Slashdot Mirror
Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy
An anonymous reader noted an article talking about the Samba
Team's Statement to SCO. While Darl McBride blasts the GPL, his company simultaneously announces the use of Samba 3 in their OpenServer product. I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff. Probably a little of both.
should ask SCO to pay for a license...
Go SCO! You are only making us love you that much more. Please release a license un-envcumbered version of SCO Linux at once! I will be the first to buy it, one copy for each of my computers.
It's a bit frustrating, but a highly principled response. I respect that.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.
They need to figure out if they will agree to the GPL, or fight it. They can't do both, or if they do someone has to get the cat to chase its tail.
This has been discussed repeatedly in the other SCO posts.
So when can we expect SCO to sue Samba? (I Assume they too infringle on SCO's code)
Who took my tinfoil hat?
from a company who has a lot of nebulous claims, and no substance... kind of like my ex-girlfriend.
All talk and no foreplay.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
The noon SCO story. I an practically set my watch by it!
This is nothing new. It was covered in the last article.
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
:
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
Samba Team.
Especially considering that SCO's latest big project has to do with using Samba to link up to the newest peice of overhyped Microsoft vapourware.
Now all we need is for the Apache, X11 and all the *BSD groups to call SCO's bluff, thus drowning out the FUD.
Linux and the GPL could potentially provide that life boat, although it's been my experience that the average SCO reseller is neither ncapable of innovation nor independent thought. Cactus is a good example. Their main product, Lone Tar, is nothing that GNU tar and a couple shell scripts (mostly for the "bootable" feature) couldn't replicate. To companies like this, it's still 1993.
sue SCO for using their IP without a license...since SCO believes the GPL is invalid.
You watch, SCO is getting ready to sue itself. It makes sense, when you really hunker down and think about it
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Do you think it'll take for them to find something in SAMBA that infringes on their IP? What better way to improve products than to hijack someone else's work?
Can't someone just squash SCO and get it over with? If IBM, Redhat, Suse and whoever else would band together, I'm sure they could get enough to at least control the company's stock...I realize it would make millionaires out of the scum that run the company, but this is getting rediculous. Pretty soon they will claim ownership of Samba, too, after transplanting some of their ancient System V code. Then the lawsuits will start, and the FUD...but of course nothing but 1973 snippets of code will be available for anyone to look at...but oh boy! You Samba users really need to license our IP!
SCO are just getting funnier and funnier. I can see the next few day's headlines on slashdot already
SCO Sue Microsoft for using SCO IP in Windows
SCO Sue Sony for using SCO IP in Playstation
SCO Sue mussolini and tito over insane dictatorship patents
Darl McBride snapped naked dancing around a burning effigy of Linus Torvalds.
I'll stop now. that last one scares me the most
Round and Round we go.
So if SCO is the Bully then how does everyone else fit in?
Samba would be the genius kid with glasses.
Redhat? etc...
A fairy dies, and another pointy haired idiot buys some SCOX shares at an inflated price, using the psuedo-logic that if there's nothing there to refute, why do we keep refuting it?
Enough already. They're little yapping dogs. Don't give them the attention they crave. There's no story here until and if they detail every last line of code and document why they think it's theirs.
Shush. Shush now.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Since when haven't we lived in it. The entire world is full of double-standards and self-contradiction which all ends up as hypocrisy. Do this in situation a, but this in situation b because each response will benefit the person performing the action.
It's all just bullshit, but what do you want? People will say the best of everything in order to benefit themselves. Why should this shock anyone? They are saying the best things of every situation. They are clearly putting things on the PR wire better than anyone else (IBM, RedHat), and until they other people involved do something you will only read about the success that SCO is having. Hypocratic or not. Just because something like this hits closer to home for some doesn't mean that it's any different than what most companies (or people) do.
The only thing that you (Taco and the readers) can do is stop "suckin it up and posting" and actually do soemthing about it. I wonder what an army of 10,000 penguin loving geeks could do...
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
...or can they?
At least for a little while I suppose. Darl(ing) can keep shooting his mouth off all he wants, it'll just make the court case that much more interesting.
All this flap about how SCO hates the GPL is pure BS since they don't seem to have an problem using GCC and SAMBA. But when this all comes to court, they'll really have to decide which way it is - is the GPL legal or not? Because it's going to affect the future (if there is one) of their 'product'.
Of course, I'm still cynical enough to believe that this whole thing is an exercise in legality. SCO isn't looking to the future, well unless you're an exec dreaming about tropical climates.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
C'mon now. At least add a SCO subtopic so this whole mess can be sifted through at a later date. Having it all filed under the Linux topic makes it quite a bit broader than it needs to be.
You'd think after two SCO updates a day eventually it would happen.. but no.. it hasn't.
Things could get really funny for SCO with this one... Imagine SCO goes to court, challenges the GPL and actually wins. What happens next? Well if GPL is invalid, then it's obvious that SCO is infringing on the copywrites of Samba developers by including Samba into their products.
;)
Samba team suing SCO for copywrite infrigement ?
(Allegedly) taking source from someone elses commercial product and appropriating it in your public domain product?
-or-
Taking a product from the public domain and appropriating it for your own commercial purposes?
-or-
Taking source from the public domain, incorporating large bits of it in your commercial product, claiming suddenly you own it and threatening to sue everybody who took advantage of the same PD source because both your code looks similar?
I used to read, or at least skim, Linux Today pretty regularly. Then a few months ago they switched to that new layout with gigantic font sizes in a tiny band of text squeezed between a sidebar on the left and ads on the right. Maybe it's just my browser settings but I see it in Mac IE, OS X Mozilla and Konqueror.
It's crossed the "worth a glance" threshold for me now that each front page headline occupies a third of my screen space. And reading forum comments would burn out my PageDown key...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
they're going to use, and continue to use, open sourced software when it is good for business. Every publicly traded company has the responsibility to its shareholders to make as much money as possible by whatever means possible. Sueing, stealing, lying... all part of the fun the is... Corporate America! Yay!
--- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
They have Dirty Hands in the eyes of a judge and will have a hard time arguing against GPL (In addition to all the other comments about GPL mentioned umpteen times at /.)
Help fight continental drift.
I, for one, welcome our new Samba overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a slashdot poster, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground GPL caves.
I don't know exactly how they are doing financially right now (although news coverage a while ago pegged them at the "Not Good" category), but SCO must *really* be in dire straits to make this type of hail-mary, last-ditched attempt at making a buck.
y -as-we-can" behaviour that is at once laughable and despicable.
I guess this is the type of "if-we-are-going-down-we-will-take-with-us-as-man
One of the SCO articles of the last few hours quotes SCO users as saying that SCO's utilities are useless and they depend on GNU to be able to do anything.
From SCO users divided over GPL:
Most SCO resellers are simply wharehouse license suppliers; they take a cut, give someone a license, and do little else for the end users. These people are frankly scared about software freedom. It means they actually would have to do some work for their clients, rather than just be a middleman that collects money (with some off the top) and shipping license certificates. These are the people that cheared for McBride at SCOForum. Frankly, most SCO resellers are simply dynasours left over from the dawn of the IT age, they have no place in todays world, and would be irrelevent or at least would have to get off their lazy a** in a completely free one.
The Samba team might not want to mess with SCO too much. SCO might "find" some of their IP in Samba and sue them.
Smeghead every day of the week.
Who actually uses SCO? And why? What is its value? Im sure there has to be something their software is good for... isn't there?
SCO's actions boil down to "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, even if it's not, but it is because I say so." So this is completely consistent of them. It would be more shocking to find that they didn't use Samba in their OpenServer product, frankly.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
This isn't about someone trying to screw people by not giving back. This is about someone trying to screw people where they have absolutely no business sticking their ugly noses. Go back and read yesterday's analyses of some sample SCO code and the common genesis for it and the "infringing" Linux code. Pay particular attention to Bruce Perens' analysis on LWN (you do know who he is, right?).
In any case, you're raising a straw man. The open source community is not about getting a free ride off of everyone and everything. It is about sharing with the intent that everyone benefits from not having to reinvent the wheel.
Save your anti-theft tirades for the music, movie, and software sharing threads (which, incidentally, I will agree with you on).
