars that you have it.
Clickety Click
click here to contribute the the SCO /. effect for 23 June 2003 and help SCO spend their remaining cash faster thus stimulating the economy and creating jobs for our hurting IT sector!
http://www.sco.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=truth
I don't see the connection. If SCO were to somehow have an actual case and win, they've mentioned that they are interested in going after the free BSDs after that. The license doesn't really interest them as much as their claim of owning the rights to every OS on the planet outside of Windows.
And what makes you think that Windows (or MacOS, or BeOS, or anything else for that matter) is immune from this insanity? McBride has stated that *ALL* operating systems are dirivitives of UNIX and therefore may be infringing on SCO IP.
"It's almost as if the GPL is too "far out" and too liberal for anyone in corporate America to really believe it's real or take it seriously; they seem to think they can just pretend like it isn't there and the courts will wink and understand"
They think that and they are right!
Can you imagine this supreme court ever siding with a long haired hippie radical over some corporation?
War is necrophilia.
I don't see this on this thread, but Lord knows it might be elsewhere. IBM has promised to take it to court here. Quothz -- Suffering from .sig anxiety.
"It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others. "
You are talking about copyright. GPL gives you rights, it does not take them away.
The authors copyright takes away your rights to artistic progress, GPL allows you to use the authors work under certain circumstances.
War is necrophilia.
See SCO lie.
See stocks fly.
Fly stocks, fly!
See Gartner blow.
SCO stocks grow!
Grow stocks! Grow!
See Novell.
See Novell smack,
Smack SCO! Smack!
See IBM.
See IBM laugh.
SCO lawyers barf.
SCO stocks cut in half.
See SCO.
See SCO whine.
SCO says "It's mine!"
See IBM.
IBM puts foot down.
SCO execs start to drown.
Drown SCO, drown!
http://saveie6.com/
I believe he excluded Redmond, but still, that's my point exactly. It really has little to do with the GPL, more to do with greed on the part of some lawsuit-happy executives.
GPL: Free as in will
Where you're wrong is that the GPL, a license, would still control the distribution of all the copyrighted code that was not owned by SCO. And because of the viral nature of the GPL, SCO can't pick and choose. If they distribute linux they must do so according to the terms of the GPL license which prohibits the inclusion of code without the accompaniment of the source code. SCO would have to strip out the code which supposedly belongs to them and release it separately as a patch, with a different license. Therefore, if/when SCO distributes GPL'd software in violation of the GPL, what's really important is that they are actually infringing the copyright of the hundreds of different authors of GPL'd code because they don't have any other license to distribute that other persons copyrighted code. That opens SCO up to copyright infringement lawsuits by all of those authors. The GPL is a license. It does not wave the copyrights of GPL'd code. It's simply a license that gives rights to users detailing the ways in which they may/must use the code. Simply, if you redistribute GPL'd binaries, you must also include complete source code.
There are a few things that are certain in this case.
1) Copyrights are copyrights. If you are the author of code, you own that code and the copyright for that code immediately. Distributing your code according to a GPL license does not change that.
2) SCO must adhere to the GPL for all the code that they do not have IP claims to. Which is most or all of the code. If they are unable to adhere to the GPL for the code they don't own, then it is illegal for them to distribute that code.
As I see it, there is really only one scenario that would be really truly damaging to linux. And I think I'll keep that idea to myself rather than accidentally help any SCO lawyers that are lurking. But the most interesting question I wonder about is how much GPL'd code has SCO stolen and put into they're products without releasing that back into the wild? That's a flagrant violation of the GPL and opens SCO up to a class action lawsuit from all linux kernel developers. That would be very interesting.
Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?
I agree with you, but the problem is that they already benefit from the work of people like you and they seams to not respect the GPL. Is it possible to revoke their use of Linux because they don't respect the GPL and ask them to destroy all their previous distribution of SCO Linux. (Then the next step is to sue them for 1 000 000 000$ and give this amount to different organizations of the open source movement. ;) )
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
...Linux 2.4. They were the T21 and T22 models. Machine type 2647-L?? Anybody else remember these?
They were selling them in 2000. I don't think those particular models were good sellers. I wonder if SCO is suing them as retaliation for dropping their particular distro and going with Red Hat and others on their server platforms.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
Welcome to SCO's UnixWare 7.1.3 download area
./ptf9000c - xAPIC supplement for support of the
./uw713pk - This directory contains Maintenance Pack 2 for
./uw713up - This directory contains Update Pack 1 for UnixWare 7.1.3
g raphics - Graphics Driversn etwork - Network Drivers/ storage - Host Bus Adapters Drivers
./uw713pk - UnixWare 7.1.3 Maintenance Pack 2 (posted 06-MAY-03) ./uw713up - UnixWare 7.1.3 Update Pack 1 (posted 30-APR-03)
./opensrc - This directory contains open source packages
./ptf9000c - This directory contains the xAPIC Supplement for support of
file: ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7/713/README
Located in this directory are patches and supplements
specific to SCO's UnixWare 7.1.3 product.
Device Drivers for UnixWare 7.1.3 can be found
at:
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7/drivers
Security patches for UnixWare 7.1.3 can be found at:
http://www.sco.com/support/security/
What's New
----------
On 10-MAY-03:
IBM xSeries 440 and IBM xSeries 360
ptf9000b - The xAPIC Supplement for IBM xSeries 440 has been
removed and is superseded by ptf9000c
On 06-MAY-03:
UnixWare 7.1.3
On 30-APR-03:
DRIVERS:
-------
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7/drivers/audio - Audio Drivers
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7/drivers/
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7/drivers/
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/unixware7//drivers
MAJOR SUPPLEMENTS:
-----------------
Open Source packages
--------------------
that have been ported to run on native UnixWare
and are provided with UnixWare 7.1.3. SCO provides
these source files in compliance with the GPL License
for these open source packages.
PATCHES:
-------
Filenames size and sum Title
the IBM xSeries 440 and IBM xSeries 360
For: UnixWare 7.1.3
UnixWare 7.1.3 with UnixWare 7.1.3 Maintenance Pack 1
Filenames:
ptf9000c.Z 145401 (09385) pkgadd image
ptf9000c.boot1.img 1474560 (46172) Boot Image Volume 1
ptf9000c.boot2.img 1474560 (63300) Boot Image Volume 2
ptf9000c.txt 3888 (12295) Documentation
Consider, if I, at work, want to program a robot or something, I can totally use GPL code until the cows come home, and nobody or nothing can do anything about it. The GPL gives me this freedom. As long as I don't try to distribute my derived code, I'm totally legit! And since my company doesn't sell robots, nobody gives a crap as long as it works flawlessly. It is an in-house thing never to be sold or given away, and it does what it is supposed to do perfectly.
That is how the GPL works for you. And don't try and say I'm ripping off the GPL because I'm not, this is perfectly within the License and my robot program is none of your business as long as I don't try and sell it to you.
This is a powerfull license for engineers, I sincerely doubt that Visual Studio would give you these broad freedoms even if it was suitable for programming industrial equipment, which I will never know because my company will never pay the ridiculous licensing fees for something like that if a GPL alternative is viable.
Clickety Click
When watching this I could not helped but think that the seagulls had much in common with SCO.
Mindless repetition of:
"Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!..."
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
No, in the case of bankruptcy the person shorting gets a 100% gain on the short.
The real reason why most people won't be shorting is the off chance that SCO might win. In that case, the stock doubles or triples in seconds and so do your losses - until the margin call comes in and you are, what they call in the stock business, "screwed six ways from Sunday".
Shorting a stock is for people with a lot of time to see what is going on and keep the finger on the trigger to pull out if need be. Who needs that kind of pressure when you can find a company that will go up instead, with no limit to profit and a 100% limit on your loss? LTBH is the way to go if you don't want an ulcer or to micromanage your portfolio.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
eh, i have karma to burn, i think at least...
:-)
here is an idea....
how about all the executive members of SCO just go shoot themselves!
im so sick of hearing the letters SCO.
SCO is now saying they have no intention of suing Linux distributors!
From http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B 4D80256D4E005D45FA
(Last time I pasted in a URL, it inserted a space. So if you can't connect, look for spaces)
However, they still appear to want "licensing fees"
Also, notice here that they are now saying the "infringing code" is from AIX and Dynix:
In other words, SCO now seems to be saying that the so-called infringements are from AIX and Dynix instead of System V.
What they still aren't saying is those so-called infringements are of code written by Sequent and IBM, owned by Sequent and IBM, copyrighted by Sequent and IBM, and is theirs to do with as they wish.
While AIX and Sequent Dynix are derivative works of System V, they have a long way to convince me that the IBM/Sequent modifications are derivative works of System V.
It's a contract dispute with IBM based on definitions that have extremely interpreted to SCO's benefit and in ways that I suspect have rarely, if ever, been interpreted before.
Also in the article:
This brings up the obvious questions:
1) Are they talking about other flavors of UNIX that have IBM/Sequent code? For that matter, are there other flavors of Linux have the IBM/Sequent code?
or
2) Have they found other so-called infringements apart from the IBM/Sequent code? Are they claiming, as it sometimes seems, that if System V and another UNIX has a few identical lines of code, there is necessarily an infringement regardless of the actual source of the code?
"You are talking about copyright. GPL gives you rights, it does not take them away."
Yes, and George Bush is a compassionate conservative, Miller Lite is the great taste that won't fill you up, etc.
You're living proof of the old adage that if you repeat a slogan often enough, people will begin to accept it without using their critical thinking skills.
This has been groupthink. Thanks for participating.
-a
SO unless the argument is "THE gpl doesn't apply, so all works available under the GPL are actually in the public domain" there is no argument.
I don't think that's implausible. It may depend on who has the biggest lobby group or whether the present economic climate continues. Did you know that in Red Hat's SEC filing, they list the possibility that the GPL will be found unenforcable as one of their biggest risks of doing business.
-a
Is SCO Linux = a standardized UnitedLinux distro, or is it more complicated than that??
I wrote a review of SCO Linux 4.0 for Linux Journal magazine. I looked SCO Linux over quite carefully, and talked to SCO people about it.
SCO Linux 4.0 is United Linux 1.0, with just these differences: SCO's system information tool is included, and Webmin is set up for you (YaST is still there, but SCO recommends and supports Webmin).
SCO's system information tool is nice, but hardly essential (it's just a tool that puts together a file with information about your system such as kernel version, libc version, etc.) Webmin is nice, but you could easily install it yourself on a SuSE Linux system.
SCO Linux is almost completely a standard UnitedLinux system.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
but who got nothing to loose :(
That can't possibly be real...
No way.
You can attack me all you want but that does not make me wrong.
Go ahead and dispute what I said if you can.
War is necrophilia.
The GPL is a real license, and it does not conflict with nor weaken copyright law. Licensing the use of Intellectual Property does not in any way weaken ownership of that IP. Perhaps it's time that this point is driven home by a court. If I don't own the IP (if I don't control the copyright, either by virtue of being the author or by having that right assigned to me by the author), then I usually can't transfer that IP to someone else legally unless I have specific permission of the real owner to do that. The GPL is both the permission for that transfer, and the obligation to do so.
;-), the copyright still rests with the author of the code released under GPL. The GPL simply licenses a recipient of that code to use it, modify it, and do whatever with it, with the restriction that if they distribute something based on or derived from that licensed code, their distribution must be no more restrictive than the GPL-licensed code they are incorporating.
The GPL is not a transfer of copyright or IP ownership. Just as is true for releases of code to selected parties under more "traditional" licensing terms (like, for money
If I release code into the community under the GPL, I still own it. I can license that very same code under different licensing terms to other people, as I choose. I can charge money for my code to some people, and give it for free to others.
But if I have licensed my code under the GPL, then anyone who receives it under that GPL license can propogate it per the terms of the GPL. Indeed, the GPL requires them to propogate my original code along with their modifications to it. Someone who got it for free from me can give it for free to someone who might otherwise have paid me for it.
The GPL might be scary to the corporate suits and lawyers, but it's really a lot simpler than they fear.
