Slashdot Mirror
FSF Statement on SCO vs. IBM
tomdp writes "Eben Moglen, Law professor and general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, has written a statement about SCO's lawsuit against IBM."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Quote from FSF Statement:
"Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution."
So instead of claiming they inadvertantly GPLed it, we should rather say, they only made it worse by distributing it themselves, and cannot claim any liability from other people doing the same.
Or, and this is pretty far-fetched, perhaps they covet the Linux kernel and GNU software. Their conjecture is, if they can win, maybe they can take ownership of GNU/Linux and hijack the whole deal. They realize that they can't make their OS better, so they are now attempting to steal ours.
Clickety Click
Most of what's come out of SCO is so self-contradictory that the only intelligent response is "What the hell are you saying?" Until they can nail down exactly what they're complaining about, there's nothing else to do but demand that they give the particulars.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
While I'm generally not all that fond if the name nitpicking either, it's actually a relavent distinction for once - SCO has been spouting off things about "whole programs copied" which tends to imply that they're talking about quite a bit more than the kernel. Which also raises questions - we can all figure out where kernel source code came from. Not all projects are as careful about logging changes.
Why?
I posted the original post. Yes it was a bit of a troll, but I firmly believe that corporations have gone too far in their quest for profit. The fact that the auto industry would sell unsafe cars and try to keep this from consumers is a perfevct example. When they are finally forced to reveal that there is a problem with their product, then do a recal and put the least amount of money and effort into rectifying the situation. That is morally and ethically wrong. By doing this, it would appear that they place the value of their corporate bottom line above a human life. The funny thing is that all you corporate supporters would easily cry foul with regard to abortion saying the "human life is god's greatest gift" like Reagan did back in the 80s. And yet, when a human life is put at risk by a product that a corporation sells, you do a 180 and say, "well... it would be bad for business if we had to resolve each problem for each individual. It will cut into profits." Sorry, but I think anyone that thinks that way is ghoulish as well as hypocritical.
Think of all the rotten things that businesses have done to consumers in the name of profit. All the dangerous chemicals they's been feeding us in our food and giving us as "medicine"... All the coverups to try and keep critical life saving information from reaching the public. If there is one thing that we all should be aware of as human beings, it's that we should put our fellow man far above profit and personal gain. If you can't do that, you have failed as a human being.
How can this be?
Did not SCO have developers working on the code inhouse?
If they are modifying and distributing the code themselves, and over a period of several YEARS, you would think that someone there would have caught this, eh??
No, incompetence and ignorance is not an excuse.
They KNEW what code was in the kernel and distributed it under the GPL.
If they did *not know* then they are ignorant bastards and that's just too bad for them, they still ditributed the code under the GPL and had ample time to not only catch but to rectify any descrepancies...
Headline: Microsoft Bankrupt, Linux Rules the World ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman is pushing his "GNU/Linux" agenda!
Headline: Linux Marketshare 60%, Microsoft GPL's Windows ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman wants to take over the world!
Headline: Extraterrestials Obliterate Eastern Seaboard ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman said that phrase again!
Dear Sir,
I am not sure if you goal was to take the polar opposite stance of the post you are replying to but you have made just as grievous errors. Let us begin.
You seem to imply that valuing one's customers is only a side effect of the best interests of the company (which your point seems to be is to make money). This is a terribly cynical POV, however is the the view most companies take. Perhaps on the other hand a company should have a goal of making profit but not have it be the blinding exclusive goal.
Point 2. I am not sure what book you got our definitions from but just generally one does not associate strong personal freedoms with Marxism and communism. Unless you are look only at the alleged 'anti- private business/ownership' angle. Of course both of those are in the theory. As we all know the practice of those philosophies turned out different. As for unions, well (again ideally) they are supposed to advocate the rights of the workers.
Instead of driveling on here let me sum up. I believe that businesses (corporations) should have no 'rights' in the sense that individuals have. Corporations are artificial entities. We as people with rights can grant on to them (corporations) privileges, that may mimic the rights an individual has. However with all privileges we stipulate the responsibilities that that one has to meet in order to keep those privileges. Thus a business can run and make money for its owners, pay its employees, while not gaining the illusion that it it entitled to the rights and actions of an actual human being.
It's not so much about the merits of the lawsuit itself, but about the public opinion statements SCO has been making, trying to affect the free software world in a really negative way, based on vague statement sabout the ramifications of this lawsuit.
As everyone knows, they went from "Trade secret" to "license violation" to "copyright violation" to alleging "patent" almost.
They went from talking about their secrets making it into linux, to pointing out it was actually code that was NOT their secret, but that they technically may have an exclusive license to, due to some wording in IBM's Unix license.
They are saying many confusing things, and backing it up with little.
Sco -vs- IBM is between SCO and IBM. Hopefully the rest of the world is smart enough to realize that the free software world is more than happy to obey the law, if only someone would tell them what they are doing wrong.
So it's good for people, lawyers, and organisations to put forward their own researched opinions as to what the ramifications of SCO's actions are, because the public needs both sides.
When do the legal festivities kick off?