What is your Slash Rating?
http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/features /open_source_tools.html
Strange...
The Samba released a version of Samba with a security hole big enough to sneak a small african country through. Following the disclosure of the exploit, the Samba team released a patch which, according to the grinning spokesperson of the Samba team, "... is vastly incompatible with any SCO product or system.". Further commentary from the Samba team is unavailable as no one was able to regain composure after laughing at the latest SCO news on slashdot regarding the security hole.
"I find this unacceptable and immoral!", according to Darl McBride, who further commented "Have we sued them yet? Have we? No? Sue them! ... What do you mean, 'no legal grounds'?! Goddamn you Chris, you lazy bastard! Just think up some crap for a reason to sue them! Hey, is that mic still on?". Currently, in another barrage of lawsuits, the SCO group filed suit against the Samba team but refuses to disclose what they are actually suing for and also sued this press agency for using copyrighted SMP code in our programs. Our resident VB coder was puzzled. "Is that even possible? Maybe you should ask the HTML guy..."
Hate me!
From http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/features /
Integration of Open Source Tools
* Java JDK 1.3.1 and Java runtime
* Graphics, Web, and X-11 libraries
* Samba, Squid, OpenSSL, and OpenSSH
* BIND, FTP, IP Filter, PHP, XML, ASP
* DocView (online documentation system)
* libc from SCO UnixWare 7.1.3
* GNU Compiler Collection, GNU debugger, GNU diff, wget, and CVS
* Mozilla and Netscape Communicator
* UnixWare and OpenServer Development Kit 7.1.3
Just make it so that the Samba code won't run on SCO's products. This is the wisest approach because it's tit for tat. If we pussyfoot around saying that we're going to stick to our ideals while other people abuse them, then we are nothing more than doormats.
Un-news
Isn't that entrapment? Do you have to be a law enforcement agency to entrap? If it's not entrapment, could it be considered extortion? Since they sold me the license, are they an accessory to the crime? If we are guilty, arent they too?
I usually have a more level head than this, but I can't hold it back any longer; Fuck you Darl. If your were standing in front of me, I'd bitchslap you myself. Twice.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
WHERE THE HELL IS BOIES?!!
Anyone else here remember this clown? You know, the big shot lawyer who, on the first day made this big impression with everyone and was supposed to show up at various times (including during SCO's big show), and yet never has?
What a 'great' lawyer he's turned out to be. He's allowed his client to shoot off his mouth, display false or at the least misleading information and thereby created limitless liability for SCO. WHERE IS HE? I think he was rented for the publicity folks. Really.
I wonder about that don't you? Where IS he?
And SCO? To quote James T. Kirk:
"I... Have had... Enough.... Of... YOUUuuuuu...." - Just imagine that while getting a boot to the head.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
"No, no. We need to freeze his hot heart with a cool island song."
I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff.
Actually, boiling blood is the leading cause of a broken heart.
If SCO keeps doing things like this then they will not have any legal ground left to fight on. I think everyone should just stand by and watch as SCO pulls their lawyers legal ground out from under them and lets see how much of there legal strategy is left when they are done. With some of the supposed copyright infringing code posted to the web earlier that was proven to be public code and now this I don't think they will have much left by months end. IMHO mod done if you don't like it.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
As seen here SCO is down some 2.39% today. 10 bucks for air is still a lot.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Does anybody still remember how SCO tried to link Linux to international terrorism because IBM makes export restricted technologies like SMP available to rouge nations? For at least two days they said that would be the reason to pull IBM's license. Then the story changed about a million times (copyright, then contract issue, then GPL, now contract again). Is SMB export restricted? Are those evil Samba hackers terrorists just like as that Linux bunch?
Those are not the only choices. The option that SCO is pursuing appears to be to declare the GPL invalid, at which point they hope to be able to grab any piece of GPL'd software and make it their own. That's not hypocrisy, that's strategy.
Jokes aside the idiots buying SCOX are more likely to visit Yahoo boards and the like.
When I run out of SCO stuff here I go to Yahoo for daily dose of Vitriol.. Very entertaining
Help fight continental drift.
Ya know, I have had this sinking feeling for awhile that perahps there is something else going on... I mean, obviously SCO appears to be acting very stupid.
But what if they have some other plan? Maybe they know they won't beat the GPL, and something else is up their sleeves? Or they have some silver bullet that will somehow win the day? Or maybe a plan so thoughtfully mastercrafted that Dr. Evil himself would be impressed...
Hm. It just doesn't make any sense... maybe in 3 or so months we'll all be going "shit... wow we sure got rogered on this one..."
--- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
Dear SCO Group,
My life has been lacking any good legal excitement since I gave up watching Law & Order and I need more street credibility in the Open Source world. I would been honored if your group sued me for using Linux on my home computer. Please don't sue me for using it on my work computer, because that would open up a much larger can of worms for your organization.
I realize that I have very little cash on hand to pay a legal defense team to handle my case, but my lack of resources will be a bounty for your crack legal team.
Please contact me at nutate @ hotmail . com with the subject: "We would like to sue you."
Thanks,
R. Seymour
Having sex with a female zebra in heat?
The final components, "Sink face first in rancid dung in pit of hell. Writhe for all eternity." are an unintended consequence.
Samba team said,
"For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy. "
True! But Darl said,
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value"
So it could be argued that the Samba team has not gone far enough, and could have said:
For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for contributing to it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Does Darl have parents we can call?
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
Star: First there is no light just a bunch of mass in a cloud.
SCO: Just a bunch of guys thinking hey this may be a good idea.
Star: Forces Pull the particles to gather, and light begins to shine.
SCO: Programmers finish porting
Star: Shines brightly in the sky for a while. Although compared to other starts it doest seem any special but to the people close to the star it is.
SCO: They gain some footage and sell their product to fair size but nothing special customer base.
Star: It begins to expand and engulfs some planets.
SCO: Buys some companies or merges into a bigger one.
Star: Blows up and becomes one of the brightest stars in the sky for a short time. and destroying anything close.
SCO: Realizing it will not longer stay it Sues whatever seems to be close to itself so it can get a lot of public attention.
Star: finally fades away into a tiny little star that every couple of days may shoot out a beam of light.
SCO: Out of buisness and bankrupt. Every couple of days someone who liked SCO will try to get attention to it. Much like BEOS or Amega People.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Because Samba runs on Unix, it is therefore a "derivative work" of Unix, and thus automatically becomes the intellectual property of SCO. Didn't you know that?
This is what I've been saying all along. The GPL is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is purely defensive. Free software is free - even to those we despise.
For instance, it appears that China is using GPL'd software but not giving back the source on their custom binaries. What are you going to do about it? Right, nothing. There's nothing you can do about it.
But that's not the point of Free software. Free is free as in freedom, like freedom of speech. It means we must tolerate those who will abuse it. That doesn't mean we can't be pissed about it. And it doesn't mean we can't boycott, protest, or otherwise demonstrate (vote with out wallets) our displeasure with people like SCO.
That's what SAMBA is saying, and they're right. There's simply nothing else they can do but bitch. AFter a while, this will be a pretty big embarrassment to SCO I should think.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I can't help but admire the pacifist stance that the samba team has taken, but at the same time can't help but wander what happens if MS uses its political machine (that same one that got MS rewarded for anti-trust violations) to help SCO invalidate the GPL. Doesn't that then remove the freedoms that the samba team works so hard to stand up for?
Just a thought, not a criticism..
better than all foreplay, and no sex.
I suspect (and the subsequent news postings of SC0 seems to confirm) is that SCO is going to argue that stuff released under the GPL is public domain. My guess is they are going to argue since the copyright holders aren't "enforcing" their rights then there are no rights to "enforce" - it is publically available and the no one cares what you do with it, it is public domain. So SCO may try a two point attack 1) the GPL itself is invalid and 2) the copyrights underlying it aren't being actively enforced therefore 3) it is public domain. (NOTE: I do not agree with this, this is just what I think one of their arguments are going to be).
Just like that college in California that has to shut down the shortcut through its campus every couple years to make sure they don't lose their property, copyrights are only good if someone is "actively trying to enforce them" - when you find a violation you must act. The history of the FSF/GPL community working with GPL violators to bring them in line is going to be the major counter argument (such as the recent work with Linksys to make sure they release the Linux they use). Other people who have worked on an individual basis to bring GPL violators to task would be helpful for the GPL case also.
