Slashdot Mirror
Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix
hexidec writes "Haven't seen this here yet, though I may have missed it. Anyway... A group of Australian techies have put together an analysis matrix of the likelyhood of each SCO Unix claim being true, and what outcome would most likely result if so. Puts a lot of the various recent suppositions in one handy place."
It's good that the FUD is being fought, but there could still be an effect which is not accounted for here.
Those ratings at the top indicating the likelihood of these allegations (or whatever you want to call them) don't really mean anything. They're just speculation and opinion, much like the 17,000 /. comments dealing with this whole deal. It reads nice and legal-sounding, but to me it looks like a table formatted thread straight off this site.
The argument contained within this table leans heavily on the "continued distribution of GPL code after realization of the consequences thereof". I believe they will try the "it took us time to remove it" argument, but that's pretty weak when you consider that the time elapsed isn't just the time from the public lawsuit, but that there must have been internal discussion as well...
Sig under construction since 1998.
Yeah, I know I will get modded down for just suggesting that SCO's action might have some effect, but well...
As long as we're mirroring it, anyone feel like transposing it from a 10-by-5 into a 5-by-10 table? Would make reading it MUCH easier.
It looked like they were pursuaded to pay more for the Redhat enterprise option rather than go with a cheaper SCO upgrade. The gist is that SCO was mired in rebranding, and not doing anything innovative or otherwise improving the product.
They had already determined that the crucial app would run well on either platform and the migration pain was not significant enough to mention.
You will notice that the purported decision matrix (implying a logical document with conclusions deduced by scientifc logic from given hypotheses) says at the bottom of all possible outcomes 'linux is unaffected'.
In case you hadn't guessed, this is far from the logical document the name suggests, but really a portrayal of one person's viepoint. The conclusion, namely that linux is unaffected in all cases is clearly false, as I can think, regardless of my own *opinions* of what chance such an event is said to have, that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.
There are many pro-Linux assumptions such as that Sco opened the source by distribution Caldera made any putative copyright violation legal since they were doing it themselves. This is an assumption you cannot make without a legal decision.
This document adds nothing to the debate - the only thing that will is a decision in a year or so's time in court, and in the mean time Sco can frighten people into not using Linux
I like this. All the uninformed and irrelevant speculation by armchair lawyers put into one slashdotted source. A great timesaver.
That said, we all know that in the long run Linux has to be unaffected. If they prove infringement a great deal of effort will go into producing non-infringing code. In the long run, it will be just fine. This is mainly about a dying company trying to get some money to pay the receiver.
For instance:
> SCO made initial IP claims against IBM in March 6th 20032, and only removed the source code to its Linux distribution in May 14th 20033 Thus SCO have gifted this code to the Linux community.
The author of this piece seems pretty sure Linux will be unaffected by the outcome of this case. What about this:
SCO realizes there is infringing code in Linux, but continue to release their distribution anyway. Perhaps they felt since their code was already infringed upon, why should they be punished in lost sales by pulling their product which was developed unknowingly with stolen code? Could it not be argued that once an invalid license always an invalid license? Since the infringing code was included without their permission, its license under the GPL was never valid.
To illustrate my point: Let's say Pepsi owns Nutrisweet and have patents on the artificial sweetener. Let's say they also resell Dr. Pepper products in their soda machines. Let's also say that Dr. Pepper developed their own artificial sweetener for Diet Dr. Pepper that infringes on some of Pepsi's IP. Once Pepsi finds out about it, are they required to pull all Diet Dr. Pepper from their machines, thus hurting sales and requiring extra man hours?
Obviously, this isn't a perfect example because you don't license a can of soda to a consumer. However, couldn't a good lawyer argue that the crime was done and the time period where SCO was releasing their code under the GPL was to give them time to "tie up loose ends" with that product line while minimizing the negative impact on their bottom line? It seems like a "victim" of such "theft" should be entitled to pick up the pieces within a reasonable time frame.
Just a thought. I just don't think we should be celebrating until the court case is over.
