Slashdot Mirror
Is the SCO Lawsuit a Good Thing for Linux?
Jack William Bell writes "The National Post is running an essay by Wynn Quon entitled 'Linux's lucky lawsuit'. In it Quon claims that (A) SCO is going to lose (saying ". . . SCO is a toad about to face a steamroller.") and (B) the Linux community needs exactly this kind of 'inoculation' as the OS moves from a hobbyist platform to a real business tool. Good analysis or unwarranted optimism?"
Let's face it; Linux is cool and everything, but its not very usefull for most businesse today the way it is today with all the distros in economy problem and with only freelance coders.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
It's hard to imagine ANY scenario under which SCO comes out a long-term winner on this. Maybe they thought IBM would buy them out to shut them up, but it's clear that they were dead wrong on that (anyone who's familiar with IBM's litigation history could'v e told them how unlikely that was... if IBM settled nuisance suits, they'd have them coming out of the woodwork).
It would be interesting to see the GPL tested in court, though.
``If Linux is to survive, it is imperative that its license, the obnoxious GPL, is tested in court''
Thats exactly the point. And if GPL suceeds, linux wins, then business will not hestitate to accept, invest and use it.
This rather defeats the point of Open Source/Free Software, i.e. adapting the work of others and passing it on. I would be surprised if any insurance company would cover the risk, especially with an ongoing lawsuit and associated FUD.
OTOH the multimedia project I am working on I was grooming for Linux and when this story broke the PHBs got cold feet and XP'd the idea.
Contrary to the popular belief, the SCO case never was and never will be about the GPL.
However, why the SCO case could indeed be a good thing for Linux is that people, managers and businessmen could wake up and realize that the GPL is a true "no sue" license.
The risk of getting fined by the BSA is much higher than any risks from the GPL. (Actually there simply are no risks from a user's point of view. As long as you don't redistribute, there is no risk because there is no way to violate the license.)
In times in which many companies spend a significant portion of their revenue on lawers, a no-sue, no-IP-bullshit license like the GPL is exactly what is needed for a lot of companies.
He basically implies that IBM did put SCO code into Linux. In reality, IBM put code into Linux that IBM/sequent had created and then contributed to Unix.
The real problem is wether IBM turned over all rights to that code to Unix at that time. This is a contract dispute with SCO, not a patent/copyright issue. Unfortunatly, SCO is trying to make it something that it is not.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For sure not. ``Corporations are Evil''. They are adapting to the situation very quickly to make profits - either short or long term. For example from some point of view SCO strategy was very risky short term strategy. While IBM has other plans. Who knows? In this game players change sides very often...
Linux was born and has grown up out of a desire for und users, like us, to have another choice for a fast, stable and feature filled OS.
When businesses begin to see linux as a source of revenue is when they will take steps to protect their slice of the pie.
I ask you this, what if MS developed a version of linux and added a closed source kernel driver that would be required to run MS Office for linux?
This would be completely legal, businesses would be interested in running the MS linux because of the mountains of free software out there plus 100% compatibility with MS Office.
The "business" market taking a serious interest in linux will only be bad in the long run.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You can have an oppinion and still sit on a jury.
Works both ways as the defendant might wish you to be there if you support them or the plaintif might if you support them. At times they want informed jurors and as long as you agree to listen to the law as instructed by the judge, you might get on the case.
Been there, done that. Several times.
The article wasn't saying a lawsuit is good, but that a lawsuit with this plaintiff is relatively good. A relatively bad one would be with Microsoft.
There's always a bully, whether in business, school, on the street, or in dealing with foreign nations. If you have no prominence, your battles will be few and/or minor. Linux is now big, and it has attracted the attention of others in a big way.
I think this lawsuit will be painful, but Linux could in fact come out stronger. IBM continues to push Linux as strongly as ever. To the outside world, they didn't even flinch when the AIX cease and desist date came and passed. They continue to advertise Linux in prominent business magazines. The IBM legal machine is already engaged for the battle. Now Red Hat and SuSE are going against SCO in the US and German courts, respectively.
IBM can and will continue to fight SCO, and will probably win in court, though there are no guarantees. Linux may come out with what might metaphorically be a bloody nose, but that's life.
