Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Position Paper on SCO and Linux
cshabazian writes "The OSDL has released a position paper raising serious questions about SCO Group's threatened litigation against end users of Linux. The position paper, which casts doubt on SCO's position, was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University."
The ODSL has released a position paper...
I'm really glad to see the Old Dominion Soccer League (ODSL) taking a kick at this. Hopefully they'll have the balls hang tough with SCO and score one for Linux lovers everywhere!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
So, I see at least Two Commandments broken here, Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, and Thou Shall Not Steal.
Sadly, I doubt the courts will apply any punitive measures, even when SCO loses. I think if the top SCO execs, and Bois, were to be publically flogged on the Washington Mall, we might see a return to ethics in the boardroom.
A. Rightmann
It all hinges on how fair you think reverse engineering is. The fact is, anyone should be able to come out with a competing product without worrying that any similarity will bring a huge lawsuit and patent problems. If you stole their secrets, that's another thing, but a competing product should not automatically be illegal.
stuff |
We all know what's going on. The people who really need to read this sort of paper are the PHBs-- the sort of people who would believe the latest Gartner Group rubbish stating that Linux should be avoided...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
One thing that hit me from the first paragraph: Why would they be going after the end users first, rather than the people who profit from their supposed patents? It's really starting to sound like FUD tactics against Linux. Why else would they try to scare people off of using it rather than getting $ that should have been theirs (that is, a legitimate copyright beef).
Call me a troll, but something like SCO case was actually needed by the Linux community. While the game was "just for fun", no one really paid attention to any licensing issues. However, currently we're experiencing major expansion of Linux-based systems into business field, and business executives usually ask about IP rights and responsibilities.
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify. If there is any verdict on the SCO case, it will allow the Linux OS to be treated more seriously than just a hobby operating system.
Now faced with the question "How does Linux deal with copyright issues and licensing?" one can always point to the SCO case (assuming that the trial gets resolved in IBM's favor) and quote the precedent, which is usually good enough in the US.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
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.
Agree with it or not, at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable. -Derek
--Chag
I was working for several years at SCO, and was the lead developer for their SMP module. Anyway, I was also good friends with Linus Torvalds at this time. Once I was working at home, and he came round to visit me. Anyway, when I got back to work, I noticed that my printer's paper tray was empty. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I guess Linus must have printed off a copy of the code, and used that for Linux SMP support.
No idea why he didn't just ftp it to himself. I guess the guy never was too hot when it comes to computers.
1. where's the evidence of infringement?
this is the key argument: without evidence of infringement they clearly have no claim.
2. you can't charge a license fee to users
this has to be correct: if there has been a breach of SCO's copyright then SCO has a right to sue the Linux distributors. It has no right to charge or sue Linux users.
3. SCO distributed the allegedly-copyrighted work themselves, and have therefore licensed it under GPL
I'm not sure it's no simple. SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing. This is a tricky question under English law; I've no idea what the US position is but doubt it is straightforward.
void complaint = NULL; sorry, it won't compile.
There's an easy way to avoid this: go to your user settings and tell it not to put stories about Caldera on your home page. Seriously, the tools are there, use them.
The deal is, AT&T had a 'standard' contract for licensing Unix, which IBM, Sequent, and other companies signed. Sun Microsystems didn't, they purchased their license outright, and thus don't have a contract (or something, not really important but sun can do whatever it wants.)
The standard contract said that AT&T has rights on any changes you make to your Unix code, IBM got a special amendment to the contract stating that they owned any changes they made to AIX. but Sequent did not, and Sequent, not IBM developed the tech that SCO is bitching about (NUMA, RCU, ETC). IBM, SCO and Sequent were all working together on project Monterey, which was supposed to be an 'industry standard' Unix, but IBM lost interest in Monterey, purchased Sequent and left SCO out to dry (now, this was the 'old' SCO, not Canopy/Caldera SCO).
Anyway, SCO thinks that it owns the contracts because it owns the original Unix IP (or at least the copyrights anyway, none of the patents)
In fact, the person who wrote the RCU code for Dynix (or whatever Sequent's *nix was called) for Sequent is the sameperson who wrote the RCU code in Linux for IBM.
but, and here's the thing, Sequent developed it's tech independent of Unix. RCU and that stuff would work on any modern OS's kernel. They published their papers and filed their patents before they implemented it in their own version of Unix.
So the issues are:
Did the contract rights really transfer to SCO?