This whole thing reads like an exercise in assuming the outcome is "Linux is unaffected".
What if:
1: A court rules that SCO code has been put into Linux by someone other than SCO.
2: A court rules that the GPL is non binding upon source code previously released by SCO.
3: A court rules that any party using such source is and has been in violation of SCO's patents, and is open game for damages.
No matter what me, or you, or the author of this "matrix" thinks the GPL says, the only thing that matters is what a court decides it says.
We won't have a decision in a year. Think about how long the Microsoft case dragged out. IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
We can argue over the outcome of a lawsuit forever, but the damage has long been done. It's not about a lawsuit, it's about reputation. And Linux' reputation will be tainted for a very long time to come.
/., revolves around MONEY, and any way they can make it is acceptable.
Any company with an axe to grind towards Linux wants this story dragging on forever. For all we know, even IBM may be involved, as it gets a lot of media coverage over an issue that's not about their core business... You may have noticed this is all dragging on between large corporations. Their world, the world outside
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I think this logic is a simplification of the legal situation, and is being used as an ace-in-the-hole by author. The author is making the assumption that the court will agree with this catch all and so none of the other aspects of the case matter.
He should write another matrix with the assumption that the "donated to the GPL" argument has failed. That would be more interesting.
I don't think the SCO has a case, but I can at least imagine a scenario in which Linux would be affected.
Lasers Controlled Games!
First of all SCO has to proove that copyrights were actually infringed. Then after they proove that, which won't be easy, they will have to proove that their release of the code under the GPL was an accident. Neither one of these is easy to proove, and proving both would be an amazing feat.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I think that its important to mention this. SCO have only sued IBM in their belief that IBM as put this code into Linux. If IBM hasn't and SCO cannot prove it then this lawsuit is a done deal. Also, if SCO sues IBM and loses, I don't believe they have the right to sue someone else on the same terms. If they want to do this they have to sue IBM as well as any other potential entity with money that could of done it at the same time. (i'm not a lawyer, that was my understanding of the law though-in canada)
Also, If companies are running linux and IBM did put the code in the kernel and SCO proves this and wins then would SCO could be able to sue companies selling / distributing the offending kernel verions: I have my doubts. Cases like this set precedents in courts and any judge who wants to do that is going to have to come up with some colorful ruling so that companies who have an interest in slowing GPL distributed software could not easily & annonymously(to frame a competing body) ruin many GPL'd projects by entering in fraudulant code into the source. Meh.
Unfortunately SCO only has money to lose, money which they wouldn't have if this lawsuit didn't start: so they're ahead either way. Linux is already losing because of the uncertainties involved in this legal action. it is also scarey that IBM is allowing FUD to be spread. IBM should stand up and explicly deny the code copying instead of simply arguing that its AIX liscense is irrevocable. As fas as we can tell (the public) any programmer with access to a copy of the unix code in question could of submitted it. (is this right to assume, doesn't linus review the code and check off who submitted it?) IBM could easily deny its involvement and pass it off an anonymous source: the offending lines.
that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties
This is not true. SCO cannot force anyone to pay royalties *unless* there are patents involved (there aren't). Any SCO-owned code in Linux (if it exists) could be removed and replaced, and no royalties would be needed. The only entity that might potentially have to pay is IBM, and that would be damages rather than royalties.
Meeting:
Tech guy 1: Lets implement Linux, its free and robust.
Tech guy 2: Lets go with Windows, it costs more but there is that lawsuit which if SCO wins we might have to pay some undefined charges.
Boss: What lawsuit?
Tech guy 1: <goes on about how its fruitless and how SCO is the devil and blah blah blah repeating every Insightful post he's read on slashdot>
Boss: So Linux might or might not be infringing on someones code and we might be opening the company to legal action?
Tech guy 1: Yes but its just games that SCO...
Boss: Which version of Windows should we get?
So the longer this lawsuit goes on, the more decisions like this will have to be made.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Wrong, they knew about the code in March, they continued to distribute the software until May. Therefore, as per section 4 of the GPL:
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.