The battle needs to be fought such that the next bully thinks twice before swinging at Linux.
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
The one lawsuit which may well be useful (Never, I hear from the back...) is IBM's defence of the GPL.
I'm no legal expert and don't claim to be, but in the anglo-driven computer world, I think that having a prior case of the GPL standing up in court will be of great use.
Now we just need to see SCO lose, and ideally very quickly. In the meantime it's fun watching all the companies using Linux get together to gang up and bitch slap them.
I look forward to following the future careers of the SCO executives who surely will find themselves utterly unemployable by *anyone* after this? I know I wouldn't touch any of them with a barge pole.
If the conspiracy people are right and microsoft is behind SCO's misadventure, it doesn't matter wheather this turns out good or bad its just the begining. Microsoft has never gotten anything even close to right on the first try. Windows 1.0, XL, Word, powerpoint, Internet explorer, If they deem its important though they just funnel money from their monopoly cash cows into making it right. Seeing as this attack has cost them maybe 7 or 8 mil and has managed alot of pain you can expect to see a whole lot more untill open source is in bad enough shape for them.
There are a number of things that need to be tested in court and the SCO case will cover most of them... we need to see the GPL tested (as you say), we also need some precedent set around the use of IP in OSS projects, this case also looks like it has the potential to cover some of that ground as well.
The SCO case is likely to be the first in a string of similar cases, the outcome of this one will help other companies decide how they want to proceed with other perceived IP violations. The more the merrier.
In the long run OSS is not going to survive or succeed on good will and enthusiasm, it needs some legal standing and legal understanding before larger enterprises will commit whole heartedly.
I may be able to open-source all my employers products by slipping in a few lines of some-GPLed routine. yikes!
I think in that case, your employer (once this breach was discovered) could simply remove the GPL'd code.
Remember, most companies don't release the source code to their software. So, to cause a real problem, you would have to do like SCO, and actually release your employer's codebase under the GPL.
He might be able to sue you because you weren't authorized to release it. This case will tell us if he can sue people who use his "GPL'd" code after you had released it.
Wasn't it a statement from a securities analyst from Deutsche Bank that was being waved by SCO as their latest "Look, someone believes us, they REALLY believe us!" PR ploy? And isn't that guy a bit out of the loop at DB if he doesn't know his IT department has deployed Linux and the rest are happily discussing SuSE?
So far the GPL is NOT being tested; it is being deployed as weapon.
Red Hat and IBM are both using the GPL to reign in SCO's actions. SCO has not tried to contest the GPL in court (yet). And if it does they will lose.
In fact, Red Hat and IBM are both using it offensively by pointing out that SCO's attempts to license its IP in the kernel violates the copyrights of everyone else who has contributed to it. The GPL comes into play because none of the other contributors to the code have granted the right of distribution under any other terms.
IBM and Red Hat are holding SCO accountable to the terms of the GPL, so this is a really not a defense of the GPL -- it's an enforcement of the its terms. That's all.
Let's be realistic about this. Neither has much money to start with. If SCO wins, Red Hat's Linux will cost $1,500 per user, and SCO'll be demanding back-pay. Since Red Hat's been earning $70 per box sold, never mind those downloaded or copied, Red Hat'd be finished. There is absolutely no way they can pay that kind of money. They simply don't have it.
On the flip side, if SCO loses... There are a lot of people suing SCO as it stands, and you wouldn't need many class-action suits to follow for SCO to fold. Unlike the tobacco giants, there are no major lobbyists backing SCO, and no State in the US has its entire economy riding on it. Don't expect an appeals court to side with SCO, if there are substantial fines levied.
There is a follow-on impact, though. SGI's future largely depends on Linux. That's why they've backed it so heavily, with both code and hardware. IBM have done the same, but they can survive the loss of their Linux range, the same way they've survived the loss of any other range (eg: PS/2, OS/2). SGI probably wouldn't. They don't have enough in the bank to survive another major blow.
Oracle, Sun, Intel... these have also invested substantial amounts in Linux, and would all lose significant sums of money if SCO wins.