For most of us, that surely is the point. This is Slashdot, of course we are all Linux fans, of course we want to see SCO kicked into the long grass. But even if it were to turn out the "wrong" way, it were better done sooner than later. Just suppose SCOs allecagtions are true (I doubt this as much as most). IBM gets hit with massive damages - bad for IBM shareholdres but IBM, and they, will live. But SCO has revealed all the bits of GNU/Linux it believes to be ripoffs (it has to, in order to estimate the damages and to claim future royalties). So the Linux community cuts them out, does without some of them, and puts in a panic effort to do a cleanroom rewrite of those that are really necessary. I bet that if Torvalds, Stallman & Co. put out a "Save Our System" call, any really crucial bits of the system could be duplicated in three months.
And the Linux cimmunity could get back to growth as normal. This is because the FUD would have been dissipated. The harm being done by the SCO lawsuit hanging over GNU/Linux, and SCOs threatening letters, is far greater than the harm done by ripping out the offending code - if there is any. We, the Linux community, need a quick resolution.
In English law - I don't know about US law (and IANAL anywhere) - there is a duty on a plainiff in a civil case to take all reasonable steps to minimise any losses resulting from the harm being done to them. If you think I am infinging your copyright, you have a duty to tell me as soon as possible, not wait cackling while my potential fine piles up. If such an obligation exists in US law, SCO are not observing it. The cannot claim that every line of GNU/Linux is theirs. In fact, they cannmot claim that the fragnents allegedly stolen by IBM are crucial to the system, because it existed as a working system before IBM ever became involved. But they do claim that they have lost sales of their Unix product because Linux, incorporating their stolen code, is so good. It seems to me, therefore, that they have a duty to expose the code they allege to be stolen, and allow the Linux community to remove it. If their theory about the value of their code (if any) is true, Linux will drop in functionality and their sales will correspondingly recover; they may then claim for past, but not future, sales lost. In fact, I think that Linux would barely huccup. As I say, three months top level work by the community should repair all significant holes in the system.
So if anybody knows how to speed thes up, pleas tell. And for heavans sake, nobody do anything which could slow it down.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
> choose the most singificant single contributor: GNU.
What has GNU contributed to Linux? The GNU tools don't count since they a) predate Linux and b) according to the FSF are strictly intended for GNU and any use others make of their Free Software is just a bonus. So just what has the FSF/The GNU Project done with the express purpose of aiding the Linux based distributions? (Hint: there are some, but not many and those are often tangential. Certainly not a significant share though.)
I'm sorry but the FSF can't have it both ways, either they ARE still working on GNU and shouldn't be creating confusion by trying to stick that name to other people's unrelated work or should admit defeat and adopt one of the existing distributions into the GNU Project and rename it as the Official GNU System. Hell, they could fork RedHat and do the world a real favor by providing a freely redistributable version of a stable RedHat. I'd even BUY that from them if they didn't want per seat licensing.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you expect people to call it GNU it better have a GNU on the login screen, not a hat, lizard or penguin.
But to date, Linux is not GNU. As to the Linux the kernel and Linux the OS confusion, it really isn't. We all know what people mean when they use the word, and to date if it uses the Linux kernel and the distribution want to call it Linux and fly the penguin flag everyone accepts it as a new member of the Linux family.
In the end this is why they are so hysterical about GNU/Linux and don't give a crap about renaming Solaris to GNU/Solaris. Because of Linux, few people care anymore whether GNU ever ships a working system. Linux is a threat to their ego and their need to control. It is the penguin they hate, bacause in the marketplace of ideas more people consider themselves followers of the Penguin banner than members of the GNU herd.
(yea, bad pun)
The FSF has done some wonderful things, and will probably do more in the future, but I for one am glad things worked out where the FSF was never given that much control because like most fanatics they serve a useful purpose but should NEVER be given real power. (See current world affairs for examples.)
p.s. This isn't flamebait. If you disagree, point out where I'm in error instead of modding.
Democrat delenda est
I'd say their view of copyright law, software programming, and giving respect by calling things by their given name is considerably "grow[n] up". What you don't appear to understand is that SCO's language is purposefully unclear so they can leave their options open on what to sue for. The FSF was simply being thorough in their explanation by showing that SCO's language lead to a losing case.
No on both counts--their fear is probably closer to not having enough money to do all the things they want to do, and no you don't have any news for them. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know what contributions the GNU project has made to our community (ideological and programmatic). The political forces are at work challenge both the Open Source and Free Software movements and must be met by focusing our efforts on lobbying for political support, not just more code.
Getting a working GNU/Hurd system has been accomplished and looks to me like it is now in the stage where it is not ready for most computer users but it does boot. Improvements and extensions to the system (as well as getting the Hurd on a new microkernel) continue to arrive. This is all significant and needed progress but more code will not help stop harmful policies from being adopted under the cry of "harmonization" (such as EU adopting software patents or stopping the US Congress from extending the term of copyright again), nor will it stop various US states from adopting legislation that could (among other things) make it illegal to have a firewall unless the local telecommnications corporation says otherwise, or a host of other things that adversely affect our community. The FSF continues to speak on these issues and support Free Software development; the FSF is relevant nearly 30 years after they began.
Don't think that developing code must be done instead of working on other issues. All this and more needs to be done and is being done all at the same time.
Digital Citizen