Or maybe it's actually scarier...
If SCO has released some code/IP under GPL, then by the terms of the GPL anyone who receives that code is obligated to pass on that code to anyone else who asks for it. Even if SCO charges money from someone else for that very same code.
But then, IANALBIHPWTMMTL (I Am Not A Laywer, But I've Paid Wayyyy Too Much Money To Lawyers)
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
... It makes it seem like they actually have customers.
I'm starting to think that I wish this SCO bullshit would just suddenly go away. Is this really happening?
If you, like me, are running Linux *anywhere* (and I'm running it nearly *everywhere* I can) SUE THEM for $10,000 in your local small claims court. They won't show up, they won't defend themselves for such a small, nuisance suit, so they won't lose.
But can you imagine the impact of 5,000 of these kinds of suits?
I'd be willing to provide the hosting space for a site that instructs and coordinates this kind of effort.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
SCO knows it has no case against users of ANY Linux distro, much less the one that it is distributing itself. By distributing its version of Linux, SCO bound itself to the GPL, and any code that it released (including what it claims was stolen from UnixWare) is now released under the GPL...
Their case against IBM is a contract case, NOT a copyright case.
They have no case against Linux or any Linux users! It's all a PR game.
"Sue our own customers?!?! Oh wait, no, we would never do that, we love our customers."
Go ahead and dispute what I said if you can.
Stallman claims that the GPL gives you rights and does not take them away. Well, the fact is that the GPL permits you do do certain things and it prohibits you from doing other things. If you want to arbitrarily categorize some of these permissions as rights, that conveys a sense of absolute morality. And while I'm certain that Stallman believes in absolute morality, that's not an opinion that I have much respect for.
-a
I wonder how many scientologists work at SCO. Their
legal tactics are very reminiscent of the behaviour of that cult.
- You tell the community what is copyright SCO and you want removed (proving that you own it along the way).
- The community removes said code.
- The community replaces said code with a reimplementation
- The community expresses it's love of SCO by going out of it's way to destroy the remaining SCO user base
There's an optional final step where IBM buys the tattered remains of SCO at a fire sale.Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
... I've seen on slashdot in weeks. If there was a best of Slashdot and there was a humour category, the parent would get my vote.
You have a point, but the fact is, business expect you to sue. If you use Sun or MS IP against their license, they WILL sue. And most businessmen are aware that actually, companies like Sun and Microsoft are constantly in litigation as plaintiffs and defendants, so I don't think you are right.
In fact, I think if they don't sue over these violations, they will lose credibility and the GPL will be used like public domain. It must be enforced for a business person to take it seriously.
-pyrrho
I've always wondered, if OSS developers decided they were going to sue someone for misappropriation of their code, what would they be sueing for??
I mean, it's not like they've incurred any financial damages by their code being misused (unless you consider that they could have taken royalties or a licensing contract for use of the code)... can anyone tell me how an OSS developer would go about extracting money, and what damages they could claim from the code theives?
5468652047616D65
Redhat can make the same claim that SCO is making about distributing Linux code. "We didn't know that code was in there." If not even SCO knew the code was in there when SCO was distributing Linux, how could Redhat be held liable?
If they attempt to sue a Linux company or a linux user for using Linux, they will have to reveal in court, in public, all duplicated code in question. Once that happens (if this duplicated code actually exists), you can bet your $$ that code will be gone from Linux in less that 12 hours.
He compares a bottom end Walmart computer with a Mac
which is in the higher price range. He quotes Business
Week's writer's prediction without giving us this writer's
scorecard. I'm not going to bother going on, but how in
the heck do people like this get jobs as journalists?
Yeah, right. I hope SCO sober up before they go to court.
What if I have a Caldara CD yet choose to run redhat?
This is something i'm pondering... I got a free caldara cd at some point for some reason or another. I never thought much about it till this artical came up.
Not that I actually run caldara, but in theory I was granted a free license at the time.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Pshew, ok, got to say it...
That is wrong. That is theft.
It's Copyright Infringment, not theft!!!
Oh wait, but maybe in this case it IS theft? Because they are stealing the RIGHTS, not the code? DAMN IT, Stop messing with my head! NNNNNnnnngggaaaaah!
ince the Linux vs. SCO dispute has become quite complex, I have taken the time to distil the various issues of contention into a format which lends itself to easier digestion, and have drawn possible likely outcomes for these issues raised by SCO. Sources for all claims made herein are supplied as footnotes.
t rix.html
www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_ma
Wrong!
GPL permits you to do certain things provided you comply with certain conditions. Without the GPL, or some other license from the copyright holder, you could not do these at all!
SCO continues to shoot itself in the foot with its public statements. let's review two sections of the GPL:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
SCO could have claimed that since they did not know of the alleged code, that they have not granted rights to that piece of code by distributing it. however, they have stated that they knew months in advance of the lawsuit of the alleged code, and continued to sell and distribute their Linux distribution. They have also continued to distribute their Linux distribution via FTP, and now, they prove in this letter that they know they have distributed the alleged code to their customers, and are planning to hold them harmless instead of removing it from their distributions.
So, we have two cases:
1. That SCO has granted rights to the code in question under the GPL by knowingly distributing it. In this case, they have no case against anyone but the original infringer.
2. That SCO has not granted rights to the code in question under the GPL. In this case, they have voided the license to distribute the kernel under the GPL, and have been knowingly stealing Linux, as they have no other rights to distribute it under. Their announced plan for the future is to continue stealing it for benefit of their customers. They could be sued by everyone who has contributed to the kernel for stealing their IP.
So, SCO is simply doomed regardless of the validity of their case.
However, if you've been reading the daily SCO articles and interviews, the whole stolen code thing is just misdirection and FUD. What they are really claiming is that anyone who has touched an invention to System V has not only given SCO rights to that invention, but has given up their own rights to that invention. This is simply madness, but this is their claim. This is their basis for claiming non-SCO technologies like IBM's JFS, and claiming that hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Linux are infringing. The sheer audacity of this claim, that they exclusively own 20 years worth of other people's inventions, is probably why they have avoided seeking a temporary injunction, because they would have to make this argument in court immediately, and it would never hold up. They want this to drag on as long as possible in hopes their slander and libel against Linux pays off on its own.
I think the problem is more general than that.
The understanding of licenses usually seams to be limited regardless of what rights and obligations they might give the licensee. People copy Microsoft software even though their EULA explicitly tells you not to. So how can we expect them to follow the rules of GPL. It's sad really, as it makes it very hard to be in the software business regardless if you sell your software for money or for code.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
We all need to take a deep breath and realise that there is a serious threat here. You may think that the GPL gives you unbreakable rights in perpetuity. You'd be wrong. Read it. Try and find the clauses. They aren't there.
The problem that SCO has is that they may still be duplicating other people's copyrighted code. Doing so while prosecuting patent rights removes the protection that the GPL gives them from being sued, so get your suits in now. But heck, the GPL is only a gentleman's agreement anyway. It doesn't have the force of law, nor is it a contract. You can sue anyone for duplicating your code regardess of whether you attached a GPL license to it or not, arguing that it didn't form a contract, or that it's revokable because it doesn't grant rights in perpetuity.
This isn't black and white. SCO have left themselves liable to being sued, but that doesn't mean that they invalidate their right to sue others for duplicating their copyrighted source. The only winners here will be the lawyers. And no, I'm not one, but I've paid enough to them to accept that the GPL is a huge mess (because it doesn't mandate unrevokable and in perpetuity) and that this was an inevitable situation sooner or later.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Yup, and so in response to their picket signs: now who are the crack-smoking, lawless hippies? (Not that that has ever been unclear...)
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
With all the news I've read about SCO, one question keeps on comming to mind. Where is Ransom Love? If I'm not mistaken, Ransom got the idea behind Open Source and Linux. He was the orriginal CEO of Caldera, or at least was CEO from 1999 to some time in 2002.
When he ran the company I held stock in SCO/Caldera. I ditched it after he stepped down and the company started becoming evil.
Sigh. I'd sure like to here Ransom's take on all this.
http://www.unitedlinux.com
"UnitedLinux, the industry consortium comprised of Conectiva, The SCO Group, SuSE Linux and Turbolinux"
To me, this is just SCO declaring publicly that it won't sue Microsoft (being the father of this FUD storm). I am sure that Microsoft and SCO lawyers have been cohooting together to form an alliance. What does M$ want with SCO code anyway? Is it going into Longhorn? If not, did M$ already use the code? In this case, did SCO quietly go to M$ and say "Look, we like you. License or we will be forced to protect our IP against you when we attack Big Blue. We can't justify attacking them and not you. Therefore, license our code, about a month later we will say we will not sue our current customers. Therefore you are safe, and we are free to continue banging Big Blue's door. How about that eh? Pay us enough for the lawyers though, ok?"
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
they seem to think they can just pretend like it [the GPL] isn't there and the courts will wink and understand
The GPL is what gives them the right to redistribute Linux and create derivatives of it for distribution in the first place. If the court "winks" it away they face standard copyright which is far more restrictive. SCOs problem at the moment is, that since they themselves try to restrict what you may or may not do to their Linux (if they didn't you could simply take one copy of their Linux point at the GPL and make their case vanish in a puff of smoke) they are in violation of the GPL. To my understanding (IANAL, #include "stdDisclaimer") that means every developper who has a code-snippet in their distribution can sue them for copyright-violation (at least one already did).
What they also fail to understand is that they can't charge royalties on Linux: If they try that the GPL doesn't apply any longer (the source-code has to be freely redistributable) and they again violate the copyrights of anyone who contributed code to that distribution. If they take off the GPL they no longer have the right to distribute the code or the binaries.
So even if they get their case through they can only demand that their stuff be removed from Linux, but they can't have it all for themselves, since they don't have any rights to all the parts that are not from them. That's the nice thing about the GPL: even if you manage to "remove" it from a piece of code you fall back on standard copyright, so unless the code was yours to GPL in the first place you gain no rights to it.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
if sco attempts to distribute linux with an encumbrance against redistribution, then sco does not have a license to distribute. it's the same thing. YANA good L.
In case you didn't notice, I posted the parent.
Quite honestly, although I consider my post to be interesting, I don't consider it to be insightful.
It may be inciteful, or not, but I'm not 100% sure it's good. I'm still of the opinion that the best wars are those that are never fought, and that wars have no winners, only losers.
So though I consider this as a trial balloon to think about and consider, I *don't* automatically consider this a good thing. And I don't find any particular insight in this. Insight is "seeing within". This posting, though, was as obvious as a guy carrying a scarecrow into a herd of penguins. I mean, slashdot thinks in terms of distributed function, right?
Now, insightful would have been if I had figured a way to finesse all of this, and completely drop off SCO's radar, and still leave SCO standing.
Thing is, I still don't hate SCO or Microsoft, even with all their criminal behavior. There is some good in every organization, just as there is some good in every city, because you don't get the organization without human trust. I just don't like it when it breaks bad.
Anyhow, someone mod this one down to 3 or 4. I wanted this balloon out there, but it's really not all that insightful.
- MickLinux [and yes, it's really me].
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Why can't all the programmers that have contributed to the GPL now go after all SCO's customers saying that they are(/Maybe as in SCO's own threat they sent out to AIX/Linux users...) using a product which is in violation of the GPL because of the way SCO are operating and therefore they must pay X thousand $ per line of code per installation. If a great number of people do this then maybe SCO's own customers may complain that SCO stop this stupidity.
Oh well. One day this madness will end and hopfully SCO will be 10 feet under the ground...
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
I'm 90% sure you're trolling, but what the hell..
Copyright law, by default, assigns most rights related to a work to the author. The GPL only concerns itself with those rights. It relaxes the restrictions on those rights as long as certain rules are followed.
The things the GPL prohibts you from doing would not be possible (legally) if the GPL didn't exist anyway - i.e, no rights were taken away by the GPL.
