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?"
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.
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.
Why is this a necessity? I don't care if businesses can use it or not. What I really care about is whether I can use it or not. So far Linux has provided me with a very inexpensive way of automating my house, building my own appliances and completely customizing my desktops for the ultimate usability. From my perspecitve Linux has been very successful from day one with it's injection into business being a less important and happy accident.
Sure, the assistance from corporate coders who have contributed to Linux has been wonderful. But it should be taken as it is: it's free, volunteer effort dedicated to the betterment of the human condition through computing. There is only one reason to be involved with Linux and one reason only: because you love computer technology and OSes for what they are: cool toys.
The thing that always irks me is the people who think that if Linux is going to "survive" it needs to somehow become this hugely popular OS that is commercially successful. This is not a requirement at all. It's a side effect of the dreck that has polluted American capitalism. Profit is not the only reason to do something. If anything profit should only be a side-effect in fair capitalism. That's real competition. Surviving by your own real abilities without putting any kind of spin on it. Microsoft puts a spin on everything because they have lost their center (or possibly never had it). For them the center is profit and the OS and software are secondary with the customer coming last. They only throw crumbs to the customer to keep them buying: "It's fixed this time. You just need to upgrade that's all!"
If you were to completely corporatize Linux, it wouldn't get any better. It would just *LOOK* better. That's the difference. Good looks are never a good substitute for quality. Those of us that eschew Windows and embrace Linux know this to be true.
Un-news
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.
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
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.