Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void
wes33 writes "Groklaw has a link
to SCO's replies to IBM's amended complaints. Some
choice bits: '6th Affirmative Defense -
The GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims
based thereon, or related thereto, are barred. ... 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation
such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity. ... 8th Affirmative Defense -
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust
and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.' Comments are pouring in ... not all of them
complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy." Considering that the GPL and the GNU project rely on and affirm the protections of copyright, this seems like a strange argument to pursue.
The only problem with all things I see here is DarlandCo. will probably never see the inside of a prison cell, which is unfortunate.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It just wouldn't feel like the start of the week without some new mind-numbingly idiot drivel from the SCO.
I guess IBM didn't want to show them their IP without a crippling NDA, so this is their next best attempt.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
..."GPL is dead" ?
7th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is selectively enforced.
8th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is Unconstitutional and invalid.
9th Affirmative Defense: ???
10th Affirmative Defense: Profit!
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
Over a 4% drop after hours looks like the investors are starting to lose faith in their questionable legal strategy. I wonder if SCO will just drop the suit once all the exec have finished dumping their stock.
LOL!
Wow, now, I understand the legal "carpet bombing" theory, but COME ON NOW.
Then again, I'd like to "violate" certain folks at SCO, I'm sure they'd love a little man-meat...
Only want SCO is gonna win is if they start sharnig some of that crack.
"Comments are pouring in ... not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy"
/. article will help at least
This
Its a war on nerds, of course.
But what I want to know, is why we aren't teaching them a lesson they wont soon forget?
At least he proves that people can run around beeing flaming idiots, thus upholding the bill of rights.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright (laws),"
:)
Yes! I, too, feel that current copyright laws violate the U. S. Constitution! I'm glad somebody has finally come on-board with this, even if it is SCO.
Hibbert: Aaah. Diagnosis -- delicious.
Homer: I've got the presciption for you, another hot beef injection!
It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.
If Linus is unequal in his pursuit of his intellectual property rights vis a vis the GPL that only renders Linus property rights at issue, not the GPL. The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA) and not an institution. Since the GPL is one of the more innovative licences we often lose sight of that fact.
(IANAL, of course)
Later,
Phil
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?
Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Royal Bank of Canada Invests in SCO 30 out of a 50 million investment.
You mean I can break any license I want if it's unenforcable? I can just say "they can't catch me" and that's a valid legal reason to declare a license void?
Schweet! I have an unlimited number of win9x copies now, because all those licences are VOID BABY! Music copyright? Unenforcable, therefore VOID BABY!
SCO allegations unenforcable? I have an unspecified copies of unspecified versions of unspecified distributions of Linux... SCO can't enforce anything on me, so their claims are VOID BABY, YEA!
"Your Honor, I'd like to cite precident, SCO vs. everyone, in which it was ruled that any unenforcable license is void. Since I'm only being tried for stealing a tenth of the stuff I stole, but you can't prove I stole the other stuff, the licenses covering all of it is void. I move for dismissal of all charges plus I claim ownership of every physical object my stolen stuff touched, because their ownership rights is unenforcable and therefore void."
If the GPL is unenforceable, then unless SCO got written permission to distribute the code by all the myriad other kernel contributors (and in fact the developers of every other bit of GPL'ed software that they are distributing in their own distr - still available via FTP) then they themselves are in breach of all those people's copyright over code they wrote.
Please, I beg ANY developers of GPL'ed code that is in SCOs distro on their FTP site. Please sue these bastards for breach of copyright. I am willing to pony up $100 to anybody about to do this.
This madness has just got to end.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material? It may be the case that the GPL is selectively enforced--possible if highly doubtful--but to call it unconstitutional is like saying that laws protecting churches from arson (like all buildings are protected from arson) are unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.
SCO's research team announces break-through partnership with CIA, distributing their newly-announced SuperCrack(tm).
"Our field testing has proven very effective," says Ralph Synles, head of SCO R&D, "Subjects spend almost every waking moment in a projected fantasyland, and the way their hearts are racing, I would say they are high as fucking hell."