The GPL is a grant to distribute a work, under certain conditions - nothing more. If you think you have that right absent any contract, you are sadly mistaken.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a company that has nothing to offer but an overpaid legal department desperately trying to sell a few decade-old comments as "intellectual property" is causing noise all over the internet and in all media. Why waste time for that idiotic company instead of discussing companies that have to offer innovation and something useful? They are simply not worth the fuss.
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property? Here are interesting developments to think about: 1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform. 2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations. 3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system. 4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn. On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually. A very interesting article on the net opines that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix. http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=10300922
Comments from the article:
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003
comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix
class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
--Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.--
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get caught in the act of stealing?
How can the underfunded FSF and OSI police this act? How can the rest of the open source community ensure that their work doesn't get plagiarized behind the scenes?
The dark side is very dangerous indeed. Sound the alarm now!
What are other peopleâ(TM)s views on the likely hood of Linux being in 2 worlds at the same time one where its free and open another where its IP?
I wish SCO would pick on some one in the UK there are laws and fines against frivolous lawsuits here.
This is all on the presumption that the judge is complete fool who sits on his elbows and nudges people out they way with his arse IANAL but I play one on /.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
#ifdef _CHRISTIAN
#ifndef _MANICHEAN
#define GOD 0x11
#endif
#define GOD 0x10
#endif
#ifdef _ISLAM
#define GOD 0x1
#endif
#ifdef _NIETZSCHE
#define GOD L"Dead"
#endif
Note that compilation with _NIETZSCHE will break most implementations.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Take a look at what Sontag is saying now:
2 56 D4E005D45FA
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/http://
www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B4D80
He says they aren't going to go after any Linux distrubutors because of the GPL. Seems they finally are starting to read the fine print.
You're a tool. This is simple. If I give you some code which is not licensed to you under any explicit licence, you have no rights whatsoever to that code under standard copyright laws. You cannot use it and you cannot redistribute it. Thats the law.
So how can you claim that by providing you with the right to use and redistribute that code with the GPL adds further restrictions? All I've done is given you extra, limited rights to the use and distribution of my code that you wouldn't have under standard copyright laws.
This is really fucking simple, and the next bellend I see arguing about the GPL when they clearly havn't even read the fucking thing, let alone used it on their own works, I'm going to hunt down and feed to a god damn plastic shredder.
I once did a fresh install in a very tight timeframe, so tight in fact that I was unable to license the second processor, and missed the fact that the Rio card being used made a nice little 1MB memory hole at 15MB (the box had 128MB, but Openserver wasn't ever going to see it without a bootstring).
Despite this, the box went online and serviced 140 users (all running Sage) without complaints for the whole of the following day, until I could get back in and fix the processor license and bootstring.
I'd love to see an NT box (this was about 5-6 years ago) that could boot properly in 15MB, run on 1/2 its processors, and still support 140 users running a fairly disk-intensive app like Sage.
Yep, Openserver was a BUFF, but it was robust and not too unfriendly.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
There has been multiple challanges to the GPL, however, none has made it to court, because every company getting the call from the FSF has folded and complied on the recommendation from their lawyers.
As far as I've heard, the FSF counsel is itching for a test case... there just dont seem to be any volunteers.
No it isn't ready for the desktop, and it may never.
It's the OS on my machine. I would say it makes a fairly good desktop.
SCO would be dead before any case like this would make it to court. All it is vaporware to make their stock look good, oh wait its now $5.68, well its not the $11.25 it once was.
Well, I think the there's such thing as "copyright" defined in the law. And GPL gives you more rights than copyright law does. If you don't agree with GPL, then you are limited by the copyright law and whatever other IP-related laws apply.
I don't see any kind of morality issue here (unless you think copyright law is immoral).
...but I was the other guy, and I uh...well let's just say you've got a virial... uh licencing problem.
Stallman claims that the GPL gives you rights and does not take them away. Well, the fact is that the GPL permits you do do certain things and it prohibits you from doing other things.
Let's leave morality and Stallman out of this for a minute and just look at the license. Standard copyright law says you can't do anything without a license or sale of rights from the copyright holder. Well, not quite nothing. Excerpts can be quoted critically and the like but standard copyright law gives no usage or distribution privileges by default.
So far, the GPL hasn't come into this at all. First off, the GPL grants unlimited usage rights. Well they specifically say any usage of the Program is permitted. You can even use Emacs to write "Stallman is a dirty hippy." and post it to Slashdot. It then goes on to grant unlimited distribution provided specific rules are adhered to. At no point has anything been taken from you that you didn't already have. Now you may detest the "specific rules" but that is another argument. The fact remains that the GPL permits far more than no license at all.
And yes, the GPL can be construed as granting rights. I can do any number of things that a software author detests with his work as long as I follow the rules. I can fork the code, publically question its design, benchmark it and so forth. The author can't say crap as long as I follow the rules. The real world works that way. Go yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre if you would a real world demonstration of what rights are and are not. Rights, rules, and prohibitions aren't mutually exclusive except in the minds of certain obtuse philosphers who obviously didn't get out much.
Saying you won't sue is not the same as giving away your rights. Only after a rather long period of time the company would lose the rights to sue because they neglected their obligation to enforce those rights.
I'm amazed at how many people jump at conclusions all the time. There's a reason these things take so long to be resolved. It's because it's very complex.
I'll shut up now. I think everyone should.
It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others.
It's probably hard to do this without tossing a portion of current copyright law in the bargin. Effectivly you'd be impinging on the absolute rights of copyright holders to control distribution of their works.
The GPL is a grant to distribute a work, under certain conditions - nothing more.
In many cases the conditions are not even especially difficult or costly. The only obvious group of people who are likely to find the conditions difficult are those wedded to the propriatary "software is a product" idea.
The conditions could just as easily be "pay me X per copy"...
in SCO's (actually caldera's) site they have a copy of a gartner arcticle that contains parts that are a litle detrimental to SCO
g .h tml
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/gartner_warnin
some quotes:
"The SCO Group's suit against IBM could be a way to make SCO a more attractive takeover target"
"In Gartner's opinion, SCO's claim that IBM misappropriated trade secrets from AIX will be difficult to prove, because an enterprise OS consists of many components, including high-availability features, diagnostics, security, kernel hardening, scheduling and queue management."
What ? Me, worry ?
1. claim $3 billion in damages
2. shoot feet out from under self
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Consider, if I, at work, want to program a robot or something, I can totally use GPL code until the cows come home, and nobody or nothing can do anything about it. The GPL gives me this freedom. As long as I don't try to distribute my derived code, I'm totally legit! And since my company doesn't sell robots, nobody gives a crap as long as it works flawlessly. It is an in-house thing never to be sold or given away, and it does what it is supposed to do perfectly.
If your company were to contract someone else to do the work all that contractor would have to do is give your company a copy of the source.
HACK THE PLANET!!!
/. poll says) If SCO has a Linux distro out there, wouldn't they have used some of the great UNIX code that has taken more than 20 years to perfect?? And if they did, wouldn't that mean it is already free to the world and that is whole case is a bunch of bull??
Seriously, if SCO has a linux distro out there, then it must be released under the GPL, which means that the sourcecode is freely viewable, and the ANYONE can modify any way they see fit, so long as they provide the proper documentation along with the newly modified code, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't been reading my GPL nightly as the
I don't think SCO has much of a case, except that they have been flooding the media with propaganda. I do believe that SCO believes they are right in this case, and that their ultimate goal is that they want to OWN Linux. They aren't stupid, they see that Linux (one day, maybe not soon, maybe not even in the distant future, but..) will one day be the most widely used OS.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Never mind. I was thinking of a different technique called "selling short", which is where you try to sell the stock at it's high point, and then buy it back at it's low-point. It's a risky market-timing strategy.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Pure and simple. They are trying to steal Linux. Linus with just a few comments lays it right on the line. He doesn't see any IP issues in the kernel at all.
The GPL applies to SCO we need to remember that everything they are doing makes them nothing more then common thieves. Stealing time (aka money) right out of our hands.
SCO can hide behind litigation for now but it is soon time for them to be known as the thieves they are.
In this case, it seems likely that SCO will say that they were unaware of their own IP being in Linux, and hence had not made any decision to license it under the GPL even though they were distributing it. Once they became aware of it they stopped the distribution.
The letter does not change this situation. SCO has contractual commitments to people who bought its Linux distribution. This leads to the odd (but perfectly consistent) situation where SCO's IP was aquired without a licence, but SCO is still legally required to support it because there is no way it can fail to support it without being in breach of contract.
If I buy the new Harry Potter book, for instance, can't I assume I have a license to read it?
Under normal circumstances yes. But if J K Rowling or her publishers sold you a PC that inadvertantly had a copy of the book on its hard drive then no, you would have no right to read it. This is a much closer analogy than just buying an ordinary book.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
The GPL is what gives them the right to redistribute Linux and create derivatives of it for distribution in the first place. If the court "winks" it away they face standard copyright which is far more restrictive.
SCO needs permision from the copyright holders to distribute GPL covered code. The GPL gives that permission conditionally. SCO have no alternative permission from the copyright holders, therefore they cannot distribute the code at all.
To my understanding (IANAL, #include "stdDisclaimer") that means every developper who has a code-snippet in their distribution can sue them for copyright-violation (at least one already did).
Copyright law gives the copyright holder a lot of powers. They can sue SCO for copyright infringement; take out court orders to stop SCO distributing; offer SCO alternative licences; etc.
I'll say it again:
SCO hired David Boies. They want to lose.
They're just looking to get bought out, plain and simple.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
They've been badmouthing it for some time now. I'm sure their lawyers have gone through the GPL with a fine-tooth comb and have not found a way to compromise it. I think the best MS can do is to support any knucklehead (SCO) who wants to try to take on the GPL hoping that negative press will be generated. The funny thing is, MS generates plenty of negative press against themselves, and they've managed to survive it very well. Why do they think an amorphous global entity like OSS would not be able to overcome negative press? I guess that's the best weapon they have in their hopeless fight.
This is just getting silly. Perhaps if we don't pay attention to it any more, it won't be able to feed off the energy we give it!
Nothing to see here people, please move along...
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen.
In many cases selling software isn't profitable anyway. If someone attempted to start up a proprietary software company odds on they'd go bankrupt...
If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
So instead you sell time and expertise. The vast majority of software is part of custom systems. Indeed the idea of an "off the shelf solution" is in many real world situations an utter nonsense. Whilst the components may come off some "shelf" or other they still need modifying and fitting together in order to make a system which addresses the needs of the customer. The open source "shelf" has a few advantages over the proprietary "shelf". e.g. anyone can take from it and no complex restrictions on what you can do with the bits.
A good analogy, IMHO, is to think of putting a software system together as being like constructing a building.
People don't buy "software". People buy solutions to problems. This is way more money is made by contract programming than by selling boxes of software.
As well as way more software written and adapted for custom systems. If anything writing software to be sold as a boxed product is a far more difficult and risky enterprise. Since you need to guess what the software needs to do. (Then hope people will actually want to buy it.) Whereas for a system contracted to meet specific requirments you already know what it needs to do.
Interesting explanation. Next time someone asks you about the SCO / Linux debate link them here =)
http://www.arie.org/doh/
--
me
Gee, I wonder where I have heard this type of tactic before.
Somehow, I picture Billy talking to Darl several months ago, saying "You do not know the power of the dark side. Join me, and we can rule the galaxy as father and son."
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Per the GPL, you must include the source with the binaries when you distribute to a third party. Also per the GPL, the same rights you have under the GPL transfer to said third party, i.e. you CANNOT contractually prohibit them from further distribution of the binary (with source, natch) OR from distributing the source for whatever fee they choose, or for free.
So: As long as at least ONE of the people you distributed the source to wishes to "give it to everyone", the deed is done, the cat out of the bag, the horse out of the barn. QED.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Ghandi had the plight of the oppressed, the moral high ground, and the triple guilt of the Anglican White Empire.
The first two meant nothing. The last meant everything.