-antim
NOTE: IANAL, TIJMV (this is just my view)
last night, I have a dream, a *real* Duke Nukem has magically appeared on the earth and said :
"I'm here to kick SCO ass and chew bubble gum"
Let's just slashdot the hell out of every SCO server possible.
Maybe they'll be so overwhelmed trying to get things back in order that it will slow down these baseless allegations.
One can hope.
Enough already. They're little yapping dogs.
And yapping little dogs deserve to be kicked in the teeth real hard.
I really have to wonder what is going on at SCO. It's like they're comitted to undermine themselves. I've heard of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, but in this case it seems every part of the body is pretty confused.
.
So, they blast GPL while using GPLed code. They make outrageous claims they don't back up. They show source code comments (with some scrambled) and then a chunk of relatively un-unique code that's been out and about in the world for decades.
I've started developing a theory here:
Essentially, at some point, they got the idea to take on IBM or Open Source. Maybe it was the result of seeing some similar code. Maybe it was a moment of inspiration. I'm not sure.
But once they comitted to that strategy, they stuck with it. They had people look for similar code, without checking its origins. They looked for ways to re-intepret the GPL and copyright law no matter how ridiculous they sounded.
In short, this is what we want/assume to be true, lets look for evidence for it.
Of course from the outside they look like greedy, unethical dimwits. But by now, comitted to their strategy, they not only don't want to back down, they probably can't . .
Which, is ironic, because at this rate they're being so outrageously stupid that I feel they'll end very badly - as in lost lawsuits, being sued, perhaps even an SEC investigation.
Just thoughts and a theory.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
> You dont have to like the GPL to use it. I use GPL'd software, and I personally dont like it, nor do I consider it a truly free license,
> compared BSD's "do whatever the fuck you want we dont care" mentality.
SCO isn't just using GPL software, they're *distributing* it, *selling* it as a component of their own OpenServer. Obviously they can't do that if they do think that the GPL is a valid license.
1. Copyright does not have to be actively enforced, trademark does.
2. The GPL allows much use, only violations need to be enforced.
It would be a bad day for IP if they rule that poor enforcement of copyright == public domain.
The Samba team should go ahead and let SCO keep using their code, but rewrite portions of Samba such that only when run upon SCO machines it runs crappy, leaks memory and is full of security holes.
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
:
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Because of this, we believe not only that SCO must be prevented from the use of Samba software, but that team Samba must take up arms and engage in formal combat against SCO. We are already busy assembling hand picked teams of elite mercenaries, varying in expertise from explosives and combat strategy to torture methodology. We will be initiating our attacks at an undisclosed time within the next 96 hours, and will accept no terms of surrender except hari kari from every member of SCO, and their extended families/anyone they've breathed on in the last six months.
Strictly bring it,
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
---
WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.
So, how long will it take for SCO to claim the SAMBA team stole code for SAMBA 3??
In light of your comment, I agree that many don't actually read the licenses, but feel they have a "well-enough" understanding of what it/they mean, thusly a new acronym.......*drum roll*
RTFL = Read the Fucking License
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
I don't think it's entirely valid to compare bitching on slashdot to suing somebody for $3 billion.
just wondering.
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
that's a nice touch
i could not think of anything clever.
The FSF decided that dropping SCO support from gcc would hurt users more than SCO. But dropping SCO support from Samba on the heels of this announcement would hurt SCO a lot more. I say drop SCO support from all future Samba releases, so SCO has to deal with the hassle of patching it themselves every time. And make lots of superfluous architectural changes to make patching hard. Make sure there's some major new functionality or a security fix in there that SCO will want to use, so they can't just stick with the old version.
Looks like financial traders are ready to line up to get sued by SCO:
I was browsing the SCO website the other day (for obvious reasons) and stumbled across the "SCO authentication" bit. I thought that's samba3 for sure, only I didn't find even the slightest reference to it in their advertising. It might be there, but it sure is well hidden.
Though I appreciate your sentiment, I think the main argument is that SCO isn't just using GPL'd software.
They are modifying, re-releasing and selling GPL'd software. All of which is perfectly fine (under the GPL) but which is contradictory to statements made by their CEO.
That is, they support and exploit the GPL as long as it benefits them for their business model. In the case of Samba, to be free of the GPL they'd have to engineer their own SMB solution, and in such a way that it was not "tainted" by the GPL (i.e., they cannot just steal from the Samba team).
Since this is not likey to happen, SCO has made the choice to charge money for a product that includes a great long list of GPL'd software (which supposedly adds a a lot of value to their OpenServer product) and yet their fearless leader claims that the GPL "destroys value".
I'm thinking this is the part that rankles most with the Samba team.
-- clvrmnky
There are some dumb judges out there, but I'd like to think most of them are level headed and honest.
And I sincerely hope that some of those judges decide the cases surrounding the SCO issue. Because they will see through patent lies and deception. I hope the judges see this action (criticizing trying to kill the GPL while profiting from it) as a sliming and unhonorable thing to do. And even though there is no law breaking in that action, I think this bit of information, along with others, will help the judges to realize who are legitimate and who are greedy assholes.
That's all I have to say about that.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
When the fuck did anything under the GPL become "Public Domain"? This is the exact same stupid argument SCO itself it trying to pull. Don't be an idiot, please try to actually understand what you are talking about!
Could someone at the FSF write up a new version of the GPL that specificly bars SCO from using any source released under that license?
It could be called The GPL Doesn't Like You Either License.
Remember, corporate evil at its worst just steals from the common resources (lumber, water, open source), then sells it back to the people who rightfully owned it in the first place. And their one motive is the holy grail of profit. Take take take. Profit profit profit.
Support the corporate death penalty. Revoke the charter of misbehaving corporations.
Start Running Better Polls
I hope a few people show up and beat some sense into the loosers taking part in this stupid "mob". They need to get a life, all of them.
...the notion that SCO is in bed with Microsoft. First the lawsuit, then the FUD, then MS purchasing the UNIX license and now SCO is describing the GPL in the same manner as Bill Gates and company. Of course the dishonest, hypocritcal, underhanded business tactics are also quite similar. I've been brushing off the idea as pure paranoia and overzealous slashdotters with not enough to bitch about. But this is just getting to be too much. I'm starting to get this mental image of Bill gates standing on Darl Mcbrides desk screaming "WHAT'S MY NAME BITCH!"
The day free as in speech / free as in beer is destroyed by law and companies have a right to profits to the degree that they destroy even my 1st amendment rights (see this case, see MPAA + messaging article, etc)... is the day I get the HELL out of this godforsaken country and head to Canada... or maybe even Europe.
I suggest any Slashdotters with half a brain who actually do care about science and technology should do the same.
You dont have to like the GPL to use it.
the usual bsd troll... sco doen't just USE gpl software, they REDISTRIBUTE gpl software... they must comply with the license, or they must not sell it...
SCO does not accept the GPL (they state in public, that the GPL is invalid). But in order to use/distribute SAMBA, they need to accept it (otherwise they are not allowed to use it).
So either they stop complaining about the GPL or they imediately remove SAMBA from their servers.
As long as SCO doesn't accept the GPL as a valid license, the SAMBA team and anybody contibutetd to the project (which holds the copyright on their code) can very well and should demand that SCO removes SAMBA from their products.
Our word for the day is Equitable Estoppel. SCO can't say in court that the GPL is invalid and then turn around and distribute software under the same license. If the GPL is invalid they would have to go back to the Samba team and get a "valid" license before they could distribute it.
Seriously, I think McBride deserves a swift kick to the head, by everyone in the FOSS community.
Some other interesting things to ponder...
*snipped* because it could be misinterpreted as advocating murdering the SOB.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Lawsuit budget: $10,000,000.00
Microsoft's UNIX license: $10,000,000.00
Coincidence?
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
... what a huge affront the very notion of the GPL is to the dominator paradigm that runs the show these days. (Excuse me for using the word paradigm, but sometimes it works.)
The whole concept of cooperation and sharing is completely off the radar of these people, and if it should happen to appear, it appears as a hideous threat to all that is sacred in their dinosaur minds.
