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.
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.
You can't ask for that under GPL. You can however ask for money to download. Though they can't single out individual computers and organizations, as that would be anti-competitive behaviour. So they can't do anything about it except the post they just made.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
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:
If you *read* the Gnu GPL, not that anybody does, it doesn't say that you must distribute source with the binaries. But that you must provide a means whereby the user can request the source code from you, and that you will give the source when requested. SCO could even charge you for the price of a medium on which to put the source and the price of mailing it to you. The catch here is that SCO would need to include a file or something that tells how to request the source, which I doubt they would do.
For some reason, everybody seems to think the GPL requires everything to be on a FTP site...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Some ain't happy at all. There seem to be a small core set of ISVs / Developer that are sticking by SCO, but according to this guy things aren't looking too healthy on the "product" side of SCO.
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.
Doing this, and especially being very successful at it, will make business decision makers aware that by using open source products, they are placing their company at risk of the whims of young individuals who sit at home in their underwear everyday. We want adoption of the free software foundation's ethics and more players to the OSS table, not fear of young punks.
SCO can continue to use Samba, as long as they comply with the requirements of that licence. The don't need to pay out anything to use it, and if the Samba team want to offer SCO a different licence, SCO can happily say 'no thanks, we'll stick with the GPL version'. Nothing anyone can do about that.
:)
SCO can also *say* what they like about the GPL, its only when they stop complying with the terms can anyone do something about their use of the software - like take them to court to see who a judge agrees with.
I think the 'person' taking SCO to court to see whether the GPL is effective or not is in fact SCO, in a roundabout kind of way with their IBM litigation
But I don't drink beer... ! :-).
:-).
Seriously though, I appreciate the support but please
don't send more email. I'm trying to separate out all
the RC1 bug reports and fix them at the moment
If you want to do something useful, complain to the SEC
about SCO's obvious stock manipulation strategy.
Cheers,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
That's a big if...
SCO has no doubt modified the Samba source to suit it's use in their products. If they don't ship the source, or make it available, then they aren't complying with the GPL's terms. In which case, they have no right to distribute it.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Isn't it what MySQL is doing?
From www.mysql.com: Commercial licenses for either version can also be purchased from MySQL AB, for those who don't wish to be bound by the LGPL or GPL. For more information on licensing MySQL Connector/J, please contact us. MySQL AB also offers commercial support for MySQL Connector/J.
How is that different from licensing Samba to SCO to distribute it in a non-GPL way?
>If SCO disclaims the GPL license, they have no other right to use the software.
Actually, they may continue to use the software without accepting the license. They simply may not distribute it. The software defaults to plain copyright under these conditions.
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.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Actually, they can sue SCO for copyright infringement. SCO has publicly said that they do not believe the GPL is valid, and are implying that they aren't bound to the legal implications of it. Since GPLd programs can only be distributed under the GPL (nothing else gives you that privilege), SCO can be sued for violating the Samba GPL (as well as many other GPLs).
Engineering and the Ultimate
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.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
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.