Does the "naked" contract Sequent signed mean all their tech is owned by SCO now? Does it mean that the "naked" contract mean that any technology that you develop, and later put into a Unix clone automatically become the property of SCO?
Does IBM's special contract apply to stuff they acquire from other Unix vendors?
The answers to these questions aren't totally obvious, although to me they should mostly go to IBM's favor here. On the other hand, the claim that SCO owns all of Unix is ridiculous. The proper thing to do is tell everyone what files are infringing and then have them rewritten by the community. SCO seems to claim now that anyone who touches any Licensed Unix code, or any code by anyone who has touched any Licensed Unix code has sold their soul to them, which is just idiotic.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Here is some more legal commentary. It seems to dispute some of the OSDL's position - but comes up with other reasons why SCO's case may be flawed.
Here's another lawyer (Australia), saying don't "drop your pants" to SCO.
Finally, here's IBM planning a response to SCO's amended complaint. Once again SCO's web site seems to omit some important issues.
You guys always complain about bias when the Gartner Group etc., releases a study about how Microsoft is better at this or that.
But I don't see anyone complaining that the OSDL certainly has a vested interested here and is hardly to be expected to provide an unbiased report.
Discuss.
You must be new here. And a little ignorant to boot.
/. to the article, not by the author of the article referenced as you appear to believe.
The author of the article (Egen Moglen) is an extremely well known IP lawyer. He has been the general counsel of the FSF for about 10 years. He has contributed more the Open Software movement than it's likely you ever will, and by several magnitudes. Go listen to him talk sometime, you may find it educational, he's a Very Neat Person.
The typo you complained about was made by the guy who alerted
Why do you want those soccer moms and kids to get slashdotted?
This is probably because what those jocks did to you in high school, eh?
Forgive and forget, man.
Forgive and forget.
Or, is it maybe some pension fund or something like that with corrupt management "investing" in the SCO stock, helping their PHB pals at SCO?
Conspiracy!
(Well, that would make more sense than most other explanations...)
- Code deliberately licensed by SCO under the GPL
- Secret code copied into the GPL by a third party
Moglen seems to be claiming that since SCO has distributed Linux after discovering its secret code, and thereby accepted the GPL licensing of Linux, it must therefore have accepted that its secret code is also now licensed under the GPL. Its odd that Moglen never actually quotes the GPL itself, although he does cite it.Obviously the licensing of certain code under the GPL by an organisation does not infect everything else published by that organisation. If the secret code exists in the kernel then SCO retains copyright and has not licensed anything.
The only clause that might "infect" the secret code with GPL-ness is the derivative works clause. Section 2 of the GPL states:
So if SCO has modified a stock version of the kernel to create a derivative work then it automatically licenses everything in that new derived work, and all works subsequently derived from it, under the GPL. In theory this applies whether a human being at SCO spotted the secret code or not, although I'm not at all sure that such an argument would stand up to the legal principle that you can only agree to something if you consciously know you are agreeing to it. However, having modified the kernel (creating a derivative work) and then distributed that derivative work, or one further derived from it, knowing that it contains the secret code, it does seem that SCO has indeed licensed the secret code under the GPL.
Moglen states that SCO has dontated chunks of code the Linux kernel. Torvalds has stated that it will be very easy to find out who contributed what in the past. So, can we find out exactly which bits of code were granted by SCO, and if it did indeed create a derived work that would trigger section 2b of the GPL?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
but I don't how this adds anything that wasn't already said.
Hmmmmmm...I think it adds the credibility of a lawyers expert opinion. Now I think that adds something to the argument. IANAL is a big joke around here, but its true. We are not lawyers. You can quote common sense all you want, but if a lawyer agrees with you, then your opinion may truly count in the only place this will eventually matter - the courtroom.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
I can't believe the moderators were silly enough to moderate this up. Perhaps
... there are still rampent copies of illegal windows installations running all over the place, as the BSA is all too willing to exploit and emphesize. Virtually every client I've done work for ... my current employer excepted thanks to our meticulous internal audits conducted by yours truly ... has been running numerous unlicensed programs, including Windows) and then write off any copyright or patent concerns as someone elses problem.
... hardly an outcome that will undue years of repetition of untruthful innuendo and FUD that Linux and free software will have to try and combat in the meantime.
Call me a troll, but something like SCO case was actually needed by the Linux community.
I don't believe you are a troll, so much as woefully (perhaps willfully?) ignorant of recent free software and open source history. I could speculate on an agenda you might push with such a reasonable sounding, but factually incorrect, comment, but as you are an Anonymous Coward it is pointless to do so. The moderators who modded this +5 on the other hand are fair game, and almost certainly Microsoft/Sun astroturfers in local garb.