This conflict goes back a long way, and this is just the latest manifestation.
The REALLY interesting thing to me is the collection of corporate entities that have endorsed open source. Or that there even ARE corporate entities that have endorsed/cultivated it.
I fear there will be no resolution soon...
- Steve
they could do some code modifications and detect which OS they have running...
then just a couple of waiting loops...
if they bury it deep enough...10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Attn: Slashdot Overlords
Can I please suggest a new logo for the upcoming 10^6 SCO news stories. I understand that you do have that caldera type logo, but I think it should be considered deprecated.
How about that justice chick being weighed right down with cash in that left hand scale, and a bunch of hot air (transparent, please), in the other. It would be cool to have her peeking through that blindfold thingy down at the money too! Oh...and maybe she can be sitting on that caldera globe, with her legs spread just a little bit.
Do I get the shirt now?
Where are all the SCO employees in this matter? Surely there has got to be some way to let the people who actually do the work in that company know about the fact that their leaders are getting ready to put the company into huge financial and legal trouble and their asses will be on the unemployment line onec all this is said and done. Given the facts, they should form a union and go on strike. :)
....move along....nothing to see here....
1. This new GPL would be incompatible with the current GPL.
2. It is against the moral purpose of the GPL to do so. The Samba team release states this issue quite clearly.
3. Define SCO in such a way the license would follow them, but not harm "innocent" users.
...from the Samba team. And start referring to SCO as "RHO" (Rank Hypocrite Operation.) Just a thought...
FLR
One man's "destroyed value" is another man's "low cost". So instead of saying "the GPL is about destroying value", they should be saying "the GPL is about lowering cost".
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
mod parent funny, very nice joke. I spilled coffee on my ibm keyboard. another round in the dish-washer :x
Authors! Make sure you include stock symbols if you want your stories to be picked up by news agencies! Without those symbols you have exactly zilch chance of being noticed by news bots. Reuters press releases would work well too. We have to get this info to investors, not just sit around and moan about it!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff. Probably a little of both.
I'm no doctor, but confusion, heart pain and elevated core temperature... this is a serious medical condition and assistance should be sought immediately.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
SCO is selling Linux licenses now... what happens after they loose the battle in court? ...do the people who bought licenses get ther money back? Does SCO get sued?
Microsoft is being sued by everyone else BUT SCO for "infriglement" hmmm.... I wonder why?
---
Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
that Robert Heinlein predicted the current state of affairs in his story "Lifeline". I find particularly relevant the judges response to a suit filed to stifle a new technology -- "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." - The Judge, "Life-Line"
okay folks its time for some fun getting back at SCO Group...
..but nothing says I cannot do this as free game to donwload at free game download sites :)
If I code a J2ME game that is a first person shooting game shooting Daryl how mnay of you would downlaod it on your mobile and play it?
Obviously I cannot do this through mobile operator portals as they woudl quash it
Don't Tread on OpenSource
the SAMBA team should be very careful. SCO may try to say it's now SCO Unix derivative code work.
How about a new type of license:
NSL: Non-SCO License.
Essentially identical to the GPL execpt it prohibits the code to be used by any incarnation of SCO.
I've been teaching myself Analysis, which requires me to have my logic and analytic circuits running at maximum. When I read this quote it hurt my head.
Anyone notice that, no matter the outcome, it's a victory for Microsoft?
If SCO wins case and GPL banished -- General state of disarray and panic in community, MS FUD campaign comes to a head while a new license is created and software stripped of SCO code.
If SCO wins case but GPL upheld -- Microsoft's "We respect IP, Linux is for thiefs" crap is reenforced. Valuable time and market share lost while code is stripped.
Say SCO gets trounced, GPL upheld, victory for Linux and Open Source -- Microsoft points and yells "See, GPL IS viral! SCO released Linux and now that code is GPLed!"
Regardless of the case outcome, MS FUD is the winner.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I was thinking that SCO is trying to clam that the GPL is invalid because the have already violated the GPL by incorporating GPL code in to there proprietary products. If you think about it if the GPL is invalid why would they have to comply with its terms. It sounds to me like they are trying to justify there own code copying. It may turn out that part of the code they claim was copied is actually GPL code that they copied and are now trying to claim ownership of it.
SCO might not try to claim that copyright is completely invalid but rather that most of the conditions in the GPL are not reasonable. They could say that since the license grants permission to copy and redistribute that is the end of it and an author cannot put conditions on these grants. Therefore GPL == BSD and when you put BSD together with proprietary code you get a proprietary product that is controlled by the owner of the proprietary code. Of course this could backfire since SCO used the GPL as well which means there code would be BSD as well.
It was your decision to give stuff away. Don't expect sympathy if somebody tries to screw you by not giving anything back
The one wrong here is you. No one is especting anything back (in fact when SCO was in Caldera times and after it contributed enough). Everybody just expects than no one shall take what's in reality theirs.
P.S. This complaints are taking part in America mostly. By the way isn't in America Innocent until proven guilt. Taking that as a fact, SCO should be sued for FUD, they have proven nothing until now.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
As I understand it, copyrights must be protected and enforced to remain valid. SCO has refused to accept the GPL license. In order for the GPL to remain valid the Samba team MUST enforce the GPL by refusing to allow SCO to distribute Samba. The Samba team may be playing into SCO's hand by not enforcing the GPL. Samba team or the EFF, please step in here and do something before SCO really does invalidate the GPL.
I hope they do, because I could crush that in court and I'm a freaking chemist. I do know, however, that if you find the terms of a contract onerous that you should not sign it. Second, if the terms of a contract are, for whatever reason, found to be invalid, it is invalidated on both sides. Thus, at best (for them) SCO would be C&D's from ever releasing a GPL package in the future.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Use the link at the bottom of the page to email this article to SCO to highlight their hypocrisy.
n s@sco.com
Investor Relations Contact:
Kathy Martens
Investor Relations
(801) 932-5802
kmartens@sco.com
-or-
investorrelatio
Heres's the email link from the linux today site.
Why did you bother to post this? Are you trying to convince me that you're retarded? If this is the case, you have succeeded. Congratulations!
There needs to be a clause that GPLed software cannot be used in a product owned and distributed by a company that is bringing legal action against a company or person that is using or distributing GPLed software. Use of GPLed software in such a manner is punishable by a $100,000 donation to the FSF and having RMS speak at your next company picnic.
SCO Open Source Tools Found it under talkback posted on that page. Talk about ultimate hypocrisy.
Unless the contract is designated with separable clauses, that is true.
My apartment lease was like that. It makes sense as the rental laws explicitly overrule lease clauses.
Interesting, but if SCO uses Samba, doesn't that mean they agree and consent to the GPL for that package of software? If they don't accept the GPL, then how can they accept the license and therefor use the software? It seems that SCO's recent legal statements explicitely state that they reject the GPL as a valid license.
So, either they reject the GPL and therefor can't license (use for free) Samba, or they accept the GPL as a license and use Samba but then that aspect of their lawsuit/rhetoric is null n' void.
It seems to me this should be a gotcha for the SCO punks.
You can take our lives, but you'll never take... OUR KERNEL!!!!!!
</Thick Scottish accent>
________
---
WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.
yes, this could work.
you offer a beer token to a project/individual; those projects/individuals can offer beer tokens to others. These promises would be transitive so with enough infrastructure to detect where people are you could end up redeeming your beer tokens locally, even if the project is remote.
Of course, you do have to worry about the exchange rate between beer tokens and pizza tokens.
Except that lumber is OWNED and MAINTAINED by someone. It's not 'just there'. You socialists are fond of imagining things that 'somehow' work. Guess what - 'somehow' always means 'somebody'. 'The People' don't own anything.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
you are a complete moron. That pretty much wraps up your comment.
they would most likely have been out of business before next year.
I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff.
Hmm, that's an interesting predicament. I'd imagine both would result in a hell of a heat sensation throughout the chest cavity. Have you considered seeing a doctor?
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
SCO's vicious and unwarranted attack on the free software community warrants a forceful response. We cannot stand by and let them destroy GNU/Linux while simultaneously profiting from the community's other efforts.
In order to stop SCO dead in their tracks, here is what I propose.