As I have pointed out many times here, had Japan won WWII, Ghandi would have said:
"First they march you through hundreds of miles through the jungle, then they shoot you, then they disambowel you, then you lose."
It then goes on to grant unlimited distribution provided specific rules are adhered to.
I'm sorry, but that statement is hilarious. You are granted "unlimited" distribution "provided specific rules are adhered to". I do not dispute that the GPL grants more rights than you would have without it (it specifically says you do not have to accept it). However, it offers only "limited" distribution rights. In fact, your distribution rights are limited to licensing under the GPL.
It is certainly true that the distribution rights are much greater than most commercial packages. That is, you have non-zero distribution rights (most EULAs claim to limit even resale of the "purchased license"). However, compared to the BSD license, the GPL is a straightjacket when it comes to distribution. This is, of course, the point of the GPL: GPL developers do not want their hard work put into a closed-source product. The GPL is designed to force open-source distribution of derivatives.
IBM and other companies (RH, Suse, Mandrake, etc.) might disagree with you, and as someone who makes his living off from Linux support, I would too. Linux is not Âa learning toolÂ. ItÂs a real OS that has plenty of power to get the job done as well as any other Unix. If that werenÂt the case, Sun wouldnÂt be looking out the side of itÂs eyes at it.
Licensing the use of Intellectual Property does not in any way weaken ownership of that IP. Perhaps it's time that this point is driven home by a court. If I don't own the IP (if I don't control the copyright, either by virtue of being the author or by having that right assigned to me by the author), then I usually can't transfer that IP to someone else legally unless I have specific permission of the real owner to do that. The GPL is both the permission for that transfer, and the obligation to do so.
;-), the copyright still rests with the author of the code released under GPL.
The GPL dosn't oblige you to do anything. Copyright law says you need permission, from the copyright holder, in order to distribute copies of copyrighted work(s). The GPL gives you such permission, subject to a set of conditions.
The GPL is not a transfer of copyright or IP ownership. Just as is true for releases of code to selected parties under more "traditional" licensing terms (like, for money
e.g. it's perfectly possible for an author to licence a work to a publisher. Though with some kinds of works publishers want to hav copyright assigned to them...
If SCO has released some code/IP under GPL, then by the terms of the GPL anyone who receives that code is obligated to pass on that code to anyone else who asks for it.
Not quite, the obligation only applies to those people SCO has actually supplied the binaries to. Of course if they make the binaries available to anyone who wants them then they had better make the source just as easily available. If they only made the binaries available for sale then they'd be entitled to ask for a evidence that you were before supplying the sources.
Rather a clash of civilizations. Between those that have it, and those that don't.
It's almost as if the GPL is too "far out" and too liberal for anyone in corporate America to really believe it's real...
Perhaps you meant something else, but I have seen a few people on both sides of the GPL try to use modern political partisanship to describe the purpose and intent of GPL, and I want to torpedo that stinking-freighter-full-of-trash right here, right now. The GPL is no more liberal or conservative than anything other legal contract or license.
To wit:
If Bob writes a piece of software and decides to GPL it, he is making his own free-will decision about how he wants to exercise control over his creation. That's conservative compared to the liberal/socialist/communist (take your pick) approach would demand that government would take ownership of the code and collect taxes for using it.
If AmazinglySuperSoft, Inc. sees his source and wants to use it, they have to consider that Bob's price tag as creator is that they have to GPL their derivative code, too. Don't like it? Fine, do the conservative thing and write your own code and don't use Bob's. Nobody can force you to do anything, and nobody's going to gripe about using alternatives, that would be liberalism.
Just like with everything else in that cozy little place I like to call 'reality', everyone gets to make their own decisions here -- ultimately, that's the essence of idealistic conservatism in a nutshell.
I do, however, agree with you entirely that these people are acting like ignorant bozos, but I think it has more to do with NOT READING THE FREAKING LICENSE[*] than the whole "liberal-conservative" thing. They're calling the GPL "communist" because it carries a stigma, not because it does anything even **remotely** communist. I think their real fear is that they've been commoditized by an entity thay can't buy out and with which they can't negotiate.
obDisclaimer: Yep, I consider myself a conservative. No, I didn't write this to pick on liberals. I wanted to show that political partisanship has no place here by arguing the exact opposite of the prediliction that the GPL is a liberal document. I am sorry if you missed the point.
[*] I mean, really, it isn't even that frickin' long, and the PREAMBLE tells you almost everything you really need to know in case the you have some sort of complex about having to look up the really big words like "verbatim".
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
SCO
/Dread
I work for a SCO shop. (Well we run SCO and sell stuff running on it)
Suddenly our OpenServer =>> UnixWare update project is being re-evaluated in favour of...
linux
I love it, make more noise for Linux SCO, it a few moths key people (in a must-be-rocksteady server market) will think Linux is ok, because IBM says so.
peace
Damn, I was hoping it was that Dukes of Hazard thing again.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
HA!, Caldera gave me a copy of their linux at comdex for free, does that mean I am in the clear?
and people thought comdex was just about the T-shirts!
The next (unannounced) step is for SCO to challenge the GPL, or be challenged on it. This is what SCO want, and they think they can win. It's nothing to do with Microsoft.
:8 703
I've said this twice before on slashdot : SCO are aiming to steal Linux. If they win against IBM and subsequently successfully have the GPL overturned then they will be able to charge for use of Linux. Additionally, if they manage to keep the alleged source code violations sealed, then the community will not be in a position to rewrite the copied code. Linux would be dead to the open source world and would become a proprietary operating system owened by SCO. Click here for my original comment
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=595
In their letter SCO state "SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support.". This action indicates they may very well be violating the GPL by offering Linux OS pathes etc. This invites someone to take them to court for violating the GPL, which is exactly what they want.
So watch for two things:
1. SCO moves to have all source code violations sealed in court.
2. Another court case starts : Open Source Developers vs SCO, fighting over the validity of the GPL.
Of course that should read "OS patches" not "OS pathes".
Effectivly you'd be impinging on the absolute rights of copyright holders to control distribution of their works.
Like what the concept of copyleft could be construed to do.
Mind you, I don't think that it's likely SCOTUS would toss out the concept, but it's possible. Especially given that no law I know of explicitly authorizes copyleft or copyleft-like concepts.
It continues to seem that most companies simply don't believe that the GPL is a real license. It's as if they think that secretly free software authors "don't really mean it" when they explicitly define rights and restrictions in a license.
Oh, the GPL is a real licence, and either they've all understood that, or they're just incompetent with respect to licensing issues. Remember that IBM, which has more IP lawyers than many (most?) western nations has carefully examined the thing.
If there were any loopholes or room for doubt, IBM probably would've exploited them long ago.
Rather, I think it's an issue of big guys believing that they can s--t all over the small guys. Sadly, this often makes good business sense. You can do whatever you want to people if they can't afford to sue you.
If you're big enough to afford lots of defense lawyers (and perhaps a few campaign donations to the powers that be), you don't even have to worry about getting sued.
You are always free to contact the copyright holder of any work available under the GPL and request licensing under different terms, you know.
Only for single author projects. Any sizable GPL'd program has an innumerable ammount of unlisted authors--except for those who have had rights assigned to them by the FSF, and I doubt that the FSF would allow circumvention of their own license.
I'm really unclear on what aspect of the GPL needs to be "challenged". If the GPL does not apply, then copyright law forbids the things people are doing with those works the authors placed under the GPL. It's not a use license, but if you don't accept it, the law is clear: you don't have the right to do certain things with that code.
The basic concept of copyleft has yet to be held up or torn down by a court. It is entirely possibe that, if copyleft is found to be an unfair use of copyright law, the GPL will be re-interpreted as merely a waiver of liability and a release into the public domain.
The GPL just covers so few instances--and for most of those that it does cover, the authors are either far too small to contest the GPL, or far too large to use GPL'd code.
SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from. Do you have any plans to change the current Linux development model?
No. I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it, nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution and source of every single line of code out there.
Informed opinion (yeah, I know - impossible to verify but...): is this true? It made sense to me when I read it but as a non-programmer, I've not participated in the actual development process. If this is a reasonable statement I think that it is an argument that needs more exposure, because it is strongly in favor of the open source development model.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
My god, why must Americans put everything into Rebublican vs. Democrat boxes? From Miriam Webster:
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Both of these could fit the poster's context, including but not limited to, GPL, anti-segregation movements and vietnam protesting. Nowhere in MW's definitions for "liberal" do you find "Democrat Party, USA" or "communist."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I want to see a class-action suit brought against SCO, on behalf of every single SCO/Caldera Linux customer, for fraud and breach of contract.
Posting as AC from work, but it's obvious who I am
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO
In addition, if it's open, you have all of the benefits of packaged software.
Plus, you get free bugfixes AND ENHANCEMENTS from others, an extended community support system,and a larger base of people familiar with the software. In fact, this is exactly why Cisco opened up their printing system - they wanted the benefits of free software. It was more beneficial to them to distribute the code freely (even though they were _paying_ developers to develop it) than it was to not do so.
The mistake most people make is that they forget that in order to have new software, you have to have software producers. Just because one _specific_ _method_ of payment becomes no longer available (although I doubt that will happen, too), does not mean that software producers will not get paid. As long as there are
a) people who need software
and
b) people who can write software but need money
Software producers will be paid, it just might not be in the same fashion.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Was the code in question ever included in a Linux distribution from SCO/Caldera?
If so they just put their stamp of approval on the GPLing of their own stuff.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
SCO received $8.5 million in FUD money. That brings their book value to about $10 million. SCO has never been profitable and has no competitive products. Yet, this recently formed, essentially worthless, company seems to consider their own power to almost limitless.
SCO apparently believes that they have absolute rights over all software technology developed in the last 30 years - if not more: SMP, NUMA, RCU, JFS, LVM, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, maybe even MacOS and MS-Windows.
We poor pitiful peons can hope that the all-powerful Darl McBride will be kind enough to allow us to continue to use our present OS. We must recognize that is entirely up to him.
Recently the all-powerful lord and master Darl, has deemed that we may continue the Caldera Linux for which we have already paid.
I suppose we should all fall on knees, clasp our hands, bow our heads, and while sobbing uncontrollably, thank and praise our lord and god - the kind and powerful Darl. While trembling at his feet, we should bless the great and Darl for allowing us to use the Caldera Linux that we have paid for.
The great thing about the GPL is that it gives you some leverage in regards to keeping your own source code. For example, if a company needs some custom work, you can say
"Well, I can write the code myself in 2 months. Or, I could write the code in two weeks using open-source product A. The only restriction is that if we use product A we have to contribute our changes back to the community."
Give them the price for 2 weeks vs 2 months, and I'm pretty sure I know which one they will choose. Now, I know that this isn't the exact implications of the GPL, but it is the practical ones, because of problems of upgrading patched software.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I agree with your general message (that the GPL does in fact grant rights. Specifically, it grants you rights that under vanilla copyright law you would not have). However, you have a small, but popular, misconception:
You've got copyright slightly backward. When you purchase something protected by copyright, you outright own that one particular copy you just purchased. You are free to use it however you like. You can read it, watch it, disassemble it, sell it, loan it out, and give it away. You most certainly get usage privileges. You even get some distribution privileges, you can distribute the original copy (but not distribute additional copies).
Copyright is about restricting certain rights to the copyright holder. The key elements are the right to distribute copies and the right to publically perform the work (Squint a little and public performance looks like distribution of a copy). To practice these restricted rights, sure, you'll need some sort of license or sale of rights. But if you want to do just about anything else, well, because you purchased that one copy, you're free to do so.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Neat-o, but the entities (Microsoft, SCO, etc.) that are attacking the GPL as liberal/socialist/communist are in the US, and **THEY**, not me, **THEY** are doing so in that context. I didn't make up the words, so if you have a gripe about semantics, talk to somebody else. I was trying to head off this argument because It - appears - to - be - an - issue, and it shouldn't be.
I am sorry I failed.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
That's why we talk about the GPL giving people rights they otherwise wouldn't have.