If SCO loses, the reverse is true. These companies will be seen as having a competitive edge over their rivals. They will also likely share in any pay-outs by SCO, because of their investments. Free money is never a bad thing for a company. It looks good to investors, too.
There is the argument that any publicity is good publicity. But the Governments of Germany and Peru won't see it that way, if they end up with a large bill to pay. Again, though, the reverse is also true. If SCO loses, you can expect Governments to pull out of contracts with SCO, because SCO will be seen as a lame duck, about to become a very dead duck.
But what will those machines run? With the economy still bad, nobody is going to suggest replacing one expensive OS with another expensive OS. That would make Linux an obvious candidate. It's cheap to install, it works on the same hardware, and it's the one that's getting attention.
Right now, all that anyone can really say is that it'll make or break somebody. Who that somebody is -- that's to be determined. It could so easily swing either way, and that makes it a dangerous thing to bet on.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Enter SCO, threatening IBM's core business through its crow-jewels AIX if IBM don't drop Linux like a hot potato. One could have no greater example to point business-heads to than that IBM stands up for Linux when faced with lawsuits affecting its beloved AIX.
So let's look at the facts. On the desktop there is little current risk. All SCO is asking is that if a user wants to use Linux (and I do not even know if they are specifically taking about the kernel or GNU/Linux) that you pay them $700. There is no talk about annual payments, or forced upgrades, or anything. One could imaginable switch to a MS product or Sun or whatever. In fact, the biggest risk seems to have nothing to do with OSS. The biggest risk is to those people who have shelled out money for IBM kit and will not have an OS if AIX becomes unavailable.
Now let's look at the risks for a company running, say, MS software. You can be audited anytime, and if found in violation of copyright, be fined multiple times the price of the software for all machines. Saying I'm sorry and switching to Linux will not stop the fine. Now, since hardly anyone can for sure say they have every single license for every single piece of software on every single machine, the BSA has a deal. Let us install a piece of software that will monitor the machines and report back to us all the software you use. MS then has a deal where you pay them a increasingly chunk of change every year to license every product, even if you only need some of the product, and even if you don't have the resources to physically upgrade the computers every year. Oh, and if you were thinking of donating those computers for a tax write off, forget about it. No one will take them because we will immediately audit them and try to find a way to fine both of you for violations of copyright.
So, ok, what is the more risky OS.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Here's the introduction: This page provides the article in the UBB code that some message boards use, with plain text coming soon. I'm also starting to post examples of letters that others have sent to their Attorney's General.Thanks for your help.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Nice sentiment, but this case isn't about testing the GPL, it's about claims of stolen IP.
;-) But again, IANAL.
It is about both. SCO released Linux under the GPL and are therefore bound by it. This licence is part of what is being tested-- as are SCO's trade secret allegations (which are bunk, IMO-- you can't publish something on your web site and then call it a trade *secret,* and I doubt that you can publish your code on your web site and then complain when a partner publishes their code on their website either).
If I understand correctly, and IANAL, the SCO suit basically states that the IBM license forbid them from releasing code that IBM owned into Linux.
SCO is basically claiming that IBM didn't steal their IP so much as they acted to destroy SCO. SCO can't complain about Linux development at a time when they were doing the same thing.
At least with Sun vs Microsoft Sun alleged that Microsoft was trying to destroy the product that they were further developing (Java). The claim that by further developing product A that I am developing too (and we are licensing to eachother) you are trying to destroy me strikes me as strange to say the least. Especially when both sides acknowledge that they were trying to make Linux do the same things (become more scalable, suitable for the enterprise, etc).
The more I look at it the more I am convinced that SCO has a good chance of getting summary judgement against them, and being laughed out of court. If it goes to a trial, they are going to look like extreme fools, unless they care to ammend the complaint again
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How does this work, can it only be voided in court if it violates some constitutional right? I bet the Microsoft EULAs are a zillion times more vulnerable to legal objections than the GPL.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
if the GPL wins, and the court conclusion is that anything with GPL code in it is GPL, then business will be very scared indeed. I may be able to open-source all my employers products by slipping in a few lines of some-GPLed routine. yikes!
This sounds like FUD from Microsoft if I've ever heard it!