FSF should create a new version of the GPL that specifically forbids SCO, or any of its subsidiaries or related corporate entities, from using any software written under the license. The license should also prevent the software from being installed or used on any system running an SCO-supplied operating system.
Someone at FSF could draft a standard version of this modified GPL license and call it GPL-SCO ("GPL minus SCO"). Starting with Samba, open source projects could switch over to the new license. The license changes probably wouldn't be retroactive, but at least SCO would be prevented from using future versions of the products.
It's time to lock SCO down. Hit them where it hurts. They are a sinking ship and they will eventually die, but by eliminating their revenue and their customer base we make sure they die sooner rather than later.
"Tell me, Mr. McBride...what good is a lawsuit, when you are unable to pay your legal bills?"
You understanding is wrong. You're thinking of trademarks.
/. that tells the difference between copyright, trademark, and patents?
Can the editors create some sort of Legal FAQ on
This principle is actually understood in Court - Equity.
That was a well said piece by the Samba team, though it borders on slander in the last sentence...
Oh well, what the hell...
It's more then mere hypocrisy. SCO cannot use an attack on the GPL in any legal way, due to the doctrine of estoppel.
Seriously, unlike chocolateware, this could work out. Quick, someone release it under the GPL before SCO tries to claim it as a derivative work (some of the Linux coders drank beer. We OWN Linux, as a derivative of Unix, so we own the concept of beer for code).
hehe, NO DOUBT ! ! !
Perhaps GPL needs a clause that makes the licence revokable if the licencee is breaking the terms of any GPL licence, regardless who issued the licence and what software it applies to.
With this change, the samba team would have bin able to revoke the samba licence, if SCO broke GPL in some non samba related Linux kernel code.
Would there be any legal problems with such a change?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Saw this one on the SCOX yahoo forum:
1 06 &tid=185&tid=187&tid=88
article.pl?sid=03/08/20/145206&mode=thread&tid=
If I understand it correctly the Canopy group has sold about 3 million of their SCO shares (i.e. new dividend paying stock) between July 8th and last week. That translates into 30+ million in profit for the Canopy group if you compare with the lowest price last year.
Even if the stock continues to slump until the law suit the Canopy group might be able to net 100 million USD in (extra) profits by their pump and dump tactics.. It doesn't much matter if the SCO company goes bankrupt then - which might have been the plan all along.
Actually, according to the Discovery Channel, if the Titanic had steered directly into the iceberg it probably would have survived the collision. It was the long glancing blow across several bulkheads that sealed its doom.
Bah!
The correct URL is of course:
t io n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=3 0218
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&ac
Hehe, I guess I should have used that preview button after all..
is remove sco support from Samba 3.0 so that ./configure doesn't work under SCO. Whether they want to penalize SCO users because SCO themselves are wild assholes is another matter....
SCO is releasing portions of the source code they say is in violation along side the original source. It was reported on CNet news and some other sources. /. says nothing but continues posting ad-hominem attacks from a group of geeks for their geek audience to reply with the same old rants.
/. would have seen the code. Maybe comment on it, provide some actual insight. Kind of sad actually. /. used to be a pretty good tech news skim (about 3 years ago). Now it's just a tech circle jerk or is that a circle of tech jerks. /. motto "Who do we hate today and tomorrow and the next"
I was hoping someone from
Guess what happened!
Help fight continental drift.
Actually what you need to do is to find a clown picture and put the old circular Caldera logo on its nose. The logo on this story would be a good place to start :)
Of course some code and comments are the same -- it was (effectively) in the public domain. SCO is simply trying to take something that was licensed under the GPL and claim ownership of it. The demonstrations, side-by-side comparisons, etc. are all constitute a way to get people to not think about the real issue.
exactly the kind of blunder you would expect from SCOAnnoy'em 2003
In case anyone missed it, you can donate to Samba here. .. and no I'm not involved in the project :)
i choose boils my blood. and i'll have a side order of tactical nukes with that please.
so... my hat's off to you.
...even on ZDNet, we are now kicking SCO's sorry asses.
If you make it ROFL (Read Our Fucking License) then it'll also stand for "Right Out Fucking Loud".
Talk about taking the moral high road! Jeremy Allison and crew, I've always had tremendous respect for all of you. You've just confirmed that said respect is well deserved! Bravo, and thank you for all your work on a project that provides so much value for so many! It is refreshing to see people who actually do strive to do the right thing in all circumstances.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The authors hold the copyright now. They would continue to hold the copyright. Nothing "reverts" to the public domain, because by default everything that is copyrightable (i.e. almost everything, certainly including source code) is copyrighted. Both US copyright law and the Berne convention are clear on that.
Copyrights do not need to be enforced, though not doing so will severely reduce or completely cancel any damanges you can claim, as for instance the refusal to enable developers to remove any infringing code from Linux, as SCO is doing should they actually have any code in there.
The GPL clearly states that unless you can satisfy all claims of the GPL, the entire licence is null and void, which means that it can not be partially invalidated. Which means that noone (at least in the US) would have a valid licence to distribute anymore, and that the authors as the copyright holders individually would have to release each and every piece of code under a new licence, noone else has the right to.
This whole bullshit about GPL entering public domain, or reverting to public domain is pure FUD from SCO. If an EULA provision by Microsoft is held unenforcable (as has happened in Germany, I know) that doesn't mean that the work enters public domain. It just means that you must change the licence to one that is permitted within the legal framework (or as is likely if it really happened in the US, no valid licence at all. Then the rest of the world will continue to develop Linux, while shaking their heads at the US stupidity).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's fine that you don't drink bear (I don't either).
But seeing that Samba is about Windows compatibility, do you drink WINE?
*duck*
Are Samba and GCC trademarks?
If they are, it seems to me that they would be non-GPL'd IP, and rights to use the trademarked names could be revoked from those who displease the trademark holders.
I'd like to propose that all GPL projects switch to a new version of the GPL, containing the following extra paragraph.
..... .....
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, January 200?
11. You may not copy, redistribute or modify this code in any way such that it runs on any form of SCO Unix. The freedoms granted by the GPL are not applicable to SCO systems.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
There are enough readers here to actually make a difference if we all started taking short positions on SCOX. I think that the vast majority would agree that the target share price is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.00, it's just a question of when.
As of right now, short positions on SCOX are at 391K, or about 2x daily volume.
Take a stand, go short on 20 shares of SCOX, and put $200 into your pocket today. The downward pressure you create thwarts the efforts of SCO management to inflate the price through non-news press releases.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
GPL section 4 states:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
As I read this, SCO has terminated their right to distribute their Linux-based OS (and anything using Samba...) by attempting to sublicense to others under a non-GPL license (i.e., by trying to extort license fees for Linux from all and sundry). However, those who bought from them are in the clear as long as they comply with the GPL. Am I wrong here?
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
I read that as, "a picture of their CEO with a circled noose."
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Has anyone been here to fill in a SEC complaint yet?
How can a judge or jury truly accept an argument that the GPL is invalid when SCO is openly benefiting and agreeing to the license scheme.
Well, since SCO has violated the GPL by argueing it invalid, then the Samba team ought to charge $699 per CPU on each OpenServe computer sold. Better yet, they ought to charge $20,000 each for copyright enfringment. Screw SCO at their own game. Heck, lets start a GNU fundraiser to collect funds for a legal offense. SCO may be big, but if the Samba team uses the same tactics as SCO, then it could hurt their sales. What would you think if you were stupid enough to buy an SCO Openserve and then WHAM! you find a note from the Samba team telling you that you must cease and desist use of your server because of copyright and licensing infringment that is PROVABLE. If I were in that situation, I would not even want to have a "conflict machine." Do these pricks at SCO really have any idea what morons they are? You can not claim a model is invalid, reject it, file suit against it, claim it is illegal, and at the same time enjoy the fruits of it. I don't care what form of convoluted logic you follow, it does not work, and it can not work. I can tell you this much, SCO will never have my money. I will stop using computer before I even give that unethical, lying, corrupt company any money. As far as I am concerned, they can drop dead. And SCO if your reading this, I am running FreeBSD. I am just pissed off that you are attacking the Free Software movement so that you can line your own pockets. I have half a mind to put togther a Linux machine just so I perhaps in some small way get under your skin -- but I won't, because I like the style of FreeBSD. GO TO HELL. (Excuse my French)
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
If "free as in *" is destroyed (to favor corporations and the ??AA), you absolutely should NOT leave for parts north/east.
