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."
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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..."
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.
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
Except they can't include code covered by their IP/Copyright or whatever with GPLed software (the linux kernel) without also releasing their code as GPL software. So even SCO customers don't really have a license for their linux distribution unless it was GPLed, which isn't what SCO wants.
They actually can't do whatevery they want with their IP.
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
I got to thinking afterwards what a masterful stroke SCO pulled by joining the protestors. Entering the fray 'in the spirit of fun', and getting the opposite side to join in, including at one point convincing one of the protestors to carry pro-SCO signs, reduced the anti-SCO position to 'all in fun' as well. Not to be taken seriously. You can bet though, the message the SCO signs carried - linux = communism, GPL = theft, OSS = Kazaa - resonated with a few less-informed people.
Pretending to extend the hand of friendship, SCO completely obliterated the anti-SCO message. Slick.
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
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?
Well, SCO has specifically referred to Unix patents.
:)
And 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.
Does this mean that SCO, by telling their users it's alright, is violating GPL? I'm not a lawyer, but I know a bit about IP law. But this whole mess is confusing even me, especially since SCO keeps saying conflicting things.
My head hurts now. I wonder if I can sue SCO for medical bills and psychological trauma?
My journal has hot
Is it pronounced "S, C, O, Linux" or do I say it like a word: "SKOH Linux"?
I called their line the other day to see why they were still distributing linux, and their voice mail said "S-C-O". This surprised me, since my friends and I have been pronouncing it 'skoh' since the 1996 or 1997.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
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.
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.
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....
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
Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?
Each copyright holder can have their own go at SCO for breaking the grant to their work as specified under the GPL. Each and every God bless'ed one of them.
Notice I did NOT say "licensed under the GPL". As you ALL know, the GPL is a grant. A grant, without which, SCO has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make even a single copy of the work in question.
Copyright law stipulates prescribed penalties when the infringment was, er, non-accidental and a specific level of damage cannot be set. I belive the number is/was $100K or $150K per infringement.
GPLed works would probably fall in that catagory. The GPL is "good and true", as long as copyright is the law of this land, but dollar damages would be pretty hard to set.
Law says... "per infringement". Each and every holder of a copyright within Linux would have the right to declare at least one infringment.
In a way Linus theory on "distributed copyright holding" vs. the FSF's centralized approch may prove an advantage here. FSF can only sue once per infringement. The Linux case would quickly grow and the courts would have a hard time grappling with the possibility that a single act of "copying" could result in such massive statutory liability.
Better step up soon, 'tho. I'd bet SCO can't pay you all. Something of a lottery, to be sure, but you never thought you'd ever be able to get paid $100K for contributing to Linux, did ya?
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.
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
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.
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