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.
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..."
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!
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....
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
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.
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.
"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
How much suffering would you have to endure before you'd use Caldera on all your servers to make it stop?
At this point, I think it would take me and my loved ones being flogged with bundles of stinging nettles that have been dipped in hot sauce and rolled in salt, while listening to Celine Dion sing that Titanic song accompanied by an orchestra of bagpipes. In Hell.
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
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.
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
Shit. They would have had me at Celine Dion...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Furthermore, many people are posting here that "SCO is approving the use of their code in Linux under the GPL! Nyah nyah!" Well, there's a far cry from not prosecuting certain individuals and approving the use. If you stole SCO's code but only had $50 in your bank account so they chose not to prosecute you, they could still prosecute RedHat for doing the same thing. By your logic, the failure to prosecute home users is a blanket approval, which it truly isn't. It's just a cost-benefit analysis; they have little to gain from suing home users.
In certain IP cases, failure to enforce IP ownership does constitute a grant to public domain of that IP, but this is not a wholesale failure to prosecute, only a leave given to a few specific alleged violators. This is meaningless. Of course SCO won't sue SCO users; this is not in any way a legal flaw (and, no offense to all those armchair lawyers, but I'm sure SCO had their legal team review all actions they've taken prior to taking them, so I doubt you'll find any "loopholes").
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
We look forward to helping you and your customers meet your business needs for the next twenty years. -- Optimist Darl
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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
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
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.