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
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..."
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?
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:
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!
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."
The final components, "Sink face first in rancid dung in pit of hell. Writhe for all eternity." are an unintended consequence.
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)
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!
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
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
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"
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.
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 Open Source Tools Found it under talkback posted on that page. Talk about ultimate hypocrisy.
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."
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.
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.
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.