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.
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!
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.
There is something to this. However, if it were the case that some code included in the Linux kernel weren't distributable under the GPL, it would be illegal to distribute it at all. Why? Because all of the rest of the code, going back to the original bits written by Linux in 1991, is under the GPL. Combining that code with other code creates a derivative work of that code. Under the GPL's famous viral provisions, any derivative work of GPL'd software has to be distributable under the terms of the GPL (ie, you can add code which is GPL'd, or you can add code under another license that does not conflict with the GPL).
So if there is violating code, SCO has no right to "bless" redistribution unless they agree to non-GPL licensing terms with EVERY SINGLE KERNEL DEVELOPER who contributed non-offending source. If they are implying that distribution of their linux kernel is legal, therefore, it implies that they are offering whatever portions they claim ownership of under the terms of the GPL. If not, they are infringing upon the copyrights of hundreds of kernel developers.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
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....
errg.
SCO has no right to "bless" redistribution
Should be:
SCO has no right to "bless" non-GPL redistribution
The most sickening thing is that it sounds like SCO really doesn't want the (hypothetical) code removed. They want to convince a court that somehow IBM's AIX contract gives them ownership of anything that happens to have Unix code in it, and this overrides anyone else's copyrights, even if they wrote it, Linux as well s Dynix and AIX.
If they really cared about their Linux customers, they would flag the (alleged) offending code immediately and, if not replace it themselves, at least alert the kernel developers, so that a legal fix could be released. The records are clear enough that it seems they ought to be able to win damages from whoever was responsible for adding it, even if the offending code had been removed from current kernels. If there is no real offending code, though, what they are doing makes perfect sense: the more extreme and ludicrous their claims are, the higher their stock price goes, and the higher their (still slim) chances of being bought out or getting a nice settlement, rather than being embarassed in court.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
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.
I don't really feel like going in-depth on the other argument, but I will address it briefly. Basically, the argument goes, SCO accidentally GPL'ed their code. In order for this to apply, SCO would have to be the one who released the code under the GPL. This is incorrect; the alleged SCO code that was included when SCO released their own distro under the GPL was not released by SCO, it was being redistributed. The initial release, allegedly, was done by IBM, which is therefore invalid in that it was not released by the code owners.
Also, this argument ignores the specifics of the SCO/IBM argument, which is not IP at all but, rather, about contractual violations; there are no "is this wrong" issues here; the only issue is whether it happened. If IBM did in fact release SCO code, it was certainly a contract violation.
And I don't see what IBM's lawyers have to do with it; what I meant was that it is silly to assume that such a simple flaw exists in SCO's reasoning without even doing any legal research first. IBM's lawyers, to my knowledge, have never used either of the above mentioned arguments publicly, and I would be quite surprised if those arguments made it into the court case, seeing as it is about contract violation and not IP.
so my one recompense is knowing that some jerks can't steal my hours of labor
Well then you better reevaluate why you work for free - even if it's a hobby. Hypothetically speaking, Microsoft could very well be making money off of your labor. They could use your program, modify it for their own internal use, and never give anything for it while they reap the benefits of your software.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
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.
You could end up like... what's his name?.... Dave from the LRP witcho bad-ass attitude.
The question to SCO here is quite simple: "do you agree that the Linux distribution you released is placed on the GPL, letting the users modify/copy it at will?". If the answer is yes, then case closed (they just gave up their IP - if indeed SCO IP there was, which I doubt). If the answer is no, then SCO wasn't allowed to distribute Linux in the first place. This puts them in copyright violation over millions of lines of code (not GPL violation - they didn't agree to the GPL, so they're re-distributing under no valid license). Talk about "IP theves"!
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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.
Your Honor, I didn't know the gun was loaded
I am sorry honey I didn't think I was fertile
These lame excuses will not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
SCO sold a Linux distro. They did that intentionally. The gun was loaded. He was fertile.
I have no idea why they did it and I do not see why I or anyone else (including a judge) should give a rat's petunia what their subjective beliefs about their actions were.
They are in the software business, they know what source code is, they had (or had easy access to) the source code and they were in a better position than anyone else in the whole wide world to know if the code contained material that they thought was theirs. And yet, they INTENTIONALLY sold it under the GPL.
Now, I do not know whether the GPL will prove to be legally binding in every aspect. But, even if every clause is not valid, it must at least operate as a waiver of copyright in the material subject to it.
IMHO and IAAL, SCO has at the very least waived any infringement claim on code it sold under the GPL. I think they and their lawyers know that and that is why they sued IBM for breach of contract and why they did not start by suing Red Hat or Linus Torvalds.
'nuff said
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
Just like I don't help people at work who have problems with Windows even though I am an expert.
Which makes your co-workers think exactly what of Linux advocates...?
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
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
Crap, suppose you buy a gun to protect your family and property. If someone throws a stick at your house would you shoot them ? How about if they try to kidnap your family and burn your house ? Would you shoot them then ?