If you do, you'll miss the revolution. Its expected to be a real burner...
i dunno how much this will help, but ive written to
the standard examiner
the salt lake tribune
and the deseret news
if you also live in utah you should consider doing the same.
Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom. But sharing data is the first step toward community
The legal system is supposed to just be a set of rules that equal justice.
Laws are only complex to allow for fair treatment.
As you explain and clarify it gets bigger and messier.
If you step through carefully most do make sense, it's just the apparant volume of law that makes it seem confusing.
No, sadly this is just not the case.
McBride has done a pretty good job of BSing their employees that they've had all their work 'stolen' from them, if what I've been reading is correct. This is also why you don't hear much from them - even on the d/l. Most of them appear to support SCO's position.
Look at how they reacted when local Linux LUG picketers arrived; the PROGRAMMERS - not the execs, showed them up with signs like, 'SCO should give away their code for free' and crap like that.
There was some USENET post not too long ago from a SCO programmer who needed info on GCC and he was getting razzed by others. I don't exactly remember the language he used but he signed off something like, 'Sad and tired...' I imagine so.
Nonetheless, having been in a similar situation with an employer, I do feel for them. Scabs need work too. They are so screwed.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
As I read this, SCO has terminated their right to distribute their Linux-based OS (and anything using Samba...) by attempting to sublicense to others under a non-GPL license
See that little bit in Section 4 that says 'the Program'? That means that each GPL license applies to the code it is with, rather than a blanket provision on all GPL software. So SCO has almost certainly violated the Linux kernel GPL license by attempting to sublicense the kernel but that does not remove their rights to distribute Samba 3 under the GPL.
Still does nothing to remove the hypocrisy of their situation, but quite frankly if the court of public opinion counts for anything, SCO is going to be feeling the draft of departing VARs and customers for a long time. Last one out switch out the lights. Although "better take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure" has a nice ring to it. :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Perhaps you meant crapware? That label fits.
Well, crapware does fit...but wasn't SCO doing some sort of other middleware stuff to attach some other linuxy bit to some other windowsy bit, besides Active Directory? (In other words, the Active Directory is just part of some larger master plan?)
Hint: SCO Shills, here's a chance to plug your product.
Sorry it's pretty lame to issue a statement and do nothing
1. They ought to write a letter to SCO saying they are aware of press reports about SCO's position on the GPL. They should remind SCO, that the only valid license to distribute Samba is the GPL. If SCO does not accept this license or thinks it invalid, it has no right to distribute Samba.
2. They ought to register copyrights ASAP. If SCO try to grab it or break the GPL, then they can sue for statuatory as well as actual damages.
3. What they ought to do is put in LOTS and LOTS of code that guarantees that it will not work on SCO's UNIX platforms. Also take out any special compatibility stuff for SCO UNIX platforms. I'm not talking about sabotage, more like rely on features that ain't in SCO or something - there is no reason or obligation to support SCO's UNIX.
Yes SCO will be able to take it out, and put it in, it being open source, but they will have to do that every time, or go on a private fork with no support.
Yes it hurts SCO users and resellers, but that's the point. The point is to choke off SCO's cash supply. If you don't, they'll keep having the funds to continue with their assault on open source.
Sued for FUD? Is there a legal precedent there somewhere? If I write that on a court filing, will they take me seriously. Better yet... will they have any freaking clue what I want?
You're suing for what? FUDGE? Hell son, I like fudge too, but not that much! My momma can make some pretty good fudge if you want some, no need to go to court!
What companies use SCO and produce consumer products? I'd like to write to them and tell them that I will no longer purchase their products because of their support of SCO. When they move away from SCO's products, they'll have my business back.
Hit them where it hurts:
1. Boycot SCO products. Total embargo of SCO.
2. Software developers withdraw support of their products running on SCO platforms.
3. Massive counter suits against SCO. Grounds for suit? Who cares, really. Just as long as it requires them to expend more $$ on legal fees.
"I now inform you that you are too far from reality."
Does this mean that if I disapprove of a law or an agreement I can just break it?
I don't understand why this wasn't moderated +1 insightful. This is clearly a very insightful post. The moderators must be smoking the cheap $3 crack.
Is what I thought at the end of reading the article. Still I believe the samba team does good work.
Sven
OK, funny:)
Sued for supposed allegations, that aren't proven yet. Or more explicitely possible bussiness losses that are provoked with false advertising. I mean, I can use advertising for describing events when someone says fals allegations about the other one. Well it sounds to me like SCO is acting like accuser, judge and jury in this case without asking anyone.
btw. I don't like fudge, not even that one that your momma makes, but still thanks
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
How about adding a line to all open source licenses to the effect that the source may not be used by SCO, the code may not be compiled on a computer running SCO products, and the resulting binaries may not be run on SCO based systems?
Seriously, if they do not want to play the open source game, they ought not to get the benefits either. Shut them out of the game entirely by selective exclusion written into the license.
It might be interesting to go one step further and exclude specific persons or a blanket exclusion of all SCO employees and management, but that would be more difficult to enforce.
It's funny, you humorless moderators. If the truth can ever be funny ...
And proof that SCO are not human:
With their stock up in thwe last few months, this plan seems to be working. Mayube they should hire some gnomes to figure out what the fatal flaw in the plan is.
They can [somehow] claim that putting the code under GPL counted as waiving the author's rights, since they granted everyone the right to distribute an unlimited number of copies, even modified ones,
they effectively gave away their exclusive rights
(hence their work is public domain).
The open source community is really not a victim of SCO. SCO's presentations have been so much noise. While it may slow the adoption of open source software in the short term, it will not fundamentally alter the long term shift, since that is being driven by market forces.
Those buying SCO stock are either intelligent investors looking the short it, investors taking a very high-risk/high-payoff gamble, or fools. The first two groups are behaving rationally deserve their profits and losses, the last group, well fools seem to find many ways to be parted from their money.
Those still purchasing SCO's software have all the information easily available to judge the value of SCO's software. Most who examine their offerings are conluding that they are demanding lots of money for crappy software. Those who conclude differently are either genuinely getting the value they want (our legacy code only runs on SCO), or are making an unwise choice. The former are not victims, and the latter, well we cannot save the fools of the world from their willful poor judgement.
As to those fearing SCO's dreaded lawsuits against end uses: SCO has not yet presented any information that demonstrates they have a case. Thus, the probability of them winning the litigation is low. Frankly, buying a license from them is probably a waste of money. Donate the money to the legal fund established by Red Rat to defend open source software: you'll get a better return on your investment.
I urge everyone to maintain their cool. SCO has only been making alot of noise. Until they place their evidence on the table we can safely ignore them. After they place their evidence on the table, we will have a knew linux kernel soon thereafter that does not infringe (assuming that there is any infringement).
A good fighter maintains an alert yet relaxed demeanor, and once his opponent moves, takes advantage of the vulnerability that the opponent peresents. Ignore SCO's shrieks and gibbering: it is meaningless noise.
Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Hypocrisy means the simulation of virtue or goodness. Hence, a hypocrite is one who pretends to be virtuous or good.
SCO is inconsistent, two-faced, etc in saying that the GPL is bad, while using it. But unless you believe their expressed position on the GPL to be virtuous, you shouldn't call them hypocrites.
So SCO is using our (open source community) hard work, while at the same time threatening and extorting us with the legal system. So what can we do about it, other than just complain to each other?
Yes, we can complain to the proper authorities, and we should. Yes, we can support IBM, RedHat, and others who are fighting this scourge. But we as developers and sysadmins can do more.
We need to stick with our principles and what's legal, which rules out any malicious attacks, or subverting our own GPL in any way.
So what can we do? We can stop helping SCO.
We help SCO when support SCO products like SCO Unix and SCO mail. We support those product by creating and distributing Open Source software that works with them. We support those products when we relay mail traffic from or to them. We support those products when we accept web connections from them. So let's just stop doing that! SCO is attacking Linux end-users, so why should we be helping theirs? I propose that we shun SCO and SCO products.