While the game was "just for fun", no one really paid attention to any licensing issues.
Untrue. Linus released the original kernel he wrote under the GPL quite deliberately. Even then he was paying attention to licensing issues and their impact on his project (though he never dreamed of the magnitude of that impact).
RMS has always paid meticulous attention to licensing issues. Recall KDE/qt's GPL issues, that resulted in the creation of a competing project (gnome). Trolltech eventually addressed those issue, and KDE today is legal and solidly licensed under the GPL, but that entire process was a prime example of the community addressing licensing issues long before business issues were the driving force.
However, currently we're experiencing major expansion of Linux-based systems into business field, and business executives usually ask about IP rights and responsibilities.
Actually, that is rarely true. Business executives purchase a license (or not
This despite the fact the neither Microsoft, nor anyone else, offers any substantive indemnification to end users against 3rd party lawsuits (Redmond PR comments notwithstanding).
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify.
Linux has been playing by the rules, meticulously and in a very open manner. The SCO case isn't going to 'clarify' this, as it is a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. Quite the contrary, the SCO FUD and misinformation, which contradicts itself from one day to the next, is doing anything but muddy the issue with as much misinformation as they can squeeze into a daily press release.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
Long term you may be correct. In the ensuing years however it will have the opposite effect, do to a gaping flaw in the US legal system that allows companies to spread disinformation and FUD without legal consiquence (one can "allege" anything, even with zero evidence). Contrast that with the laws of more reasonable countries, such as Germany and Australia, where doing this sort of thing can and does land one in hot water.
Worse, legal disputes that have dragged on for years usually rate one report ("SCO Lost, IBM vindicated") and are no longer news
The result is that this is a net-negative for Free Software and Linux, and is clearly going to be the tactic employed by Our Masters in their efforts to divide and conquer those of us uppity enough to recognize and exploit economic value in cooperation, rather than cutting one anoth
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
IAAL - and I do software licensing & copyright.
Prof. Moglen makes the point that mere use of a program doesnt infringe the copying provisions of the Copyright Act. That may or may not be the correct analysis, noonetheless its worth pointing out that this is only true for US law. UK readers may be interested to note that under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act section 17(6) (here)the making of transient or incidental copies is an infringing act i.e. the mere act of loading it into RAM.
In the UK therefore users of 2.4 kernels would not have this defence if SCO is right. The same may be true elsewhere in the EU.
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
I read the article, and it always amazes me how (although basically simple concepts) complicated open licences and copyright structures are when theyre actually written down by a lawyer. Now wonder SCO is having some success with nervous and uninformed organisations.
There always seems to be a disclaimer with articles like this that the author is not giving legal advice - is it an American thing? For the author not to be responsible for any legal action you take after reading such information?
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Just as there are many types of medical experts so there are many types of lawyer. A professor of law such as Eben Moglen is very different from a trial lawyer.
Which would I rather have? It depends, just as with medicine. If I've just been diagnosed with cancer I'd like to see an oncologist, if I've just had an axe embedded in my head I'd rather see a trauma specialist.
Eben Moglen is an expert in his field and works quietly (and by all accounts very effectively) behind the scenes to ensure that the best possible legal framework is in place to protect the FSF code. You will note that no FSF code has not been attacked by SCO. A professor of law would definitely be best for drawing up licenses and covering all the bases.
On the other hand, a trial lawyer would be a far better person to have if you are about to accuse someone of breaking a license or have to defend such an action.
Both have their place. Being a professor of law doesn't mean he has to win court cases, it means he understands the law, can interpret the law, and can protect his clients appropriately. You will also note that SCO have not attacked the GPL, they just claim that their release of "protected" code was inadvertant and therefore not covered by the GPL.
Anyone else notice that the NasDaq Summary Quotes for SCOX nasdaq.com has a article link at the bottom called /K I L L K I L L K I L L -- The SCO Group/ ? I wonder if it works?
GPL or no GPL, Scaldera put their name on that stuff, charged money for the programs and support of those programs. If their claims of not knowing what they were selling are true, that's gross negligence on their part, and anyone who actually paid for licensing or support ought to be looking into getting their money back.
Isn't it just as valid to say AT&T UNIX is a derived work of MULTICS?
Who owns the copyright to MULTICS, Honeywell.
So if Honeywell would just start send letters to all of SCO's customers (both of them) demanding they buy a license...
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major