I quote Mr. Sontag, SCO will continue to support SCO Linux users and "hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products,". Long story short, they cannot only indemnify Caldera Linux users under the GPL, so they've effectively absolved all Linux users by absolving Caldera Linux users and freed the infringing code to the GPL in the process. Sontag should have kept his mouth shut because beyond the IBM suit, this case now has a 0% chance of succeeding, even if code was copied verbatim, barring having the GPL itself completely discredited.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
WHy don't the editors just link to the Google cache instead of the original page? Some sites are so small, this should be obvious.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
There is very exacting language in the GPL that states if any section/code is tainted then the whole license is invalid.
So, either the license is valid and thus all is GPL'd or SCO was illegally selling unlicensed work. (Either way they're in trouble.) You see, if they prevail on their case then they lost all rights to the rest of the code being distributed. Additionally, they continued to distribute the code (both clean and "tainted") in source code form with the GPL stamped on each file for two months beyond the time they made a formal legal challenge.
Your example fails unless you add in the following: in order to sell Dr. Pepper, Pepsi agrees that all contained ingredients are fully licensed and immune to any claims that they (Pepsi) might have against Dr. Pepper. You see this is the real crux of the matter.
By releasing the code, SCO obstensibly agreed to the terms of the GPL. It's kind of late to try and say "I didn't mean it" now.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I don't know why people keep bringing up the possibility of the GPL being illegitimate.
If the license is illegitimate, then the only thing that would remain is the legal rights of the copyright holders (the individual authors, or the companies they work for, or the EFF if the author transferred the copyright, etc.) In most countries, the copyright is automatic.
Since SCO distributed copyrighted code, they would have to explain under what license they were authorized to do so, or admit they violated the copyright. They cannot claim the GPL if it is invalid (obviously), so then they would have to secure the rights from all those people, companies, organizations individually, under the laws of dozens of countries. Since almost all the copyright holders would be hostile to licensing to SCO, they would demand outrageous fees for SCO's past and current distribution.
Besides, any legal means of breaking the GPL could be used against the software licenses of Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, etc. That is why those companies are so scared of the GPL, it cannot be attacked directly, without destroying their ability to distribute code under the control of a license.
Please note that only code introduced by *IBM* into *UNIX first* is effected by SCO's claims.
None of the code seems to be included in the kernel. Many distributions do not, and never *have,* included IBM's code.
Thus Linux itself and distros that do not include such code will remain entirely unaffected even if 100% of SCO's claims are found by a judge to be true.
At some point in the process SCO will have to take the possibly awkward step of *identifying* the specific bits of code they claim infringe.
Why do you think they have refused to so so far?
Because Linux could cleanse itself overnight and cease to infringe. i.e, Linux would be unaffected, and they know it.
They're actually trying to *force* infringment by denying Linux distros the *right* to not infringe.
This alone should indicate what slimey bastards they really are and lay doubt well at their doorstep.
KFG
As other posters have said, it is quite possible that a judge will in fact decide that Linux does infringe on SCO patents or copyrights or trade secrets or what-have-you. The mere fact that something doesn't make sense in no way means that the U.S. court system wouldn't decide that in that manner.
The GPL defense isn't completely one of "you released your code under GPL so it's free". The fact is that contrary to what SCO would have the world believe, even if their claims are true 99.9% of the Linux code was written by independant developers. In order to lawfully distribute the intellectual property of those developers (which SCO has done) they have to accept the condition of not imposing further restrictions on that code. Sure SCO owns "their" code and can put whatever restrictions they want on it, but they cannot combine "their" code with GPL code and distribute it under a restrictive royalty-based license. True they didn't actually combine the code themselves and may not have been aware of it at the time, but they cannot distribute a hybrid kernel to only their Caldera customers without violating the IP rights of all the kernel developers.
Just because the Linux kernel is distributed under a liberal license, that dosen't make the kernel developer's rights any less important than SCO's rights to the code they allege to own. The worst thing that can happen is that the offending code will have to be replaced. SCO cannot force another outcome upon the Linux community without effectively stealing the legitimate Linux code from its creators.
