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...
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!
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!
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.
...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 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.
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...)
"No, no. We need to freeze his hot heart with a cool island song."
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
The final components, "Sink face first in rancid dung in pit of hell. Writhe for all eternity." are an unintended consequence.
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 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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
I wonder what the legal rights of the authors of GPL'd software would be if the GPL was rendered invalid?
Any laywers present? Would all that tasty code revert to the public domain? Would ownership fall to the principle authors (good luck determining that gor something like gcc or difflib)?
-- clvrmnky
... 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
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....
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.
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
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?
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"
This makes perfect sense.
1)
They make a plan to sell the stock (beforehand) and
register this with the SEC. This is front loaded as much as possible to get the most $$$. It's registered with the SEC, before anything is done.
2)
They discover SCO code is in the Linux Kernel. But its our IP, so you have to sign this non-disclosure so you can't ever touch LINUX again. Of course anyone involved with Linux won't sign it.
OH NO
SUE IBM --- SUE EVERYONE. HEY WE GOTTA SELL SCO UNIX LICENSES TO ALL LINUX USERS, CAUSE THERE USING OUR IP!
3)
SCO STOCK SOARS YEA, WERE MAKING MONEY AGAIN. And buy the way, all that stock were selling, was per a pre-arranged schedule that has nothing to do with this IP issue.
4)
Judge looks at all the code. When it's put in court, (a year or two later of course), it's discovered that some of the code is actually stolen BSD code, some of the code is IBM/Dynawhowever code, and some of the code was inserted by Caldera.
5)
Opps, Our mistake. Our lawyers said it was a valid IP issue. There bad.
6) SCO goes Chapter 7. Company Officers however, have sold BOATLOADS of stock at outragious profits.
7 SEC investigates. No WrongDueing. The stock selling plan was in place Long before any lawsuit was started. There good Company officers, taken in by a bunch of confused lawyers. McBribe is a honest CEO.
So much for a bunch of stupid stockholders's money.
This is what's going on IMHO.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
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.
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
SCO Open Source Tools Found it under talkback posted on that page. Talk about ultimate hypocrisy.
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.
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..
Guess what happened!
Help fight continental drift.
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*
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just 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
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.
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!
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.