Slashdot Mirror
Is Licensing SCO Unix Legally Dangerous?
cheros asks: "I'm starting to get very puzzled by the SCO licensing scheme - am I mistaken or is licensing SCO actually about the most dangerous thing you can do as business or end user using Linux? [disclaimer: IANAL and AFAIK, so get decent legal council - I might be completely wrong ;-)]
If I buy a copy of Linux from a provider, my contract is with that provider, NOT with SCO. In other words, if said provider has supplied me with something dodgy (and that is still very much an open question IMO), the issue lies with SCO and the provider, not with me and SCO, as I have no contractual relation with SCO in any way, shape or form. So, licensing SCO might actually CREATE that relationship and thus enable SCO to play further games with enforceable contractual obligations, something it currently lacks with end users. If that is correct it puts SCO in an even worse light (if that's possible) as that could mean deception as well as FUD. The latter might have become accepted in business and politics, but the former might actually be illegal in some countries. In short, as far as I can see you don't actually have a problem as a Linux end user...until you get a license. Comments?"
SMS>Since IANAL, and 4 this U need AL, U should get AL.<\summary>
Seriously though, you're asking about the details of copyrights, sub-licensing and contract law on a site, which you have to admit, has shown it's opinion on this matter pretty strongly before.
If you are being pressured into buying an SCO license, how about you ask those that are pressuring you what exactly you are licensing? what rights does it grant you and how may those rights be revoked?
ie: Ask a lawyer. Don't ask slashdot.
/* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
Despite the stolen analogy, the guy above is absolutely right.
;=)
Why should I, a purchaser (if I spent the money) and user of a product who acquired said product from a distributor who is responsible for the software bundling/creation, be responsible for it's illegal origins?
It's the vendors who should be penalized for the wrong doing, not the user. If Microsoft added software to the Windows without the proper licensing, then Microsoft should be to blame, not I. If GM steals an IP idea from another auto maker and puts it into my new car, it's not I who has to cough up the car, it's GM who has to pay the penalty.
So why is it that SCO thinks the user gets the penalty, and not the originator of the software?
I'm so glad someone finally asked this important question.
Now, it's just a matter of waiting for the final outcome, and seeing what happens.
BTW, mod up the stereo thief.
The ownership of the code in question has NOT been decided, It could turn out that, as all /.ers know:
Sco
Copies
Opensource
In which case I would like to see all SCO customers getting letters from linux kernel developers for violation of their copyrights. Linux developers have the same legal claim over SCO software, that SCO has over Linux, until a court decides something one way or the other.
It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.
Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".
But why do I get the impression that you're going to keep talking anyway.
I am not a lawyer, and neither are most Slashdot posters, so you're probably on a hiding to nowhere if you really expect to get advice on a legal matter here...
Before I start, they haven't even started offering Unixware for Linux licenses yet - so why are you considering taking precipitate action. At the very least wait until they offer it! (and no I'm not advising you necessarily take it when they do)
At least one lawyer seems to think you should not contact SCO, but maybe that's just Australia!
A couple of other points have been raised from time to time:
1. If you download Linux from ftp.sco.com (or get a CD), then you are getting from SCO under a GPL license. Some might say it's the end of the story, but even if it's not... SCO supplied it to you under a GPL license which they claim to have rescinded or not accepted (even while distributing it) - what is to stop them also rescinding or saying that they don't accept (in future) whatever new license terms you get their stuff under? They've done it once (GPL), how do you know they won't do it again (Unixware license for Linux)
2. If you get Linux under some SCO license, you might be violating the GPL license of all the other kernel contributors (including individuals and large companies). If SCO gets destroyed, or even if not, as a result of this law suit, these people/entities could allege you broke their license, and sue you.... and I think yes they will find out who you are if they really want to, even if you SCO deal is confidential. The route they would take would (a) sue SCO, (b) get the list of SCO Unixware for Linux licensees from SCO through (a), (c) sue the Unixware for Linux licensees.
Quoted from the July 28th edition of Information Week magazine in an Article by Larry Greenmeier titled "Sco Group Threatens Users in Linux Fight" p.24 -- sorry, I couldn't find a link online.
-Derek
And in this article he mentions "contract" 12 times, but only mentions copyright once, and that's only in regard to removing copyright statements. It's almost as if he is being coy -- making it sound as if there is copyright infringement without ever directly saying it. In other interviews, he also avoids the word, choosing instead words such as "infringing" and "Intellectual Property". The SCOvsIBM page makes a similar observation:
An important thing to remember is that you cannot be sued over the contract that SCO has with IBM. Third parties cannot be held liable for contracts that they did not agree to. So if you have no contract with SCO, they can only sue you on the basis of copyright infringement. And you can only be sued for copyright infringement if you have copied or distributed something.Do you really want to give SCO a new avenue by which to sue you? Given that SCO has not shown any evidence that anyone has infringed their copyrights, I don't see why you'd want to do that. SCO hasn't been exactly acting in good faith recently; I don't know if I'd trust any contracts they write up. Here's what Darl McBride says about SCO's use of contracts against their partners and customers:
If I were you, I wouldn't even let them know that you use Linux. Why give them any evidence to use against you later? Try to stay off their radar.Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.