You're locked in a cell, and we throw you a key and ask that you use it to unlock a door that would free you and everyone else. And instead of being grateful, you whine and bitch and moan that we're not giving you anything, that you're not free, because you're obliged to free everyone else at the same time.
The GPL is viral and takes your rights away. Dubya is a compassionate conservative. Miller Lite is... you want me to stop? You've heard these tired, inaccurate, slogans before?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, the fact is that the GPL permits you do do certain things and it prohibits you from doing other things.
No. The GPL does not restrict you from doing anything that you would not already be restricted from doing under standard copyright law. Cast in these terms, it is indeed true that the GPL itself grants you additional 'rights' while taking none away (since you never had arbitrary redistribution rights anyway).
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
The point is they will do that if they think they can get away with it, and they usually can (in NZ on the other hand deposit money is held in trust by the govt.). He also delighted in telling me he would throw away the decades old carpet/furniture after I had just paid to have them shampooed (not that they were dirty, just old).
Sorry, I don't do semantics.
-a
Remember all those years when the big boys were all saying "linux will never be a serious operating system"?
Couldn't Linus just say "Yep, you were all right. The whole thing was a joke. Linux was always intended to be a comical OS."
At that point I think we could claim the whole system falls under the category of parody, and the copyright issues should just go away. Right?
Here is the argument:
IF there is no infringing code in Linux, SCO is guilty of malicious slander and libel.
IF there IS infringing code in Linux, SCO has continued to distribute Linux distributions WITH THE CODE after becoming aware of it. So the "they can't have licensed it if they weren't aware of it" argument does not apply. They ARE aware and they continue to release a Linux build. Which means...
They must either be distributing their Linux build under the terms of the GPL, in which case, they have in fact licensed the code for release and the code therefore becomes immediately NON-INFRINGING.
OR
They must be distributing their Linux build outside the terms of the GPL, in which case they are guilty of copyright infringement of every person who has contributed any code in the distribution SCO is distributing - in which case SCO is opening itself to a flood of lawsuits.
Where does IBM come into play here?
SCO claims that IBM is the one that inserted SCO's code into the Linux kernel.
IF this is true, we can simply revert to the above... either SCO, by continuing to distribute Linux after becoming aware of potential problems, has released the offending code under the terms of the GPL - meaning IBM is now licensed to use it the same as anyone else and the SCO suit holds no water.
OR
IF there are any lines of code in the Linux distribution that SCO distributes - and SCO chooses not to distribute it under the GPL - that were contributed by IBM, SCO is now in equal violation of IBM's copyright as IBM is in violation of SCO's.
Basically, any way you slice it, the naked fact that SCO continues to distribute Linux builds *after* (and that's the key word here) claiming that they have discovered infringing code has destroyed their case and made them the only party that, ultimately, can be liable for damages.
Had SCO immediately stopped distributing Linux builds after claiming, "hey, we found stuff in here that belongs to us and shouldn't be in here!" their case would be a lot stronger. As has been pointed out before, they can't agree to release their stuff under the GPL if they didn't know it was in there. But now that they know it's in there, and they continue distributing it, means they must release it under the GPL or face the legal consequences. The fact that they did not pull their Linux distros immediately has, in essence, torpedoed their own case.
Stallman has chosen to push the GPL as "as copyright + extra freedoms" rather than "public domain - extra restrictions". When you think of a program with no real owner, public domain comes to mind, but Stallman used copyright so he could add his extra restrictions. The perspective is flexible if you ask me. He's like a lawyer or a politician who can give you one things and sell it as another.
-a
I can write a piece of code and it can look identical to someone elses code and I have not commited a copyright infringement IFF I have never seen their code. Patents prevent other people from independently developing the same thing; Copyrights DO NOT! For a copyright infringement to be proven exposure to the infringed material must be shown. If the person who is supposed to be infringing is the original creator of the material and sold the copyright to the material I think it would be even harder to prove copyright infringement; you would be argueing that after someone sells a work they cannot make any other works in that field.
SCO has issued a letter saying SCO Linux customers won't be sued.
SideSCO Bob [on P.A.]: The following linux users will ~not~ be sued by me: SCO/Linux. That is all.
SCO User: Woohoo! Did ya hear, Linus!? Hey---Oh.
Stallman has chosen to push the GPL as "as copyright + extra freedoms" rather than "public domain - extra restrictions". When you think of a program with no real owner, public domain comes to mind, but Stallman used copyright so he could add his extra restrictions. The perspective is flexible if you ask me. He's like a lawyer or a politician who can give you one things and sell it as another.
The license can be considered (and used) apart from Stallman. At this point, it is even used by people wh o significantly disagree with Stallman on many points and even use it to serve goals he doesn't agree with. Ask the Ghostscript people. Just because a work is GPLed doesn't mean Stallman or the FSF owns it. Secondly, GPL programs most certainly have "r eal owners". Since this is all about Stallman how do you explain Ghostscript, QT, or reiserfs? All of those are licensed in context dependant ways because they have "real owners". Most people who use the GPL actually do intend "copyright + extra freedo ms". GPL projects that have their code abused by corporations do indeed seem to feel they have ownership.
If you don't care for the GPLed stuff then that's fine. Theres plenty of BSD stuff thats just as good or maybe even better. But you know what, ev en that stuff isn't public domain. BSD coders often get hacked off if their stuff is used without acknowledgement. Yes, Virginia the BSD license has a significant restriction on "total freedom": Don't plagiarize our work. You can use it but have to acknowledge you didn't write it. It has another significant restriction: "You don't get a warranty so if it breaks in half, you get to keep both halves." Of course if that isn't "Free" enough then you can let MS exercise it's freedom to license as it sees fit all over you.
This "public domain - extra restrictions" is a red herring. If you expect to find a full OS and associated utilities in the PD then good luck to you. Even those "totally free" BSD guys disclaim liability and insist on acknowlegement. The moral of story is that there is no such thing as "total freedom". The GPL and even BSD, X, MIT licenses are ways of saying "You're right to throw a punch ends at my nose."Ë
The problem with New Logic (and I hope and pray that the courts realize this) is that anything and everything in the world now belongs to SCO, even material written by others who have no contract or relationship at all with SCO.
In other words, let's say I write a program called Linnux which IBM (illegally) incorporates into Unix. By New Logic, SCO now controls all versions, including past versions, of Linnux through their contract with IBM, even though
- IBM's action was illegal
- I have no contract with SCO and I never at any point granted any ownership rights to SCO
The fact that my own work can fall under SCO licensing as a result of an illegal act by an unrelated third party is frightfully wrong.To put it another way: If IBM illegally included Harry Potter with AIX, does SCO suddenly own Harry Potter? That is what New Logic seems to imply.
Then write off the open source "contribution" as a charitable donation or some other tax scheme. Get someone from Finance to run the numbers.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
"...they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it."
Which is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you listen to Darl McBride, half the reason for this suit is to make the FSF and OSS people give their heads a shake and review the process by which code is accepted. SCO would like to see some sort of mechanism for applying due diligence to OSS code submissions.
Another piece of advice SCO executives seem to be handing out left right and centre is for IT/IS people to perform their own due diligence reviews of code to be run in the enterprise.
The recurring theme of course is that everyone else has to exercise due diligence, excepting of course SCO. SCO's belief that they could extract damages from Linux distributors seems to be a damning indictment of those distributors due diligence procedures.
What about SCO's own due diligence? Shouldn't these high and lofty procedures have been applied to their own distro? Before it was shipped? That certainly would have prevented the whole "releasing the code themselves under the GPL" issue.
The legal issues aren't clear to me, but a common sense interpretation of this mess runs like this:
SCO says users and distributors of Linux may be liable for unlicensed SCO IP included in the software, unbeknownst to the user, distributor, and, until recently, SCO.
SCO further maintains that the fact that none of these distributors and users were aware that this IP was present in the software they were using is besides the point, essentially ignorance of the content is not a defense.
SCO has ignored the GPL, pretty conclusively too. But, if that comes up, we could expect them to try and hide behind the fact that they, as the copyright holder, did not GPL the code in question, and subsequent distribution of the code under the GPL was anulled by this original unlicensed inclusion.
There may be some way to make that work in law, but in the real world we call it a double standard. Bottom line, SCO is pointing fingers and screaming foul because they failed at the same thing they claim every one else failed at, due diligence.
- SCO says it's their code in the Linux Kernel
- They say it's IBM's fault.
- Not only that, but it's code written by IBM.
- SCO says they have the right to control release because it was once attached to an SYSV system
- They have also assured their (other) licensees that they stil own their code that they inserted into their versions of UNIX, it's just that SCO can stop them from distributing it.
- They say that the GNU license on the code is invalid because the GPL states that it can only be placed by the copyright owner
- But if IBM Still owns the code, and they're the ones who placed it, then the GPL is valid (It's just that SCO gets to sue IBM for releasing it withiout their say-so
.. but subsequent users are still OK).
- SCO is still distributing Caldera Linux -- including kernel source.
- This means that they're distributing it under the GPL, with a GPL license on it and IBM (the owner of the code) has also explicitly released it... Seems like everybody in this loop has given their permission -- either explicit or implict.
- If their license is really this nasty (and they're ambushing customers with things like this), I expect that a lot of other businesses are going to abandon their Unix license as soon as they can.
- It's pretty unlikely that their long stretch claim to owing everything ever put into AIX is going to win.
- Some people now think that they're going to try and (essentially) blackmail people into paying them for any copies of Linux that didn't come direct from Caldera/SCO (even if it came indirectly from them).
- This whole mess places them in violation of the GPL and opens them up to some nasty copyright suits.
- Until this started, SCO looked like it was about to go bankrupt
- If this fails, not only will their old UNIX funding sources dry up, but nobody is going to want to buy Caldera, either. They could also end up with millions (billions) in legal bills.
My reading of this is that they've started with a weak case, shot themselves in the foot, and are still claiming that they own the world. it really reminds me of Monty Python's infamous Black Night.If I knew when (not if) SCO's stock is going to tank, I'd issue a shell-sort order today.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
SCO has revoked the Unix license given to IBM. I hope IBM dumps Unix for good and goes with Linux!
Last week on MSN money, a columnist mentioned how tired he was of getting calls from brokers "pushing" SCOX.
.... they are)
This looks like "old" pump and dump. Some stock has news that look good (but in reality they aren't). A few brokers put on their salesman hats and try to get as many buyers as can be found. Meanwhile, the sharks are selling the pumped stock. Later, the stock drops, a bunch of people lose what they invested and Wall Street moves on to the next business. For example, SCOX management is selling. They had conveniently "programmed" sales (you wondered if programming means software to them? I think this other "programming" is what interests them...) Go to the business section at yahoo and check the insider trades. You'll see these "programmed" trades (note that other insiders do have programmed trades, that is, they sell similar amounts every set amount of time, but I couldn't find any previous similar "programmed" trades in SCOX records)
Financial magazines many times just report what brokers are saying. If brokers are peddling a certain stock, they'll just echo those comments. Traditionally it is up to the readers to determine if the comments are on the money or not. On the other hand you're right that occasionally they actually guess correctly, for example, about a possible acquisition being negotiated.
By the way, return on investment for shorting a stock that goes bankrupt tends to infinite (you pay close to $0 and get something in return, for more details just look at my other recent postings on SCOX)
Disclaimer: I'm short SCOX (Pro: I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Con: now I have a vested interest in seeing SCOX shares drop like the
That would amuse me to say the least. SCO fights the case, gets a determination of infringement, and then Novell sues them because the infringement started before SCOX aquired the rights to Unix, and thus Unix was bought by a Linux company using funds gained by violating the rights of the very code they purchased.
How can SCO win this case ?
Is there even a possible outcome that doesn't hurt SCO as much or more than it helps them ?
Dean G.
The choice is really simple. Don't like the GPL terms? Then don't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Nobody is actually forcing you, unless you take the shortcut of using somebody elses GPLd work.
