Slashdot Mirror
SCO Attorney Declares GPL Invalid
chrullrich writes "According to heise (German, fishbait), SCO's chief counsel Mark Heise (unrelated) of Boies, Schiller and Flexner has declared that the GPL violates the US copyright law and is thus null and void. SCO's legal position is actually a little too crazy to believe: The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid. Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy." There's an Inquirer article in English. Apparently SCO is now using the Chewbacca Defense. Other SCO news: SCO reports a profit, examining SCO's contributions to Linux, an attorney summarizes the case.
go here http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome
and check Caldera under topics, then hit save.
I'm sure i'm not the only one tired of these sco articles.
They're trying to say that if I create something (it doesn't have to be a software program, call it a book) that I can't allow other people to copy it? What baloney!
I see no mention of how many copys are allowed from the ppl that wrote the law here.
Parahpased/loosely transcribed events of the SCO financial conference call (I was multitasking on other work). It is biased, but you should get the gist of things.
rah rah rah
go sco
we made money. our market cap went from 10 million to over 140 million making it one of the leaders on the Nasdaq (Go lawsuit go!).
we r the "leader" in the Unix market.
over 100 parties have seen the code
our linux license was based on "demand". LOL. (because people who came and looked at the code inquired as to whether they would offer a license). that's demand?
companieS have been signing up! (no mention of who or how many). I didnt know ONE was plural.
4Q revenue to grow to 22-25 million due to ScamSource licensing
there are two Operating System platforms in the world. Windows and Unix. Microsoft owns Windows, we own Unix. We don't have a VERSION of Unix, we own ALL of it.
we will see this case through to the end despite what our competitors say (red hat: unmentioned by name).
the industry is being divided into two camps: those who respect IP and the those who are trying to destroy it. the "silent majority" is firmly behind SCO.
legal position is ROCK SOLID.
we continue to gain in credibility.
Q&A:
Budgeted Legal Expenses?
We have spent less than half of what we budgeted so far. Million/quarter range. 600,000-700,000 so far. they include these costs in as "costs of sales".
Guidance on First Linux License you sold?
Confidential. sorry, no.
The GPL
building your company around a GPL licensed software is like building your HQ on quicksand.
Even Linux companies that are pro-Linux are scared that their code "will get sucked into the GPL machine". Pure FUD.
Linux License
If you bought SCO linux, the binary license will be given to you for free.
Our "heritage line of software" wont grow but not because everyone hates us and thinks the product sucks, but because of the global economic slowdown.
Do you have new licensees?
Umm, hmmm, hummina, ermmmm, we are projecting we will for next quarter!
More GPL
When we were more involved in Linux, companies came in and said "how can you get involved with this beast.
There is NO WARRANTY in the license. This is problematic.
We look forward to going into a courtroom and dealing with these GPL licenses. We are very confident.
Insider Trading
When their shares vest, it causes the executives a tax event and this is the only way they can pay those taxes.
Darl McBride
My goal is to get money back on the shares I put into the company in 2000. The strike price on those is 56 dollars a share.
rofl. Good luck buddy.
Copyright dictates that the copyright holder has final say on who, exactly, will have permission to copy a work. The single backup copy issue is "fair use", and has nothing to do with this.
The GPL works *WITH* copyright by telling recipients that the author has explicitly granted them permission to further distribute their works only so long as they comply with the terms of that license. If they do not wish to comply to those terms, they do not have permission from the author to distribute. End of story.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What about this:Desmond McBribe...
anyway something serious:
For the USA Copyright law: here
See paragraph 106 wich says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and toauthorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Sounds clear to me....
Because copyright law is well known and determined by the Berne convention.
Here are the pertinant facts
You cannot loose your copyright on something that you wrote. It is yours for life unless you assign it to someone
You can ceed it to someone else under a license, but your protection under copyright prevents them from every taking that license off you.
When you work for someone the copyright on the work you produce during the time that they pay you belongs to them, and they can do what they want with it. It is not clear what determines the copyright of items created for a company.
Copyright applies to code, text, music and video.
Copyright has a stronger status than a patent in law because it is easier to prove a violation of it (here is the *copy* that you have made instead of here is the *idea* you used) But items that are copyrighted by someone can be protected by a patent, and licensed items can be protected by patents. This is the killer for Linux and will be how people get it if they every get it, because if someone has a patent on a GPL'ed item they will be able to enforce that patent on derivitive works that are not covered by the GPL and it is argueable that a rewritten class is separated from the initial license because the copyright has now passed to the author of the rewrite (who can grant a license to the copyright, but not to the patent)
--------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
What the law establishes is a floor - no license can prohibit the purchaser from making at least one backup/archival copy. Some vendors have tried to get around it by declaring the original media to be that single allowed archival copy, but I doubt that would stand up to a laugh test if it got to court.
It's common practice for lobbyists to try to convert floors into ceilings and vice versa during deliberation. That's why you'll occasionally see a group fight hard for a bill then suddenly oppose it - somebody managed to flip the sense of the bill. But you can't do that after the fact, especially for a product you don't own or produce. It's a silly as, oh, Red Hat claiming that copyright law prohibited any company from purchasing and installing more than a single copy of any Windows product.
If somebody rejects the GPL, they don't have the right to make or distribute ANY copies of the software.
(IANAL, but this is basic stuff that everyone should know.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Preemption of a license agreement is a dead loss argument these days. The Federal Circuit took up that question in a far more important context: enforceability of a no-reverse-engineering provision. Their answer: no preemption.
In the Bowers v. Baystate opinion , the Federal Circuit considered the enforceability under Copyright preemption of a shrink-wrap no-reverse engineering provision. They held that there can be no preemption of a contract, even if it flies squarely into fundamental Copyright Policy like fair use and first sale doctrine. The Section 117 provision argument here is a far, far more attenuated argument.
Though it is pretty clear to me that provisions like the no-reverse-engineering clauses are clearly unconstitutional, I couldn't get the Supreme Court to get excited enough to take up the case in my Amicus brief on behalf of IEEE policy on no-reverse-engineering clauses. Maybe next time.
But in the meanwhile, Boies et al. are running squarely into the teeth of the most recent Circuit Court case addressing the point, and it won't be pretty for them.