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."
Maybe you should read the article though, that's not what it says... It says SCO Linux customers "are not liable", as in they aren't breaking the law. They're crossing the street on a crosswalk in a green light, not jaywalking. It seems to say more to me that they've got that license legally, not that they're breaking the law and just wont get sued for it.
"SCO Group has assured its Linux customers that any company that's paying for Linux software and services from SCO Group is already paying for SCO's intellectual property."
Who's got the skinny directly from SCO's website that the article mentions?
--Me
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.
it is pronounced as one syllable.. as you guessed "SKOH".. SKO.. whichever.
"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
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.
It would be, except that they're still distributing said product.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
There are several calls for a boycott on the web.
u g.org/pipermail/carlug-discuss/200 3-March/001810.htmlo ns.com/pipermail/yell owdog-general/2003-March/006325.html
http://lwn.net/Articles/24757/
http://www.carl
http://lists.terrasoftsoluti
When you short a stock, you are in effect borrowing shares from a shareholder and selling them. If the stock price goes up, you have to make up the difference to the shareholder you borrowed from. If the stock completely tanks, it's unlikely the shareholder will want the now worthless stock and you walk away with a nice profit.
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.
This pretty much clears it up from our end. Linux is (or will be) in the clear, which is pretty much all we probably care about. For IBM, however, this is not nearly the end of the story.
If IBM did violate their contract with SCO (I know this is something we all don't want to talk about much), they did do something pretty shitty. I can't speak for coders everywhere, but I would whole-heartedly agree with SCO right now if someone stole something I'd written. So IBM could face a huge amount of damages, not to mention the possible revokation of their Unix licenses. So I suppose its slightly possible (I doubt this would happen; they'd probably just pay some outrageous new license fee) that this could be the death of AIX. Couple that with a pretty severe hit to the reputation of Linux (imagine trying to convince a suspicious CEO about the wisdom of a grassroots OS now) and you've got a pretty large Unix marketshare drop. Which probably adds up to boosts for Windows and, if Sun has their way (big if; the big problem with Sun is not the quality of their OS but the cost of their hardware), a big boost for Solaris.
All of this is more corporate fallout than anything that applies to the hobbiest or home-users, but it makes the point that this whole thing does get rather complex.
Hmmm -- if Canopy starts dumping their stock, the markets going to percieve the case is full of hot air, and the stock will collapse back down to .50 a share.
These guys are far worse than pump-n-dumpers. They honestly believe they are going to get commercial licences from every linux install. The daily FUD is to scare IT managers into believing them.
Since no one came up with any better research i thought i would share this, which was the only substantial discussion i was able to find of RCU patent & copyright history:
http://lwn.net/Articles/36164/
That's funny, because SCO have actually states only Sun is definitely OK, and there are questions around Apple and Microsoft.
Either SCO are about to become the richest and most powerful company in the industry, or they're about to have something unpleasant happen.
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.
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...
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.
Incorrect.
SCO does not own the trademark for UNIX, nor any other trademarks alleged to be infringed in this suit. Trademarks are the only IP that can be lost if not actively defended.
Copyrights can be moderately defended and still kept. However, if you choose to widely ignore infringement for a lengthy period of time, your hopes of coming back to sue people for large amounts of damages will be laughed out of court. Especially if you continue to help give away those copyrights fully knowing that by doing so people would be infringing on your rights.
Patents don't have to be actively protected. You can sue even when you have a week left of the patent for all the sales which came before using your patents. As long as the patent is still valid, you can have a fair chance at getting people to stop using your patent and/or collecting your fees for use of your patent.
Here, though, SCO has only sued IBM for violating a contract, anticompetitive practices and illegally distributing trade secrets. Linux and the BSDs have not been sued for any IP problems.
Until they do file suit, technically there's no reason to stop distributing the code, working on the code, or using the code. They also haven't shown what infringes their rights, so it's impossible for anyone to guess what could be the problem. Can't really stop allegedly infringing if no one else seems to know what the infringing code is!
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
What have you got to say for yourselves now, dumbasses? This may not contain the exact stuff that they're all worked up about (although it sounds like they want to claim RCU entirely), but it is a patch for source that does contain the offending material and therefore a derivative work.
Read parent again. Internal use means they don't give/sell/license the product to anyone, so they are not obligated to provide the code to anyone. Not a violation of the GPL.
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.
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?
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
Unfortunately, there's no good legal way to say, "Put up or shut up!"
Sure there is. It's called defamation.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The source is still on the server, only its location is obfuscated a bit. It seems to me that the move to remove the kernel is just an issue of trying to appear that they've been irreparably damaged. I'd offer to diff from the mainstream kernel myself, but I'm on my laptop which has a tiny, tiny amount of storage space.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place.
What??? Did I miss a fight? Now, I am really disappointed... I though that the fight for desktop is about to begin.
>according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, if you can't satisfy patent laws AND the terms of the GPL simulataneously you have no right to use the code at all.
s/use/distribute/
YA definitely NAL
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Actually not. If they make sure anyone who get a copy also get the source, by exsample only distributing the binaries on a CD with the source, their obligations under the GPL is done. On the other hand everyone who get such a CD can make the contend downloadable on their own, but then that person/company is responsible for making the source available to anyone who get the binaries.
3. If SCO's version of linux contains the copyrighted System V code, than there is somewhat of a mess:
Now that SCO "knows" the linux kernel contains their propiteary IP, they may only continue to distribute it if they put that IP under the GPL. If not they will be in breach of the GPL and the GPL is the only ting that allows them to distribute it in the first place.
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.
Then Microsoft would be in violation of the GPL. The GPL lets anybody on the face of the earth take something released under it and package it and sell it, but they are required to provide the source code for free to any and all who ask for it.
Actually no. The GPL obliges people to make available the source (of GPL covered code) only to third parties they have supplied it to. i.e. if you sell GPL code then the only people who can demand the source code from you are your customers. Also if GPL software is used entirely for "personal use", which a corporation can do just as easily as an individual, then it can also be modified in all sorts of ways.
If Microsoft passed it off as their own and didn't release source code, well then they would be criminals wouldn't they.
If Microsoft were to do this they would be enguaging in both fraud and copyright infringement.
It also means that they cannot legally prevent an MS employee for posting said internal software onto the Internet for all to see. Maybe they aren't using anything worth posting...
You can't force users to sign an NDA to use GPL software - the GPL states that ANYONE you give the software must be allowed to use it under the terms of the GPL - which means they too can redistribute it.
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.