You misunderstand what RMS means when he says that the GPL only adds rights, it does not take any rights away. RMS is absolutely correct in a legal sense. That's because if he just wrote "Copyright FSF, all rights reserved", the default situation is that of copyright law, which says that no one but the copyright holder may make copies or derivative works. If you have a legal copy you can run it, make one backup, study how it works, and so forth. These are the kinds of things that shrinkwrap licenses sometimes restrict, but copyright law does not restrict.
Can we invade SCO to find WMD's or something?
We did so good in Iraq, (the oil fields were invaded first) I really believe SCO has WMD's laying around that can be assembled and used in about a hour.
Maybe that is why we cannot find any WMD's in Iraq, SCO has had them hidden in McBride's orifice all along.
We should also see if Ben Laughing is there, or So-dum Who's-insane.
You think SCO wants to have the GPL challanged? But if the GPL is invalid, then SCO has no permission from the hundreds of copyright holders of Linux to distribute it. I cannot imagine any way for SCO to avoid charges of willfull copyright infringement from any of the many authors of Linux.
And I think companies like Disney and the **AA's have paid for really very strict legislation against copyright infringment, which means that people like Linus have all the teeth here.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The GPL is viral and takes your rights away. You've heard these tired, inaccurate, slogans before?
Well, no. I've only ever heard "The GPL is viral and anti-business."
Anyway, if you ask me, the GPL is a public domain license that takes away rights, dressed up as a proprietary license that grants them.
-a
This is, of course, the point of the GPL: GPL developers do not want their hard work put into a closed-source product.
And this is, of course, why some people hate the GPL. The closed source developers don't want their hard work converted into a GPL product.
-a
My objection to the GPL has nothing to do with it not being free enough. I just don't like the fact that it is anti-business because it creates unhealthy competition.
As for BSD, I think the license is fine. Having to give credit is not anti-business and it doesn't create unhealthy competition. Unfortunately, the volume of BSD-licensed work out there pales in comparison to the amount of GPL stuff.
If a group of people get together to develop an open source program, they have no real incentive to prefer the GPL license to the BSD one. Unless, of course, they are trying to dupe businesses into developing part of the code for them, against their personal interest. (Which is exactly what they are trying to do.)
-a
The only people who hate the GPL are people who want to steal other peoples code.
War is necrophilia.
"If a group of people get together to develop an open source program, they have no real incentive to prefer the GPL license to the BSD one."
They have a big reason. They don't want to become unpaid volunteers at a corporation. They don't want other people to take their code and make money selling it.
Maybe to you that's not significant. So what if Bill Gates steals your code and makes another billion or two? Some people don't want that to happen.
War is necrophilia.
"Anyway, if you ask me, the GPL is a public domain license that takes away rights, dressed up as a proprietary license that grants them."
Quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written on slashdot.
War is necrophilia.
Way back when, at least in 81'/'82/'83, there was a really great biker/hippie bar up in the hills in Mountain View called Rizotti's Beer Garden. I was working as a neophyte IBM ironworker, swapping tape reels at a SF bank's data center, and some of us would spend some of our spare time at Rizotti's getting sluiced. I remember a few times listening to these incredible ubergeeks from places like Sun, HP, Xerox, Digital, and UC argue about acrcana like implementing PDP-11 over this new TCP/IP thing and so on.
Being a 22-year-old nitwit who barely understood C, I had no idea that these guys would one day rule my world when XENIX hit the street a while later. But that was the culture back then. Much like the Linux community today.
Now Unix is just a toy for MBA raiders and a football for lawyers. It's one of those "Paris was Yesterday" kind of things that reminds us that when intellect meets money, money wins. We're all whores by necessity. Some are just skankier than others.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
They have a big reason. They don't want to become unpaid volunteers at a corporation. They don't want other people to take their code and make money selling it.
/., but as soon as there's the hint of someone making money, people get all freaked out. What really bugs me is how the GPL advocates think it's ludicrous when people call them communists.
"Why should I release my code as open source? Because it doesn't cost you anything, and you have the benefit of knowing that others are finding your work useful."
I can't count the number of times I've heard this argument espoused on
-a
The only people who hate the GPL are people who want to steal other peoples code.
I don't know what hole you just crawled out of, but apparently you haven't been paying attention. Making unauthorized use of someone else's code is not stealing; it's a copyright violation -- no worse than copying music off Kazaa.
-a
You still hugged the CEO.
You got me thinking again. It turns out that it might not matter if the GPL is or is not enforceable : if SCO win the IBM case on the basis of their claims that they own ALL derivative works and they get a ruling that the Linux kernel is a derivative work then it would mean that SCO would own the code even though it was written by other people.
So the people who wrote the code and distributed it under the GPL would have actually distributed it illegally, as they would have been ruled to not own their own code. It follows that SCO wouldn't need the permission of the authors of the code, and the GPL wouldn't apply to the Linux kernel. Of course it would still apply to GNU software.
Of course this whole situation is absurd. No sensible court would rule that the authors of software don't own the copyright. But sometimes courts reach complicated and strange decisions.
The whole point is a) it's been stated as common knowledge by many and b) I recall reading it at one point. And c) There are lot sof binary only drivers.
Did you miss the part where I said I couldn't find it?
I'm *sure* something was in there at one point.. there was a specific rule about binary drivers..
In communism you work for the benefit of other people (the greater good). If you realease your code under a BSD or a public domain license you are practising communism.
That's why GPL people get upset when you call them communists. They are charging for their product, the price is clearly stated and you are not under any obligation to buy it.
GPL is capitalism public domain and BSD is communism.
War is necrophilia.
GPL is capitalism public domain and BSD is communism.
/. motto, people are going to steal your code no matter what you do, so you might as well release it as BSD and at least get credit for it.
Bullshit. Just because you can come up with a flimsy analogy to equate the GPL licence with "charging for their product" doesn't make it capitalism.
Capitalism is a specific economic system which attempts to maximize the wealth of society by a large number of small transactions in which each party acts in his own interest. However, capitalism is not an infallible system. It seeks local maxima, which may not be the true maxima. It can also have negative social and evironmental results.
Communism is a system which seeks to avoid the problem of capitalism (the local maxima) in order to maximize the wealth of society even further. However, communism has many flaws because it requires people to act against their direct self interest. Also, communism espouses equality, which is not a stable state (and therefore it can't be a local maxima).
The flaw in communism is the same as the flaw in the GPL, which is the tragedy of the commons. This doesn't really apply so much to the hobbyists (who could just as easily release their code as BSD), as the businesses who are forced into developing GPL'ed software against their collective self interest.
To paraphrase a
-a
I will say it again.
/. motto, people are going to steal your code no matter what you do, so you might as well release it as BSD and at least get credit for it."
If you release your code into the public domain you are practising communism and advancing the cause of communism. Communism is working for the greater good. In communist countries your labor and efforts don't belong to you they belong to the "people". In other words in communism all your labor is in the public domain and for the benefit of the public.
GPL may not be capitalism in the sense that you perceive capitalism but there is no denying that GPLed code comes with a price. The price is not money but it's a high price nevertheless. SO high that most companies won't pay it.
"To paraphrase a
That's just downright stupid. Do you leave your bike unlocked? DO you leave your house unlocked? Why make it easy or safe for people to steal your labor. That's communism.
War is necrophilia.
If you release your code into the public domain you are practising communism and advancing the cause of communism. Communism is working for the greater good.
/. motto.
I don't understand what you have against working for the greater good.
I don't have a problem releasing my code into the public domain, assuming it isn't something I think I can sell. If someone else can make a buck off something I wrote then more power to them. (Although I would appreciate it if they had the courtesy to offer me a job.) I do, however, have a problem with releasing my code only to have it co-opted by a bunch of communists who are hell intent on destroying the software industry.
That's why I disagree with your categorization of BSD/public domain as communism. Communism involves manifestos and propaganda and cults of personality. Communism is about destroying the capitalist establishment; something that public domain code doesn't do.
GPL may not be capitalism in the sense that you perceive capitalism but there is no denying that GPLed code comes with a price.
As I tried to explain before, capitalism is not just about buying goods for money; communist countries have money too. Capitalism is a specific economic system that has certain predictable behaviours (due to game theory). GPL'ed software does not exhibit these properties, but it does bear a strong resemblance to communism (again, in game theory terms).
That's just downright stupid. Do you leave your bike unlocked? DO you leave your house unlocked? Why make it easy or safe for people to steal your labor. That's communism.
As I said, I was only paraphrasing a common
-a
"I don't understand what you have against working for the greater good."
/. motto."
./ but what the fuck who cares.
I don't have anything against it. I just call it what it is which is communism. If you are communist and want to advance the cause of communism then by all means release your code into the public domain.
"As I said, I was only paraphrasing a common
I have enver heard that on
War is necrophilia.
I don't have anything against it. I just call it what it is which is communism. If you are communist and want to advance the cause of communism then by all means release your code into the public domain.
./ but what the fuck who cares.
Now you're not even being consistent with your last message, in which you deride communism.
Aside from that, you didn't even bother to refute my point, which I assume to mean that you've lost the argument.
I have enver heard that on
There's a million variations on the theme of "X is going to happen no matter what you do, so you might as well embrace it." I can't believe you've never heard them.
-a
"Now you're not even being consistent with your last message, in which you deride communism."
,you made so many scattered arguments that I have lost track of what you are saying. All I know is that you hate stallman, you hate the GPL and you are on some kind of a crusade to convince people to embrace communism by donating their labor to the public good.
I never derided communism. Go back and re-read my posts.
"Aside from that, you didn't even bother to refute my point"
You know
I don't have anything against communism. If you want to advocate a socialist/communist lifestyle that is your right. Maybe we would all be better off if everybody (including Bill Gates) just dumped all their code into the public pool but Bill Gates is not a communist and he would never ever share his products with the public. By the same token The folks at the FSF are not communists either and they also don't want to dump their code into the public pool.
GPL is closer to your ideal then the proprietary code of MS and all other corporations so I really don't see why you would hate them so much while at the same time praising MS.
Once again I have nothing against communism it's just that history shows that it does not work.
It's great that you have communist ideals and want to share your work with the world. It's great that you want to relinquish ownership of your labors and let everybody have it for nothing. But it's not fair to force other people to share in your beliefs.
Some people don't want to let anybody do whatever they want with their code.
War is necrophilia.
I never derided communism. Go back and re-read my posts.
,you made so many scattered arguments that I have lost track of what you are saying. All I know is that you hate stallman, you hate the GPL and you are on some kind of a crusade to convince people to embrace communism by donating their labor to the public good.
I see what I see. I'm not going to argue with you about your state of mind.
You know
Hate Stallman: tick
Hate the GPL: tick
Communist Crusade: huh?
I don't know where you got that idea. I'll have you know that I am a professional software developer. I work on closed source programs and I expect to paid for my work. I don't work for free and I have never released a BSD-licensed program in my life. [It is quite possible that there are a few small freeware apps I wrote in high school or university floating around out there, but that's not really the point.]
I believe in for-profit software. Capitalism is a good way to drive the economy and promote innovation. However, I acknowledge that once a technology advances to a certain level of maturity, it becomes a commodity. At that point, it does no real harm to have a free or cheap alternative.
A BSD/public domain license on the commodity allows everyone to start on an equal footing. Now the innovators can add their custom feature and charge only for that feature, without having to amortize the cost of developing the entire platform. That's why I advocate the BSD/PD license, but only for people who were going to give away their code in the first place.
To call me a communist is ridiculous. I don't believe in unadulterated capitalism either. What I do advocate is pragmatism. The GPL is a Machiavelian plot to bring down the entire software economy. Advocates claim that they are not against people making money, but then they come up with the flimsiest of business cases and sigh "too bad" when the companies go belly up within the year.
Some people don't want to let anybody do whatever they want with their code.
Yeah, but it's amazing how 90% of those people lose their ideals when it comes to the ownership of other peoples' music.
-a
"To call me a communist is ridiculous"
To call you a communist is absolutely accurate. You advocate that people donate their labors to public for the benefit of the public for the advancement of the public good. This is exactly what communism is all about.