What do you think? How easy would it be to add code to *your* open source software that would prevent it running on SCO Unix? How could you block SCO Mail traffic through your servers? Could you identify SCO Unix clients to your file servers and web servers?
All of this blocking should be accompanied by an explanation: "We decline to process your request because you are running an SCO product. SCO is threatening to sue Linux end-users and has refused to respect the GPL open source license. We recommend you switch to non-SCO free open source software and notify SCO of the reason for your switch."
What do you think? Can we carry off a boycott?
What if SCO is just throwing out these stupid claims just to watch the Linux community do all of the legal leg-work? Think about it, it makes sense. All they have to do is make some outrageous claims, show a couple obfuscated slides, and watch thousands of Linux users give thousands of points of view. Every time they put out another stupid quote we all run to kernel posting logs, decipher licenses, and review the entire history of the debate. They then sift through all of it, see if their claim can hold up, and then move on to the next issue. All the while raising their stock value by raking in the licenses by scaring the pants out of some uninformed corporate attorney?
Why don't we just ignore them, let IBM squish them hardcore, and laugh at the end? Anybody can come out and make outlandish claims, it's another thing to be able to back them up. I know most people have already moved on from this thread but I'm getting so sick of these daily SCO fears, the heck with SCO, I have better things to read about.
Big Picture
Slashdot-Icon-Sized Version
Cheers, AstroBryGuyJust a thought.
What is there to stop Samba or even GCC from checking to see if they are being run or compiled on a SCO OS and refusing to continue (exit with an error message explaining why)?
This would be fully above board, as it is open source, but SCO would be unable to fix the problem without having to abide by the terms of the GPL that they hate so much.
Anyone see a problem with this?
- Paul
or at least stay under the bridge, where trolls belong.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Is the purpose of SCO's actions to attempt to legally damage or destroy the GPL?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Let's see.
They claim that the GPL has an out because they didn't know that their code was in Linux.
And they claim that there is about 1,000,000 lines of SCO code in Linux.
What?
If there really was 1,000,000 lines of SCO code in Linux, they would have to know it was there. They simply could not have missed an infringement of that magnitude. It's just not possible.
then that would make SCO guilty of massive and willful copyright infringement for commercial purposes. After all, they state themselves that they believe, on advice of counsel, that the GPL is invalid. That being the case, they have no license to distribute Samba (or gcc, for that matter), which is clearly labelled as copyrighted and not belonging to them. That is not only plainly infringement (for which they are charging lots of money) but clearly willful.
Actually they can. Section 4 of the GNU GPL states that violations of the GPL automatically terminates distribution rights for GPL'd programs. The GPL also states that you must agree with the GPL or you don't have any distribution rights. SCO/Caldera has publicly announced their refusal to comply. I plan to exercise section 4 to revoke their right to redistribute Nmap. I just started on the wording and haven't yet run it by a lawyer (I will). But the announcement will probably be something like:
SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, OpenServer, and UNIXWare.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner
PS:I just posted a similar comment to an older SCO article, but it is more relevant here. Also I don't know if OpenLinux or any of their other products include Nmap. Most Linux distributions do, but Caldera wasn't exactly at the forefront of technology.
SCO claims the GPL is invalid. They can't have it both ways. Either it is valid, in which case they don't have a (IBM, Linux, yadayada) case, or it is invalid, in which case they HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SAMBA and all GPL software.
The key point is that they are challenging the GPL as whole, but claim rights based on a supposedly invalid license?
This fact should bear weight in their claim.
Marge: One coffee please. ...
[Barkeeper gives her a beer.]
Marge: I said coffee, coff-ee.
Barkeeper: Be-er?
Marge: COFF-EE!
Barkeeper: BE-ER?
Just a thought, but technology writers do often read their own email. If you see an article talking in naive and wondrous tones about the new features that SCO is touting for it's next release of OpenServer, it might not be a bad idea to point the author to the statement by the development team for Samba.
"SCO hates the GPL. SCO is using GPLed software rather than writing it's own to create valuable new features... contradiction???"
Why do I talk to myself so much?.... Sometimes it is the only way to have an intelligent conversation!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
If the GPL is simply invalid, the program in question reverts to copywritten and unlicensed. SCO is arguing that the GPL is actually equivilent to releasing the program into the public domain, and therefore, they can do any damn thing they please with any GPL'd program. Fat chance that argument will hold water in a court of law, though.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The "moral high ground" is not to roll over and play dead. Besides, Samba is not GNU software, so the FSF has nothing to do with this.
Press Release Source: The SCO Group, Inc.
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system, today announced the appointment of Gregory Blepp as vice president of SCOsource. Blepp will report to Chris Sontag, the senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the division of SCO tasked with protecting and licensing the company's UNIX intellectual property.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
.
The SCO Group Announces Appointment of Gregory Blepp
Tuesday August 19, 8:03 am ET
Former VP of International Business at SuSE Joins SCO As VP of SCOsource in Europe
# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 19
Blepp, a former VP of International Business at SuSE, brings to SCO a wealth of experience in marketing and business management from time at Network Associates and Computer Associates. Blepp's appointment is taking place at SCOForum in Las Vegas this week where he is being introduced to SCO partners and resellers.
"We're pleased to have Gregory Blepp join SCO to assist in our efforts around SCOsource in Europe," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and GM, SCOsource. "We look forward to using Blepp's talents and expertise in assisting the company to properly license SCO's valuable UNIX intellectual property."
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
See that little bit in Section 4 that says 'the Program'? That means that each GPL license applies to the code it is with, rather than a blanket provision on all GPL software. So SCO has almost certainly violated the Linux kernel GPL license by attempting to sublicense the kernel but that does not remove their rights to distribute Samba 3 under the GPL.
I think the simple point that keeps getting missed is this:
1. You can use GPL software no matter what. No license is needed to use it.
2. If you want to modify or distribute it, you must accept and agree to the GPL since it is copyrighted code.
3. If you flately state that the GPL is invalid or void, then you are implying that you do not agree with it, thus you can't distribute any software under that license. There is nothing else that gives you the authority to distribute it, so you must cease distributing it now. No current customer, no potential customer, no one. If you don't secure a seperate license deal with all the copyright holders, you are violating copyright laws.
This is backed up by SCO's press releases and current law filings. They are flatly saying that they do not agree and accept the GPL, so they give up their rights to distribute any GPL software, period. No matter what else is in the lawsuit, they are infringing on FSF by violating the GPL.
Forget everything else: this is all that matters, they are distributing copyrighted material without a distribution license.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
That's funny, I don't see vehement denunciations
of IBM when it sues for patent infringement.
No hypocrisy here I suppose.
Kent
I purchased a boxed copy of OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 at a flea market. The User's Guide is making for some fascinating reading. Exemplis gratis:
"Sourcecode for OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 is available freely at the following location: ftp://ftp.calderasystems.com/
Page 19 is quite interesting too:
"Where did Linux come from? Linux was started in the early 1990s as a small research project by a Finnish college student named Linux Torvalds..."
It goes on with another paragraph about the GPL, specifically:
"The GPL provides that the source code to the software must be made available and that no one can restrict access to it. With this type of software, anyone can examine and extend the source code, but all such work must be released for public use..."
As my good friend Mr. Spock would say: "...fascinating..."
-- "May the Source be with you!"
That is true if you're talking about a software developer's ability to generate revenue, but false if you're talking about the value of the software itself. GPL software is likely to improve faster and become more valuable because the feedback loops are better.
My major GPL effort is YAFFS - a file system for NAND. This is extremely valuable software as is proven by it being used in a wide range of devices. It is literally worth tens of millions of dollars to the people using it and sell NAND chips, yet getting any financial support to improve YAFFS is difficult. The attitude seems to be that people feel cheated if they pay, in any way, for "free" software.
This problem faces many other GPL developers too. SCO is right to an extent: writing GPL code is not the fastest way to a fat bank account.
Somewhere along the line people need to get past the "free" issue. People need to feel the urge to volunarily pay for valuable things they get.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
However, if it were my program I'd seriously consider adding in a hard-to-turn-off warning that would run every time samba runs or performs some action that would show up prominently in user windows (OK, so I'm not sure how to do that offhand).
The warning might say something like : ... (insert list of good URLS for other bsd/linux sources here). Since SCO also has a habit of suing or threatening to sue everyone in sight, you might want to stop using their software and switch to something better.