"Pink fuzzy secret code wonderful property tastes like intellectual NDA violations. Call my stock broker!" SCO's CEO, Daryl McBride, was quoted as saying, before giggling and waving around several blank sheets of printer paper.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
This is how I understand it:
Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.
Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.
The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.
The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.
So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.
The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I'm not the world's biggest GPL fan. But reading it rightside up, upside down, and backwards held to a mirror, it's seems to me to be a valid license in every way. There may be some very minor issues regarding definitions, but there's nothing there that SCO can use to wiggle out of their current predicament.
The US courts have upheld the much more lenient BSD license, and many much more restrictive EULAs, so the GPL seems quite court-safe where it is in the middle.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity
I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.
8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.'
Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."
They forgot to mention that the GPL makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I dunno if anyone saw this or cares, but I used my (lack of) GIMP skills to make some borg/SCO icons at the request of KilobyteKnight... it just got posted late so I don't know if anyone saw it.
As I said previously, these just differ by filter; I couldn't decide which I liked. Feel free to use them however.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
They quite knowingly accepted the terms and conditions of the GPL, long before they ever acquired the rights to UNIX or worked on Project Monterey. Even if by some crazy ludicrous miracle of stupidity they actually managed to get anywhere with their lawsuit regarding Unix rights, I'd be incredulous to see them get anywhere with attempts to prosecute users of Linux, commercial or otherwise.
Despite verbosity, IANAL
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
If the GPL stands up in court, it's SCO's case that is going to be crippled.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
It's a shame that IBM can't buy out SCO without a bunch of assholes making a lot of money. IBM should do some crazy hostile takeover of SCO.
Doesn't matter.
If the FSF decides to selectively enforce the GPL and in some way that manages to release their copyright (stay with me).
How exactly does this action relate to IBM?
Even if the FSF was selectively enforcing trademarks, how does that relate to IBMs rights?
In some jurisdictions, bringing a frivolous lawsuit is the crime of barratry. Even in states without tough anti-barratry laws, "pump and dump" is still securities fraud.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fine the GPL is invalid, SCO has knowinlgy committed copyright violations, wouldn't this intent result in higher penalties or damages.
Everyone else thought they had a valid licence to distribute linux.
American weapons inspectors working throughout the Iraqi country side are claiming that the GPL is seriously hindering their efforts to find Saddam's cache of WMD. When asked how exactly it is hindering the effort an inspector replied, "It's just un-American and that's bad mmmkay."
Futhermore, high ranking army officers are also said to be frustrated by the GPL. "It is quite simply conter-productive in our efforts to find Saddam and to bring law and order to Iraq", said an officer, speaking under anonymity.
And finally, graffiti was seen on Redmond, WA train claiming, "GPL = French". Underneath was written, "it's '==' you insensitive clod".
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Let's see if I have this right.
Linux is free software, that everyone participates in making, and then gets to use for free.
SCO distributed Linux itself, until very recently. It was also selling its own "competing" product at the same time.
Now SCO is claiming that some of their "valuable" property was incorporated into Linux - without their knowledge. They're demanding everyone who uses Linux pay them for it (at a price they've just determined) - or face lawsuits.
They're refusing to reveal what was "stolen." (More accurately, they will only show evidence to those who sign an unacceptably onerous non-disclosure agreement.) Not the actions of a company with a good case, but let us assume, since it is certainly possible, that some work of SCO's appears identical to some work inside Linux.
It is first of all not exactly obvious who copied whom. In the most similar case of years past, exactly such confusion resulted in a major legal reversal for one of Unix's past copyright holders. But let us even assume that someone secretly put some stolen SCO work inside Linux, since that is certainly also possible.
One of two things is true, then:
1) If you are a Linux user (who unwittingly received a bit of SCO's property), you have to pay whatever SCO asks, even if you didn't know (and had no way of knowing) you were using "stolen code"!