SCO is trying to kidnap our family and burn our property, it is time to use the most effective defense possible.
Exceptional circumstances demand exceptional action.
Isn't the fact that MS is willing to support windows one of it's selling points?
Depends on who you talk to. For the typical user, probably not. The practical effect of its ubiquity, though, is that there is probably someone around you can ask, or a book ("Dummies", etc) to look at.
Does it really matter? ....why should they be pissed off if someone tells them to call Microsoft...
I don't know if you have ever worked in an office environment, but let me tell you, it matters a lot. Imagine a co-worker is trying to figure out how to open a window (a real one!) and is puzzled by the locking mechanism. Someone comes along who knows everything there is to know about the windows in the building, but the one the co-worker is looking at is not one he would have used. The co-worker asks for assistance, but he says "Call facilities, that's what they are for." I guarantee that the co-worker will swear to never recommend whatever the preferred brand of the expert is, because they will associate it with his attitude. Believe me, attitude matters more than technology. That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
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
" guarantee that the co-worker will swear to never recommend whatever the preferred brand of the expert is, because they will associate it with his attitude. Believe me, attitude matters more than technology. That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place."
Once again so what? Do I really care if some clueless twit isn't using linux? I am happy they aren't using linux. They should stay as far away from linux as possible. Using linux will in all likelyhood make their little heads explode.
There is no reason to make yourself a slave to other people's whims just because somebody *might* not use linux unless you get on your hands and knees and server them like a good little dog.
Tell them call IT or MS, it's not your job and you have better things to do.
War is necrophilia.
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
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
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.
Actually, they can do whatever they want with their IP. They just cant do whatever they want with others IP. As Linux is GPL, SCO is either violating copyright law on a massive scale by distributing Linux together with SCO proprietary IP, or they have to release their IP under GPL. They're perfectly free to do either, only in one case they're open to massive fines that would make their IBM lawsuit seem modest plus jailtime for copyright violations (of other peoples copyrighted but GPL'ed code), and in the other they have to release their code under a GPL compatible license and cant sue anyone.
This is absolutely correct.
However. . .SCO did grant license at original aquisition, and made that license the GPL. You can find it right in the distro. They remain bound by it themselves.
This is the legal Scylla and Charybdis that SCO is attempting to navigate between. This is why they have to keep making new clarifications of their position every day. As they turn in one direction they begin to come too close to the danger on one side, then when they turn back they come too close to the danger on the other.
I think there's a general consensus that if they keep it up sooner or later they're going to go down the hole or get smashed on the rocks, there is no clear route through, other than somebody sending out the Coast Guard to rescue them with a sweetheart buyout deal.
KFG
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.
Imagine instead the code had a typical public-domain header ("you may use this code for any purpose, provided that..."). For our purposes this is exactly the same as the GPL, it is a block of text saying under what conditions you may violate the copyright on the code. You are claiming that this text is meaningless, and that if I released public-domain code, I could still sue somebody who makes a copy of that code.
If what you are saying is true, then all code that does not involve a signed contract (ie public-domain, BSD, GPL, and all open source licenses, all code samples in books, and all commercial programming libraries) are suddenly unsafe to use.
Personally I think this is hogwash, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Remember that the GPL is somewhere between copyright and public-domain. It cannot do anything that one or the other of those cannot do.
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.
Hehe, I've had this urge (I mean, it gets rediculous after you've had to remove the Lovegate virus from 20 co-workers' PCs) but I guess I value teamwork more than GNU/Linux advocacy or any antipathy towards Microsoft. I just can't say no when one of my friends or family needs some technical help.
The somewhat surprising side-affect of this willingness to help my neighbor has been that they now value my opinion and they are increasingly curious about GNU/Linux because while I'm fixing their problem they frequently hear me muttering things like "why people pay for this crap when they can have something better for free boggles the mind".
I guess for me, helping people is more fun and important than my own personal stance on software (and this from a bootable-card-carrying hippie communist member of the FSF!).
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Wait a minute:
Believe me, attitude matters more than technology. That's why *nix lost the desktop in the first place
When did *nix EVER have the desktop? I seem to remember this progression:
CP/M
Apple
DOS
MacOS
Windows 3
Windows 95/NT
Windows 98/NT4
Windows 98SE/2K
Windows XP
The only places Unix was widely used on the desktop were IRIX machines and NeXT boxen, the former in a niche market and the latter at the high end of the price spectrum (and so mostly in universities and other institutions). Most places that had "UNIX on the desktop" had terminals hooked up to a UNIX mini, and they were in close competition with the VT100s and the VAXen.
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.
Actually, when used within an organization, the organization is the user, not the individual. If an individual posts the modified code, they are violating the copyright of Microsoft.
You see, the GPL doesn't take force unless there's redistribution. If the copyright holder (in this case, Microsoft), isn't distributing outside out itself, then the software isn't under the GPL, and therefore that individual does not have the authority to redistribute it, and can be sued.
Engineering and the Ultimate