SCO are lying sleazebags who are taking your money for things (including SAMBA) that you should be getting for free under the GPL. Other options include
I noted that Tridge did not add his name to the "Samba Team"
a -bad-idea?
Should we assume that's for the obvious reasons - the whole IBM-being-sued-and-employees-commenting-would-be-
I got a comment, "No, seriously, I can't comment on that" out of another friend working at IBM. Sounds like the heavies really did come around...
So Germany has sruck down both Microsoft EULAs and SCO's licence claims?
Clearly, what America needs now is a solid right-wing dictatorship (um, done?), followed by having the crap bombed out of it (no shortage of volunteers, apparently), then fifty years to rebuild.
Its so simple, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
If Darl was to, say, get run over by a large bus tommorow, probably thousands of people would see that as reason to celebrate.
Good thing he is neither a Buddhist, or a Slashdotter.
Stand in line buddy. It's crap like this that makes me ashamed to be associated with the IT industry. What makes it even worse is that the shareholders don't give a rat's as long as it keeps the cash rolling in.
I just can't be bothered.
I like the ring of SCOzo Mcbride much better. Sort of a scuzzo meets bozo kinda thing....
The longer the SCO fiasco goes on the more SCO looks like a group of bumbling buffoons.
One has to wonder if SCO has a hidden agenda. Perhaps wanting to benefit not so much from the lawsuit as from their own brand of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception in this case.) They must know that their course of action is going to lead to the ultimate destruction of SCO. Not that they were any great company to begin with.
Perhaps it's a brilliant plan to boost stock prices long enough for the top insiders to sell their stocks just before SCO crashes headlong into legal reality?
Nah, they ARE just bumbling buffoons who didn't think things through.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Actually, I think SCO's view is, "Unix? MINE! MINE! MINE!!"
Furry cows moo and decompress.
I doubt their public statements terminate their rights (there's nothing in the license about repudiation by a license-holder). However, the fact that they are exercising rights granted to them only by the GPL could constitute a kind of tacet endorsement (analogous to an "implied contract") of the GPL and thus be grounds to have their "GPL is invalid" claim tossed out.
IANALBMSILI (IANAL But My Sister-In-Law Is).
It's time to kill the company.
/. the company top to bottom.
Locate every employee of the company you can and nicely tell them that now is a good time to find another job.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
I'm no economist, but it seems obvious that software that are mostly free-as-in-beer don't increase GDP in distribution, but payware do. Not that it actually matters, of course.
Hi all:
:) This just get better and better as time goes!!! At a certain point I was concerned, now I am just flat out amused. Can a court case be thrown out if the plaintiff is mentally inept? Is there a presedence?
My name is Darl McBride. I want you all to know that:
"All your castles are now belong to us! And all your TPL, Bamba, TDP/CP, GUN and other computer thing are also now belong to us."
Sincerely,
Darl "Mad Cow" McBitch
--
If I hear one more company complain about how the GPL is "un-American" or "destroys software value" I am going to lose my mind. I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not a life-altering commitment for all man-kind. It's A FUCKING SOFTWARE LICENSE! The developer and/or maintainer of a project decides how they want to license it. If SCO doesn't like the GPL, well, nobody every said they had to use it.
I understand why SCO, Microsoft, and even Sun don't like the GPL. I respect their opinion, but the people who use the GPL are also entitled to their own opinion. If they want to use the GPL, good for them, it's their god given right.
I mean, I personally don't like the way Microsoft licenses their software. But I don't make outrageous claims like it destroys the value of sofware and intellectual property. So it sucks, I deal. If you're developing the software for the purpose of making money, and you feel the GPL is inappropriate for it, well, then by all means, use a better license.
But stop trying to bash Linux users because you don't like the way the programmers license their code. Tough shit. It's good ol' fashioned freedom. Now deal with it.
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
I would LOVE to see Linus cancel the GPL licensing and relicense the kernel under "GPL 2.0 For Everyone Except SCO"
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
that doesn't change the fact that the GPL applies only to the code that is distributed under it. their response most likely would be something like we think the GPL is invalid and are going to contest it in court in another case, but we distribute samba under the GPL and the GPL gives them every right to do so, provided they distribute whatever they make out of it under the GPL. If yes, it would be interesting to see what they charge as distribution fee for the source. if not, the samba team could sue them
But you can't LEGALLY claim that a license is not valid in one instance, and yet claim it is in another. I forget the legal term, but you legally CAN'T do this. It won't past muster. Its not an individual issue at that point, since its exactly the same license, and they are not claiming that the GPL is invalid as it applies to the kernel, they are claimin it is INVALID in all senses. I know some paralegal or lawyer can help me with this one, there is a specific term for why they can't do this, and its been over 10 years since I worked in a law office.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
and the GCC team has removed support for SCO...
so maybe it is a good start...
Of course I'm sure they can use another compiler.
And of course they can change Sambas and GCC Code to comply with their *nix, but it would cost them some devellopment...
AND they would have to release their code under the GPL too, and failure to do so could allow someone to sue them for not complying with the GPL,
and so on
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
You have to be kidding! Anne Robinson is a clueless, dim-witted ex-hanger-on-of-Bob-Maxwell. Her TV career path went from "Points of View" (reading letters of complaint about BBC programmes), through Watchdog (reading letters of complaint about bad companies or companies with excessively stupid customers -- I particularly liked the one where they attacked tool rental chains for hiring out chainsaws to idiots who then chopped their feet off), to that inane game show where she shows a complete inability to pronounce, let alone appear to understand, the questions and answers. I say, get Paxman!
"A poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more."
William Shakespeare
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
No! not the rotweiller!
Hopfully Paxo wouldnt roll over and ask for his tummy to be tickled like he did with his Bill Gates interview a couple of ago
If you want to modify or distribute it, you must accept and agree to the GPL since it is copyrighted code.
You don't need to agree to the GPL to modify GPL software. You only need to agree to the GPL to distribute a version you have modified.
Nothing stops anyone taking a GPLed program, modifying it and using it personally. (Where "personally" applies to any legal "person".)
If you flately state that the GPL is invalid or void, then you are implying that you do not agree with it, thus you can't distribute any software under that license. There is nothing else that gives you the authority to distribute it, so you must cease distributing it now. No current customer, no potential customer, no one. If you don't secure a seperate license deal with all the copyright holders, you are violating copyright laws.
Also anyone you may have supplied GPL code to is covered only by the GPL. They are free to ignore any other licence you may have attempted to place on them.
You don't need to agree to the GPL to modify GPL software. You only need to agree to the GPL to distribute a version you have modified.
Nothing stops anyone taking a GPLed program, modifying it and using it personally. (Where "personally" applies to any legal "person".)
You are incorrect on this point, but don't worry, many others are as well. Quoting the Preamble to the GPL "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
Quoting the GPL "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."
So technically, you CAN'T modify it if you don't comply with the GPL. You don't have to release your changes to the code up unless you DISTRIBUTE it. You can change it all you want without disclosure as long is it stays inhouse.
Again. "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License."
The GPL divides your rights this way, Use (no acceptance of the GPL needed) Modify (must accept GPL, do not have to give out source code) Distribute (must accept GPL and must make source reasonably available). This is one of the good things about it, it treats each act as a seperate act, because they ARE seperate acts. The author has the right to limit your ability to modify their work.
You assumption is a common misconceptions, after all, the GPL is pretty unique in this respect. It was the first license designed to protect everyone as a whole as much as the original author. You can read a text version of the GPL here.
So SCO only has the right to USE any GPL software if they don't agree, as long as they do NOT modify it. Since they are saying the GPL is invalid, thus they do not agree with it, they are infringing on the author's copyrighted works if they modify any GPL programs for their own use, unless they have worked out a seperate license with the author(s) of the work they want to modify. Personally, I think this is enforcable, and the FSF have a potential case against SCO for distributing Linux that has been modified. It would be harder to prove they are USING it without a search warrant to see, but I am pretty sure they have modified some of the packages they have on their own FTP site, a clear violation of their license. This is one reason FSF recommends you assign your copyright to them, so a single agency can pursue legal action, instead of relying on several different copyright owners/authors.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!