This means that SCO is in massive trouble, since they violated the licenses of all the Linux contributors _themselves_, by distributing Linux with their proprietary code incorporated into it. This is forbidden by the GPL (Linux's license), which (basically) forces participants to contribute their work for free or not at all. (That's the whole point of the affair, really.) And as we just established, ignorance is not an excuse. The fact that SCO might not have known they were breaking this rule wouldn't save them.
Result? Several thousand Linux contributors (a group which includes some very large, wealthy businesses) sue SCO for violating _their_ licenses, which specifically forbade this in the first place. SCO goes bankrupt.
-- OR --
2) If you are a Linux user (who unwittingly received a bit of SCO's property), it's _not_ your problem, because you didn't _know_ there was a problem, and once you found out, you replaced the "stolen code" - by downloading a patch, most likely. Right after SCO gets around to telling people what was stolen, that is. (Which they will do eventually?)
If ignorance is SCO's excuse, it's everyone's excuse. It means THERE IS NO DANGER TO ANY LINUX USER from SCO, because nobody was knowingly involved in these affairs, except potentially IBM (who stands accused of having actually done the deed). If there was any improper copying, it's IBM's problem - which is as it should be (although apparently even that part of SCO's story is questionable).
Result? SCO's threats to sue Linux users are actually a nasty and libelous publicity stunt, and a number of affected business (IBM, Redhat, Dell, Suse, etc) sue them as a result. SCO goes bankrupt.
I can't figure out how SCO's threats to "license Linux users" to the tune of hundreds or even thousands a CPU is anything other than the business world's equivalent of an April Fool's joke.
You can make specious legal threats about any product - open source or closed source. The fact that Linux is a target this time is only a sign of its continually increasing importance.
If you want my take on it, some people sitting in big offices (picture Microsoft and Sun logos on the walls) saw the recent spate of articles about high-profile defections from their own products to Linux, and pushed the "panic button." They encouraged and financed a proxy (SCO) in the advertisement of an elaborate legal fiction in hopes of slowing the hemorrhaging. It's clever, good old-fashioned American business strategy at its finest (no holds barred competition in anything but quality or price). I don't think it will save them, either. And I _think_ it's going to leave a smoking crater where the proxy used to be.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
If the GPL is invalid, then while SCO was redistributing Linux (and still continued to do so after bringing suit), the company was infringing copyright, because nothing other than the GPL gives SCO the privilege to do that. If SCO gets the GPL on Linux declared illegal, watch kernel contributors with deep pockets sue SCO for copyright infringement.
Will I retire or break 10K?
see the body of my original reply :D
This was bound to happen. The idea of a genuinely free ride flies in the face of thousands of years of economic theory. Free software is done "for the love of the game" (please no technicality trolls... I'm just trying to illustrate a point here).
The notion of a free product that is in many ways superior to its commercial counterpart scares alot of people. It's frightening to any business minded person that there is a large wealth of talented developers who are making an amazing product and not only distributing it free of charge, but giving away the source as well. To a business person, this is simply nonsense, but to those of us who beleive in creating something useful and of high quality "just for fun", it's not only a hobby, but a cause.
It was only a matter of time before this ideology was challenged. This is that challenge. Fortunate, they are standing on a pretty weak argument, and up against an 800lb gorilla.
~my $.02
If SCO succeeds in "eliminating" the GPL, the question then becomes what "license" the code falls under...in fact it would fall under NO license, because without the GPL there is none in the case of most software...SCO is taking the train of thought that since the GPL will be eliminated, then automatically there is some sort of completely open BSD license is instituted. WRONG! All of that software (like Samba 3.0) that they were crowing about including in their Unixware product suddently is un-licensed by its creators...they are violating untold numbers of copyrights if they do something like that, and would be liable for billions in damages.
No, it would become the property of SCO, along with the source code to Half Life 2.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Except today's political environment has seen fit to twist copyright arguments into whatever the most powerful PAC is looking for that day.