You can not force your employer's code to be GPL by merely incorporating GPL code into it.
This has happened before. The FSF website even discusses this eventuality. The copyright authors of the code could sue your employer for copyright violation for putting the code into your employer's product in violation of their license, but that does not make the employer's product become GPL.
In any case, there is nothing extraordinary to fear here. Putting anyone else's code into your employer's product, in viloation of the license is most likely to get your employer sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole some Microsoft code and put it into your employer's product? Let's say, you get some "shared source", and in blatent violation of the license, you put it into your employer's code? They / you will get sued.
What do you think would happen if you stole, say, Apple's code and put it into your employer's product in violation of Apple's copyright, without authorization (i.e. a license)?
So why is the GPL to be especially feared? In fact, the GPL authors are much more likely to be reasonable. You can probably settle with them easily by removing the GPL violation and apologizing.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
This whole SCO business has nothing to do with the survival of SCO, the GPL, the 3 billion from IBM, or the $1400 license fees from you. That's all cover for what's REALLY going on.
I have one question: WHERE IS BOIES? You remember him right? Mr. Bigshot lawyer guy? Showed up on the first day of the filing and disappeared. Why is it that he hasn't told his client Darl(ing) to STFU and handled the responses himself? That's what a responsible, caring lawyer would do. That's what a lawyer not rented for a single DAY would do. I'll tell you what - this has all been a show.
All of this has been to pump up the stock so Darl and his cronies can dump it and enjoy life in some warm climate somewhere. All these claims of IP and GPL violations are cover for the real criminal activity. These guys are destroying SCO and they know it - have known it for some time.
I feel for the employees, the duped stockholders, and even those stupid enough to purchase a single useless license from these guys. One can only hope for a class action, but history shows (check out the corporate histories of Commodore, Ameritrain, Enron, Worldcom), the big guys of these types of companies rarely do time.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I will be interested to see what kind of argument SCO comes up with to defend their behavior. They obviously believe that the terms of the GPL just don't apply to them and that they can continue to distribute linux despite their present lack of permission to do so. My guess is that they think (incorrectly) that they have found a loophole in the GPL that allows them to license object code under more restrictive terms. Even if that were correct, they have a problem because their conflicting license expressly prohibits redistribution and the creation of derivative works. So they are violating the GPL even if their lame object code argument is correct. My other guess is that they will claim that all of Linux became a derivative work of system v when the offending code was inserted, and its derivative status makes it the property of SCO. They can issue the new license because they own all of the code in Linux in the first place. I don't believe that any judge would go for that since it does not even resemble the legal definition of a derivative work. I guess the last option is that they are all smoking crack and decided to come up with a plausible argument later on. They can't be hoping to just void the GPL outright, because that would mean that they are distributing linux without any license at all. That is the greatest strength of the GPL, IMO, because you can't argue that it is unlawful without also arguing that you are violating someone elses copyright.
I know it sounds odd, but I think this is making a Linux even more famous than it was before. Now all of my non-technical friends are asking me questions about Linux, UNIX, BSD, and what not. In fact, one of my friends who is a non-CS guy wants to install Redhat on his computer because of all the hype he's being hearing. Everyone seems interested in the "other" OSes. Yeah, "those.." :)
Because it's pointless?
Because SCO won't tell us what the allegedly infringing code portions are?
Because SCO says that even if the code was re-written it would still be using "UNIX methods and concepts" that SCO "owns"?
Because SCO says there's so much infringing code that the kernel wouldn't work if it was all removed?
Finally, because SCO makes such broad, grandiose, and vague claims that it's pointless to even try to guess which code portions they're talking about.
In other words, it's just... pointless.
>ne thing to keep into perspective here. IBM has only 1 motive here.
>It's profit. Everything that it does ultimately comes down to does it
>make business sense to do something. I beleive that it does make sense
>for IBM to join the fight (or maybe do the majority of punches), but
>IBM isn't doing this because it's the "right" thing to do.
>
You don't get what's ironic here do you? IBM is using the GPL in part to defend work it created. For years this is something people like you claimed would never happen, because companies like IBM would never accept the GPL.
Small wonder anti-GPL types like you are now so freaked out.