You're not quite correct. The GPL is actually not based on the same law that makes other software licenses valid. Most licenses for proprietary software are based on contract law, as they often attempt to restrict what you're allowed to do with the software beyond copyright limitations. This is what makes the whole "agreement" part necessary. Contract violations are rarely criminal, usually entail damages only, and are enforced in court by civil lawsuits.
The GPL on the other hand is not entirely based on contract law; if it were, it could theoretically be challenged in court for some form of gain, and would quite possibly have been long ago. Instead, it deals entirely within the realm of allowing you to do things that you are not allowed to do within copyright law. As the GPL is the only thing granting you the right to modify and distribute the software you cannot distribute the software without adhering to the terms of the GPL (unless you obtain specific permission to do so from the copyright owner). Violating the GPL means you've violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted material without permission and that possibly means a criminal violation (depending on local law and things like wether it was done for profit), with entirely different consequences. This is one of the reasons you dont see any cases of companies challenging the GPL; few lawyers, I believe, would recommend engaging in something that may very well end up with their clients broke and in jail (and hey, wanna bet the RIAA and MPAA will try to lobby in the death penalty for copyright violations soon?).
Due to these differences the GPL is probably more "valid" than most ordinary proprietary software licenses, and violations can carry far heavier penalties, depending on copyright law in the country where it took place.
a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.
No, he couldn't. He *could* decide the Linux kernel version whatever to version whatever are infringing and that folks are enjoined from using or distributing *those versions* since the breach of SCO's IP would force the cancellation of the GPL contract on them.
After that, it becomes a cat and mouse game, with SCO trying to collect from alleged infringers, Linux authors trying to collect from SCO for infringement, etc. Meanwhile, the infriging code having necessarily been identified, its removed from Linux, a non-infringing version is released and Linux as a whole motors on.
It would, however, be wise to make sure that none of your daemons explicitly identify the Linux version you're running.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Question: SCO has declared itself a victim of breach of contract by IBM, specifically WRT AIX. Why, then, is it attacking Linux so specifically and directly?
Answer: the goal of this exercise is to attack Linux, nothing else.
Question: why is IBM saying nothing?
Answer: they believe SCO might win, and are willing to sacrifice Linux if necessary.
Question: why is Microsoft saying nothing?
Answer: everyone knows they hate Linux, so no-one believes their propaganda any longer. They need a fresh mouthpiece. SCO is that mouthpiece.
Question: why is Microsoft so intent on harming Linux?
Answer: the goals of Linux and all OSS are nothing less than the total anhilation of Microsoft. War is not a nice thing. This is not a metaphor: we are talking about the lives of people you know.
Question: if it is war, how do we win?
Answer: this is a good question, and timely. You win wars by avoiding the battles you cannot win and by winning those you can.
Question: what is the ultimate goal of Microsoft?
Answer: the closure of the "development gap", in which the right to create code still lies in the hands of the individual. Ultimately, this power must be restricted to licensed programmers only. Nothing less than that makes sense. If your think this is exageration, look at other professions, then think about the public's perception of hackers, Linux kernel hackers, and virus writers.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
You should have told your boss that there is another alternative that has all the benefits of using linux with none of this legal nonsense called BSD.
Note that I am not saying BSD is better than linux, or that it is "not dead" or is "dead" or whatever. I'm just that perhaps pitching BSD might go over a little better with those who make decisions right now.
100% Crunchier
By the sounds of it the people backing SCO now are purely intersted in leveraging SCO's intellectual property rights, not actually making a product. My guess is that once this case is over, whichever way it goes, SCO will disappear.
Go out and get sailing!
The data they (Boies et al) used was from elections where the all the candidates they selected were in the same column - dumb fuck didn't even bother to look at the ballots used to try to "prove" voting error.
Boies's attempt to lawyer Gore into the Presidency was a piss-poor piece of lawyering that destroyed any chance Gore ever had.
Way to go SCO - get a guy who's most famous for his failures.