As I stated before, the GPL is closer to captialism then public domain or BSD. GPL'ed code comes with restrictions and a price and is therefore is closer to proprietary/capitalism model.
"What I do advocate is pragmatism. The GPL is a Machiavelian plot to bring down the entire software economy."
Lying does not help your cause. You can spread all kinds of venom and hatred towards the GPL or stallamn or whaoever you want but it only makes you look more stupid because you are not able to convince other people of your point of view using logic. This kinds of obvious vitriolic lie was exactly the kind of propaganda used by other prominent communist and look how far it got them.
"Yeah, but it's amazing how 90% of those people lose their ideals when it comes to the ownership of other peoples' music."
Off topic and irrelevant.
War is necrophilia.
First, everyone with a copy of OpenLinux will have it on e-bay. Second, Chinese software .... copiers will get a chance to pirate SCO software.
Third, people like me will be going to used book and software stores shopping for recent SCO releases (openLinux 2.4 @ 14.95)
What a country!
To call you a communist is absolutely accurate. You advocate that people donate their labors to public for the benefit of the public for the advancement of the public good.
This is ridiculous. As I already stated, I advocate selling software for profit. That is my #1 preference. However, if you do feel like giving your software away, I would rather you release it as BSD rather than GPL so you don't deny someone else the opportunity to make money off of it.
As I stated before, the GPL is closer to captialism then public domain or BSD. GPL'ed code comes with restrictions and a price and is therefore is closer to proprietary/capitalism model.
Metaphorically, one could say that GPL'ed software has a price. However, metaphorical arguments don't prove anything. Don't you have any more substantive arguments?
By the same token The folks at the FSF are not communists either and they also don't want to dump their code into the public pool."
Communists don't share the wealth with everyone. They only share with other communists.
You can spread all kinds of venom and hatred towards the GPL or stallamn or whaoever you want but it only makes you look more stupid because you are not able to convince other people of your point of view using logic
Hehe. My opinion at least has a basis in pragmatism. I dislike the GPL because I think it will be bad for the economy. Contrast that with your irrational outlook, which centres around the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is making money off your work (even though it does you no harm for them to do so).
Forget logic; let's talk about common sense. Stallman says the GPL doesn't prevent you from making money from selling software; you can still charge a fee for the physical medium on which the software is stored. There's a perfect example of letting logic overrule common sense. Sure, it's technically possible to make money doing this, but the profits are so low as to be insignificant.
"Yeah, but it's amazing how 90% of those people lose their ideals when it comes to the ownership of other peoples' music."
Off topic and irrelevant.
Hardly. Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on
-a
"However, if you do feel like giving your software away, I would rather you release it as BSD rather than GPL so you don't deny someone else the opportunity to make money off of it."
/. also support music piracy,"
Once again GPL has a price. People who release code under the GPL are not "giving it away". The GPL is a EULA just like the code you sell has a EULA. There is no appreciable difference between the code you sell and the GPLed code.
"Metaphorically, one could say that GPL'ed software has a price."
No not metaphorically, it actually has a price. The price is not money but it's a price nevertheless. The price is so high that people like you (and Bill Gates) can not afford to pay it. It's a new kind of price for a new kind of economy.
"I dislike the GPL because I think it will be bad for the economy. Contrast that with your irrational outlook, which centres around the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is making money off your work (even though it does you no harm for them to do so)."
The GPL has nothing to do with money. I don't care who makes money with my code. I am happy when people make money with my code. I just don't want them to steal it. That's all. They can make all the money they want as long as they don't deny other people the same rights that I gave them (and other people gave me).
"Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on
Bullshit, offtopic and irrelevent.
War is necrophilia.
I notice you are getting a lot of practice at arguing with what I say and not what I mean. Whenever possible, you choose to misinterpret my words and make a semantic argument rather than a logical one.
/. argument goes), copyright violation is not really theft because theft is when you deprive someone of property.
/. also support music piracy,"
"if you do feel like giving your software away..."
Once again GPL has a price. People who release code under the GPL are not "giving it away".
Your objection is 100% semantic and it has no bearing on my argument. If you wish, I'll rephrase my argument in legalese to compensate for your thought impediment:
However, if you do feel like releasing your software under terms that allow redistribution of the source code without renumeration paid to the original author as cash or cash equivalents, I would rather you released it under a BSD license rather than GPL so that if someone else thinks they could make money from it, they aren't likely to be disuaded by the terms of the license.
There is no appreciable difference between the code you sell and the GPLed code.
I.e. in one area (they both have EULAs) they are almost identical. That doesn't stop them from being different in a million other ways.
The price is not money but it's a price nevertheless.
That's great, but it's still a metaphor because we were talking about capitalism, which is an actual economic system that was designed to deal with real money. The theory of capitalism was designed to deal with real money (or at the least, barter) so if you want to extend it less concrete types of "prices", you have to understand that not all of the same conclusions will necessarily apply.
It's a new kind of price for a new kind of economy.
At least in the short run.
The GPL has nothing to do with money.
Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder.
[Of course the problem with statements such as the above in an argument is that half of America will agree with it.]
I am happy when people make money with my code. I just don't want them to steal it.
If you released the code as BSD, they could make money and they wouldn't be stealing. The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission. After all (as the old
The BSD license doesn't deprive you of your code. If someone extends your software without BSD'ing that, it doesn't even deprive other people of your code. It just gives them more options: they can have the original code for free, or they can have the improved software for a price.
"Since it appears that the majority of GPL advocates on
Bullshit, offtopic and irrelevent.
Even Stallman supports music piracy. Interesting on how all of his proposed revenue models for music sharing take the power out of the hands of the copyright owners and hand it over to the government. It's all very (dare I say it) communistic.
-a
"However, if you do feel like releasing your software under terms that allow redistribution of the source code without renumeration paid to the original author as cash or cash equivalents, I would rather you released it under a BSD license rather than GPL so that if someone else thinks they could make money from it, they aren't likely to be disuaded by the terms of the license."
It's apparent to me that your value system is very narrowly defined. You define value and worth (and cost and price) strictly in terms of cash. I guess that's what makes us different.
"Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder."
Absolutely. That is dead on. COngratulations, you now get it.
"The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission."
Because I am not a communist. I believe in ownership and property. Those things are the bedrock of capitalism.
"The BSD license doesn't deprive you of your code. If someone extends your software without BSD'ing that, it doesn't even deprive other people of your code. It just gives them more options: they can have the original code for free, or they can have the improved software for a price."
Right. Public domain will accomplish the same thing (there is very little difference between public domain and BSD). It's communism. I am not a communist, I don't believe in communism. I don't think that people should be forced or even encouraged to relquinsh their labors to others.
"Even Stallman supports music piracy."
He believes in fair use not piracy. I for one think it's immoral that a musician or their agents can punish you for singing a song.
War is necrophilia.
It's apparent to me that your value system is very narrowly defined. You define value and worth (and cost and price) strictly in terms of cash. I guess that's what makes us different.
It depends. When I'm talking about capitalism vs. communism, I use those terms in a monetary context. If you employ specific terminology without reference to the context in which you are using them, then you are apt to reach ridiculous conclusions.
(BTW, it is still not true that my entire value system is based on money.)
"Sure, if you want to be naive. I should also point out that guns have nothing to do with murder. You can have murder without guns and you can have guns without murder."
Absolutely. That is dead on. COngratulations, you now get it.
Actually, that was a test to see what kind of thinker you are and you proved my point. In an earlier posting, I said that you seemed to let logic overrule common sense. It's a common flaw of geeks -- they are good at Boolean logic, but they don't seem to understand fuzzy logic and statistics. The fact is, while not every gun will kill someone, there is strong evidence of a correlation between guns and murder, so to say that guns and murder are "unrelated" is simply willful ignorance.
"The real question is why you care that someone is reusing your code without permission."
Because I am not a communist. I believe in ownership and property. Those things are the bedrock of capitalism.
But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. The real question to me is *why* you believe in ownership and property. It strikes me that your beliefs are dogmatic and you might not understand *why* you believe in them.
Right. Public domain will accomplish the same thing (there is very little difference between public domain and BSD). It's communism. I am not a communist, I don't believe in communism. I don't think that people should be forced or even encouraged to relquinsh their labors to others.
So basically the only reason why you don't release your code under the public domain is because you don't want to be a communist. You don't have any real reason for not wanting to be a communist; it just has bad connotations or something. Face it: you are perfectly willing to relinquish your labours to others, but only on Stallman's terms. Meanwhile, I advocate selling software for a profit and *you* are calling *me* a communist?!?
"Even Stallman supports music piracy."
He believes in fair use not piracy. I for one think it's immoral that a musician or their agents can punish you for singing a song.
Stallman believes in extending fair use by taking away the right of copyright owners to control how their property is distributed. Sounds like communism to me.
-a
"there is strong evidence of a correlation between guns and murder, so to say that guns and murder are "unrelated" is simply willful ignorance."
You are seeing a causation where none exists. People murder with guns because guns are an effective tool for killing. Before guns people murdered with knives, arrows and swords. Guns are just a tool.
"But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. "
I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to anybody selling anything. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You can't just make shit up and then draw a conclusion from it.
Not only do I believe in selling things for money, I also believe in an expanded definition of currency. In a rapidly evolving world we need to expand our ways of looking at wealth and currency. The GPL is but one way of refining currency. It's a way of converting labor to wealth that effectively allows you to compete with Bill Gates the richest man in the world. In the old economy BIll Gates gets to fuck you in ass while making your mother watch just for fun and because he owns the world. In the new economy (by exploring new kinds of currency and wealth) you can hope to compete with him.
"Face it: you are perfectly willing to relinquish your labours to others"
You are truly misinformed. When I release my code under the GPL I retain ownership of the code. I also retain a degree of control over what happens to that code forever.
See my comment above why in some ways GPLing code is better then selling it. When you sell your code you are competing with Bill Gates. That's a fight you are going to lose because he is the richest, most powerful person on the planet. You are just wasting your money and time by fighting a 400 pound gorilla.
It's better the enter a fight you at least have a chance of winning.
War is necrophilia.
You are seeing a causation where none exists. People murder with guns because guns are an effective tool for killing. Before guns people murdered with knives, arrows and swords. Guns are just a tool.
Right... and I suppose that if guns weren't easily available, we'd see a vast increase in the number of drive-by beheadings. It's exactly the fact that guns are such an effective tool for killing that makes the murder rate go up.
After watching Bowling for Columbine, I researched the stats on murder vs. gun ownership (because I didn't trust Michael Moore to fact check them). What I found was not a correlation between murder and guns in general, but a correlation between murder and handguns specifically.
"But you don't believe in selling things for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism. "
I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to anybody selling anything. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You can't just make shit up and then draw a conclusion from it.
Alright... another rephrase to satisfy your nitpicking:
But you don't believe in selling the things *you produce* for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism.
Not only do I believe in selling things for money, I also believe in an expanded definition of currency. In a rapidly evolving world we need to expand our ways of looking at wealth and currency
Source?
It's a way of converting labor to wealth that effectively allows you to compete with Bill Gates the richest man in the world.
I.e. If you can't make the blind people see, poke out everyone's eyes so they can all compete on the same level.
You are truly misinformed. When I release my code under the GPL I retain ownership of the code.
Nominally, yes.
I also retain a degree of control over what happens to that code forever.
If you give everyone else all the same rights you have then you no longer have control.
When you sell your code you are competing with Bill Gates. That's a fight you are going to lose because he is the richest, most powerful person on the planet.
My goal is not specifically to "beat" Bill Gates. My intent is to make enough money to live a comfortable life. There's enough room out there for more than one person out there to make money, although OSS has significantly reduced my chances.
It's better the enter a fight you at least have a chance of winning.
That is one of the lamest justifications for OSS I have heard, but I have to admit it explains a lot. You view competition as a game and you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.
-a
"But you don't believe in selling the things *you produce* for money, which, if anything, is the real bedrock of capitalism."
