Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the sweet-sweet-irony dept.

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.

35 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. samba team... by havaloc · · Score: 5, Funny

    should ask SCO to pay for a license...

    1. Re:samba team... by akiaki007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:samba team... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually they should point out that SCO's interpretation of the GPL indicates that GPLed products are not legally licensed to be duplicated and distributed and thus by distributing a GPLed package, SCO is in violation of (their own interpretation of) copyright law.

    3. Re:samba team... by bigpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You can't ask for that under GPL."

      Of course that is correct, but that is exactly what SCO is doing here. Asking for licensing fees from code that they themselves publish under the GPL.

      Every time I hear this bozo of a story I think of stupid investors that would actually hang onto this doomed company's stock. Can we just change the icon for SCO news to a picture of their CEO with a clown nose.

    4. Re:samba team... by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they can.

      Even under the GPL, there is a provision for a modest copying or production fee.

      If SCO is distributing Samba, they must obtain a license to use it in some form or another. If SCO disclaims the GPL license, they have no other right to use the software. It is copyrighted code. At their discretion, the Samba team can choose to offer SCO the right to use Samba under a different, for profit license. This defeats the purpose of Open Source ideals in a big way. However, SCO cannot just dismiss the GPL and continue to use Samba.

      The GPL is a legally binding license. It is built upon the copyright laws of the United States and most other civilised countries.

      Repeat after me:
      To say the GPL is invalid is to say all software EULA's are invalid. Without the GPL, Samba is UNLICENCED COPYRIGHTED code.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    5. Re:samba team... by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    6. Re:samba team... by BJH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More to the point, someone should raise this issue in SCOX's next investor conference call. Perhaps something along these lines:

      "At the recent SCO forum, you indicated that you consider the GPL to be damaging to intellectual property. At the same Forum, you announced that you would be shipping Samba 3 with your next release in order to provide a higher level of Windows compatibility. Considering that Samba is licensed to you under the GPL, your arguments against it would actually prevent including such functionality. Do you plan to remove Samba from your coming release if you win your lawsuit on the grounds that the GPL is invalid under Federal copyright law? If so, how do you intend to provide the Windows compatibility that you have announced?"

    7. Re:samba team... by shepd · · Score: 5, Informative

      >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
    8. Re:samba team... by johnnyb · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    9. Re:samba team... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Darl pauses for a few seconds.

      "That is an excellent question. As you well know, SCO is committed to maintaining the value of intellectual property rights. To that end, we have begun gathering proof that thousands of lines of our System V code have found their way into Samba software."

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    10. Re:samba team... by Krow10 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:
      The difference is that the customer does the choosing. MySQL doesn't choose who will get what licence, the customer chooses which licence they wish to use.
      If the customer rejects the license under which MySQL granted them permission to distribute, it is incumbent upon that customer to negotiate another license with MySQL. The customer does not have the option to dictate what license it will operate under -- MySQL does. If the customer does not negotiate a license that is to MySQL's liking, and the customer distributes the product anyway, the customer has violated copyright law.

      The real question is whether or not SCO's bluster is sufficient to demonstrate an across-the-board rejection of all GPL obligations. I don't believe that it is in the general case; but the copyright holder of the linux kernel could certainly use the extortion letters as evidence that the terms of the GPL had been rejected by SCO in the specific case of the kernel, and so they are in violation of copyright law if they distribute any kernel which contains non-derivative work. If Linus chose to sue SCO, he would have a very strong case, IMNLO (In my Non-Lawyerly Opinion.)

      I like what the samba team has done here -- essentially asked them to clarify their position. I'll take a failure by SCO to negotiate a new license (assuming they still ship a version of samba) as evidence that they consider the GPL valid in general.

      -Craig
      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  2. Nice response by MadChicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a bit frustrating, but a highly principled response. I respect that.

    --
    SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Nice response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      True, nice dignified response.

      However, as I am not burdened with morals myself, I would like to take this opportunity to tell SCO to kiss my ass.

  3. SCO reply by IFF123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when can we expect SCO to sue Samba? (I Assume they too infringle on SCO's code)

    --
    Who took my tinfoil hat?
  4. text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:text of article by drakaan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I disagree with the whole "destroying value" argument. In order to agree to it, I would have to assume that *only* the companies with the "destroyed" value are competent to produce the thing they're trying to hock.

      I *would* agree that GPL'ed software destroys the business model of larger software companies who have managed to find ways to get people to pay them a lot of money for ideas (programs), that might have been created by someone else, if not by them. The current corporate software market is kind of like:

      "Dibs!!! I was here first! Give me a quarter, and I'll let you ride my bike!".

      Then when somebody else comes along, doesn't like the looks of things, and decides to donate bike-building instructions to people they say:

      "[punch]No way! You can't ride that bike, you have to ride [slap]MINE, and you have to [kick]PAY me, dammit!"

      Free software companies won't have the same market cap as Microsoft, that's true. That's because they don't work the same way. Microsoft is in the business of selling software to people who don't know any better (a fairly large population). RedHat is in the business of selling services to people who are too busy to do things that they could otherwise handle themselves. Linux vendors will never have the kind of leverage available to apply to their customers that MS does, because those customers could support themselves if they chose to (in most circumstances).

      There's no less value in any of the products that vendors are selling, there's just less ability for them to overcharge for those products.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  5. A good start by Lord+Custos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. SCO Resellers by MoxCamel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Quite frankly, if I were a SCO reseller, I'd be looking for the nearest life boat. (Unlike the Titanic, however, SCO actually steered itself into the ice berg.)

    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.

    1. Re:SCO Resellers by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  7. SCO sues itself by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  8. SCO users depend on GNU by eric76 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 OpenServer compiler is crap. Without (the GCC) they would be up the creek," said Hans Anderson, the director of software development with Price Data Systems in Louisville, Kentucky.
  9. In other news... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  10. Re:SCO has no strategy by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  11. Re: SCO has no strategy by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.

    Actually they've adopted a consistent strategy of "say whatever sounds best at the moment", without the least concern for internal consistency. This is a common symptom among the advocates of pseudoscience, and IMO is the most revealing evidence we have that their case is entirely bogus. If they had a leg to stand on they'd stand on it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Re:SCO has no strategy by CGP314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Actually having things both ways is a good corporate strategy. Remember, corporations are defined as selfish. If they can benefit from the GPL in some areas and attack it were it does not benefit them they win in the short run.

    Corporations need not have an internally consistent value system.

  13. SCO's view: GPL == Public Domain by antimuon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

  14. Two flaws with that arguement. by nuggz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Two flaws with that arguement. by AgTiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And your informative followup illustrates exactly why it's a really bad idea to group trademarks, patents, copyright, and trade secrets under the umbrella term of "Intellectual Property" (IP).

      Though they do share some things, they are fundamentally different in how they're structured, enforced, used, and in what they protect.

      One can only hope that whatever judge and jury look at this thing can properly weigh each of the issues against the proper area of this "family" of law.

  15. More satisfying response by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  16. Re:SCO has no strategy by Demodian · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO could even charge you for the price of a medium

    So that is why they are using Miss Cleo for $699 a pop! And she comes with a CD too!

  17. I don't think most people understand... by sgage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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

  18. Re:SCO has no strategy by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  19. check this link out by hansoloaf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SCO Open Source Tools Found it under talkback posted on that page. Talk about ultimate hypocrisy.

  20. Also note... by OmniGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  21. Yes, they can terminate the license by fv · · Score: 5, Informative
    So they can't do anything about it except the post they just made.

    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.