Again that's not true. I sell some stuff I produce, I get paid for other things I produce, and I GPL some stuff I produce. It's all according to the marketplace. If I can compete and have a chance in hell of winning then I'll ask for money, If I have no chance to win then I'll GPL (which is winning!).
"I.e. If you can't make the blind people see, poke out everyone's eyes so they can all compete on the same level."
Bzzzzzt wrong again. I harm no one by releaseing my code under the GPL. I could have not released it at all, I could have simply retained the copyright. Nobody has to accept the GPL. If they want to use my code then can PAY ME. So you can pay me with the GPL or you can pay me with cash. Either way I want to get paid for my code.
"My intent is to make enough money to live a comfortable life"
I already make enough money to live a comfortable life. My employer compensates me generously for my labors.
"There's enough room out there for more than one person out there to make money, although OSS has significantly reduced my chances."
OSS only hurts you if you are too stupid to write your own code. If you are too lazy to write your own code, too stupid to ride on the backs of BSD coders and exploit their labors then you don't deserve to make money. Capitalism is not a handout, nobody owes you code, nobody owes yoy anything.
"You view competition as a game and you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face."
I don't hurt myself at all by GPLing my code. I win. I get better code (other people help me) yet at the same time Bill Gates is too afraid to touch my code and ruin it for everybody.
War is necrophilia.
I harm no one by releaseing my code under the GPL. I could have not released it at all, I could have simply retained the copyright.
Quite untrue. You harm quite a lot of people. Admittedly, you only harm each of them a little bit, but if 100 other people think the same way you do and keep extending your code then the harm adds up.
- You harm the entrepreneur who was planning to release a commercial version of the same thing.
- You harm the 50 people he would have hired.
- You harm the tens of thousands of software developers looking for jobs because their bargaining power is slightly reduced.
Nobody has to accept the GPL. If they want to use my code then can PAY ME.
Nobody is that desparate to use your code. Anything that one person develops alone can be easily replaced. What they would like to use is the code that has been collaboratively developed by hundreds or thousands of people.
I already make enough money to live a comfortable life. My employer compensates me generously for my labors.
Fine, so does mine. (Not as much as I was making a few years ago, but quite adequate.) But I am not arrogant enough to assume that will always be the case. Like a lot of people, I was laid off last year. Fortunately, I have some very specialized skills and I quickly found a new job. However, I feel sorry for all my friends who aren't so lucky. And what about the new grads? When I look at resumes, I see guys with 10+ years of coding experience applying for jobs as testers.
OSS only hurts you if you are too stupid to write your own code.
It's not a question of being too lazy to write your own code. These days, software projects are a lot bigger than they used to be, and it's impractical to re-invent the wheel. It used to be that you would license some third party libraries to provide the building blocks. But the existence of GPLed alternatives drives down your margins. You can't afford to buy the libraries, but you can't afford to use the GPLed onces either. It's a Hobson's choice.
If you are too stupid to ride on the backs of BSD coders and exploit their labors then you don't deserve to make money.
The problem is there is not enough BSD stuff out there to compensate for all the GPL stuff. Nowadays, more amateur projects (including a lot of university research) are being released under the GPL, perhaps because the GPL has better propaganda and it appeals to the communistic tendencies of elitist university students/professors who have had it easy all their life.
Capitalism is not a handout, nobody owes you code, nobody owes yoy anything.
Capitalism is not a perfect system; it requires government regulation.
-a
Interesting. You don't want to write your own code, you can't find enough BSD code to steal from, you are not allowed to steal code from the GPL pool so you whine about why you can't make money because you are unable to compete with a bunch of people who code in their spare time.
So instead of working harder and making better code you whine on and on about how the GPL is evil and is preventing you from making tons of money off of other peoples backs.
You know what you don't deserve to make money. You are just a leech on society.
War is necrophilia.
Interesting. You don't want to write your own code, you can't find enough BSD code to steal from, you are not allowed to steal code from the GPL pool so you whine about why you can't make money because you are unable to compete with a bunch of people who code in their spare time.
If only it were so. If the only competition was from hobbyists then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there are some misguided companies out there who fund OSS development and ruin it for everyone.
So instead of working harder and making better code you whine on and on about how the GPL is evil and is preventing you from making tons of money off of other peoples backs.
Well, yeah. I am kind of sick of always working harder. It used to be that startups expected you to work a lot of overtime, but they paid you well and they lured you in with tons of stock options. Now everyone is in startup mode. Thanks in large part to OSS, there's more and more players fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.
You know what you don't deserve to make money. You are just a leech on society.
Yeah... just because I advocate an economic system with a mathematical basis (as opposed to an economic system I read about in "Adam Smith for 3 year olds"), that makes me a leech on society.
-a
"If only it were so. If the only competition was from hobbyists then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there are some misguided companies out there who fund OSS development and ruin it for everyone."
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If you are unable to compete get out of the business. That's capitalism.
"Well, yeah. I am kind of sick of always working harder. It used to be that startups expected you to work a lot of overtime, but they paid you well and they lured you in with tons of stock options. Now everyone is in startup mode. Thanks in large part to OSS, there's more and more players fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie."
Move to a more socialist or communist country. That might make your anxiety go away.
"
Interesting. You don't want to write your own code, you can't find enough BSD code to steal from, you are not allowed to steal code from the GPL pool so you whine about why you can't make money because you are unable to compete with a bunch of people who code in their spare time.
If only it were so. If the only competition was from hobbyists then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there are some misguided companies out there who fund OSS development and ruin it for everyone.
So instead of working harder and making better code you whine on and on about how the GPL is evil and is preventing you from making tons of money off of other peoples backs.
Well, yeah. I am kind of sick of always working harder. It used to be that startups expected you to work a lot of overtime, but they paid you well and they lured you in with tons of stock options. Now everyone is in startup mode. Thanks in large part to OSS, there's more and more players fighting for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.
You know what you don't deserve to make money. You are just a leech on society.
Yeah... just because I advocate an economic system with a mathematical basis (as opposed to an economic system I read about in "Adam Smith for 3 year olds"), that makes me a leech on society."
WHat makes you a leech is that you want to be able to use other people's code without paying a price. You want to legalize stealing.
War is necrophilia.
You know what pisses me off? People who have entirely dogmatic belief systems. Your adherence to capitalism is some kind of religious issue. You doggedly advocate various corolleries of capitalist systems, and yet you ignore the spirit of the idea. You don't understand how capitalism works (and when it doesn't).
If you dogmatically assume that anything capitalist is good and anything socialist is bad then fine: Let's cut taxes, abolish the minimum wage, expand free trade, and dispense with social security and medicare. You and I can slog it out for 60 cents an hour along with the rest of the third world.
I admit it. I don't want to work 80 hours a week to make less money than I did 5 years ago. What's the point of technology making our life easier if I have no free time? For some reason you want to abolish all the white colar jobs, or at least turn them into a living hell. Of course you don't state this as an actual goal, but your attitude is that if this happens then "so what, that's capitalism."
Capitalism is a sound economic system, but like anything other system, it doesn't work if you to take it to extremes. You advocate a system that bears only superficial resemblance to capitalism. But because you can come up with some bullshit analogy that converts the GPL into capitalism ("a different kind of price for a new economy"), and you dogmatically assume that anything capitalistic is good, you are able to talk out your ass.
-a
Once again answer the main charge.
you are constantly whining about how you are unable to compete with part time amateur coders. You are whining because you are not allowed to use other peoples labors for your own benefit and profit. You whine about how capitalims has made you poorer and more unhappy.
Ok so what? I don't fucking care about your whiny ass. Move to canada, move to finland, move to any other country that will take you. Move to a country which practices a flavor of capitalism/socialism that makes you happy.
Either that or just fucking kill yourself. If you are unable to cope then end it all. Just don't fucking bother me about it.
It's clear you don't have the talent or the smarts to make it in this country. You are destined to become just another shmuck in this endless sea of shmucks. One day you will get old enough to collect social security and will ride around the country in a winnebago camping in walmart parking lots and buying cheap slave labor chinese goods.
Really man look ahead, what kind of a life are you going to have in 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. How many times are you going to marry and divorce? Are you going to make any difference at all?
Just end it man, do the rest of us a favor.
War is necrophilia.
Yo dude, do you work for the post office? Is that why you are so unsatisfied with your life that you have to work a second job for free. You OSS types are just are like papparazi in the way you ooh and ahh over your geek heros. Real capitalist invest their money on race horses or balooning around the world. They don't undermine their own industry in a desperate bid for fame.
I, for one, don't care if I ever become famous. I just want to put in an honest days work and make enough money to play a round of golf every week. Thankfully, I already live in Canada, and not in your ridiculous country. That doesn't make me immune from the GPL, however, since lots of OSS projects are based here. You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken.
-a
If you live in canada then your basic needs are taken care of. You could be unemployed and won't starve.
Really there is no need for you to whine and moan about the GPL.
"You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken."
Really? Which ones?
War is necrophilia.
If you live in canada then your basic needs are taken care of. You could be unemployed and won't starve.
Yeah. I could move back in with my parents... sounds great!
Really there is no need for you to whine and moan about the GPL.
Right... because a bare subsistence living sounds appealing to me. Really, you over-estimate the safety net that Canada provides. The economy here ain't doing so hot either. There isn't enough money to pay for everyone to be unemployed.
"You know, in a lot of industries, if a bunch of upstart punks tried to do someone else's work for free, they'd get their legs broken."
Really? Which ones?
Mostly the ones where the teamsters have shady mob connections.
-a
"Right... because a bare subsistence living sounds appealing to me. Really, you over-estimate the safety net that Canada provides. The economy here ain't doing so hot either. There isn't enough money to pay for everyone to be unemployed."
Look you can have subsidence living without working at all. Sounds great to me. All day to do whatever the fuck you want while the govt takes care of food and shelter. If you want more then that then get off your ass work. Bitching and moaning about the GPL ins't going to make you money.
"Mostly the ones where the teamsters have shady mob connections."
In the US assault is a crime. If you get caught you go to jail. We also have pretty good police that can trace genetic evidence and get the person responsible (not that they don't make mistakes mind you they do).
If you are planning on breaking the legs of GPL programmers then be careful. You will most likely get caught and end up in jail. In the US jail is no fun.
War is necrophilia.
Apparently, after I mentioned I was from Canada you latched on to that and assumed this is some kind of socialist paradise. In fact, you're not allowed to collect unemployment/welfare benefits unless you are actively looking for work. I'm not sure of all the details, since I've never been out of work long enough to collect, but for unemployment at least you have to document which jobs you have applied for.
/. keep telling me I'm making buggy whips for some reason.
In the US assault is a crime. If you get caught you go to jail. We also have pretty good police that can trace genetic evidence and get the person responsible (not that they don't make mistakes mind you they do).
Right. As opposed to Canada where assault is legal and our crimes are investigated by trained squirrels. Really, life here is not so different except for the fact that our government isn't run by religious fundamentalists and we aren't completely ignorant of the rest of the world.
Of course I wasn't literally advocating breaking the legs of GPL programmers. I'm trying to illustrate a point. A lot of other industries have unions that are meant to look out for the collective interests of the workers. In a lot of ways, that's what makes us different from 3rd world countries, 19th century chimney sweeps, etc.
The software industry has the exact opposite -- a trade organization that lobbies against the interests of the workers. It wouldn't bug me if the product was actually becoming obsolete, but last time I checked, software was still an important commodity. People on
-a
You can start a union if you want. I bet most geeks won't join though.
Of course starting a union is actual work so you might be all that interested.
War is necrophilia.
You can start a union if you want. I bet most geeks won't join though.
I don't want a union. I want a lobby group to buy some politicians and get the GPL ruled unenforceable.
Of course starting a union is actual work so you might be all that interested.
Fuck you. I love how just because I stated that I don't want to work 80 hours a week for the rest of my life, you call me a lazy leech on society. What do you feel is an appropriate work week, 100 hours? Are you a gnostic?
-a