This is just going to get uglier once it gets to court unless we get lucky enough to have a very tech-savvy AND copyright-savvy court hearing it.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/27/HNscoenf orce_1.html
Some good quotes:
A lawyer representing the Free Software Foundation (FSF) disputed SCO's claims that the FSF is the only organization with the necessary legal standing to launch a GPL-based lawsuit. Since IBM holds the copyright to much of the Linux kernel software that is distributed under the GPL license, it has every right to enforce the GPL, he argued.
"The proper enforcer of a copyright is the copyright holder," said Eben Moglen, general counsel for the FSF. "IBM says, 'You're using a copyrighted work of ours in a fashion which is prohibited by the Copyright Act, and you're doing so without our permission. You owe us damages and you must stop.'"
SCO had the gall to cite ESR's definition of 'FUD,' which at the time related the origin of the acronym as applied to IBM. When their papers were already filed with the court, ESR tacked on a little 'bonus,' which the court will read because SCO cited it:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html
i have said it before, and i will say it again...
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
i'll keep saying it - this is the whole of the "why" behind their case, i'm telling you. They don't want to have to pay up to anyone - let alone thousands of individuals, for abusing their GPL code in their products...
because after this - everyone will go after them.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Geez... Been in law school for under 3 months and it's already coming in handy.
The deal behind the litany of affirmative defenses is that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 8(c)-8(d), for those who care), if SCO doesn't assert these defenses in its response, then it can't assert them later. So, the standard trick for lawyers is to put in everything but the kitchen sink.
Also, under rule 8(e), they're allowed to state as many defenses as they can, 'regardless of consistency.'
Now, they're really only supposed to list the real defenses and they could get into trouble for listing frivolous ones (I think their first affirmative defense is frivolous, for example). But, sanctions for this sort of thing don't happen as often as they probably should. They do run the risk of PO'ing the judge, though....
Pray they don't find the GPL unenforceable. Yes, SCO could get sued by quite a few of these project owners, however you're missing the point:
SCO DOESN'T CARE
There's no principle in it for them here. McBride talks about getting 'square' or 'clean', but he's laughing at all of us. That's not the intent at all.
They aren't in this to prove anything other than trying to find out how much wealth the execs can aquire before it all comes crashing down. SCO WILL go down - let's hope they don't take the GPL with them.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
So after reading your post, I thought "Hm, I wonder if SCO is still distributing or selling Linux somewhere." So I went to SCO's front page just to poke at it out of mild, idle curiousity. There's a little box on the front page that says "Looking for a promotion, contest, or campaign? Enter keyword here." If you enter something that's an SCO product it forwards you there. If you enter anything else it forwards you to a search page. Okay, I thought, what the heck, let's see what happens when I type in "linux". I did so, and to my surprise was promptly forwarded to
/products/linux/ on this server.
http://www.sco.com/products/linux/, which said only:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access
For no good reason, I find this funny.
P.S. Searching for "Caldera Linux", on the other hand, returned some search results, including this absolutely fascinating page, which describes a developer-only "technology preview" of.. "the upcoming linux 2.4 kernel". The page seems to still be under the impression you can still sign up for SCO's "OpenLinux Developer's Network". They have e-mail addresses and an 800 number that points to the voice mail of some poor fellow within SCO named "Chris Morris". Hm.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I would like to point you to our product page (http://www.xxxxxxxx.com); we provide xxxx xxxx systems to many large xxxx institutions around the world. Currently, we are based mainly on the Sun/Solaris platform, but are looking at moving to Intel due to customer demand.
After considering SCO's products, we have been forced to exclude them due to your court statements regarding the General Public License ("GPL"); specifically, that it is unenforceable. Considering that large parts of your latest products appear to be licensed under the GPL, we find it difficult to reconcile your legal position with the products you claim to supply. Instead, we have decided to go ahead with Red Hat's Advanced Server product.
Sincerely yours,
XXXX YYYY
ZZZZZ Co., Ltd.
/* DISCLAIMER:
This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.
DISCLAIMER */
This isn't a big deal at all. In responding to a complaint, defendants will raise all manner of "affirmative defenses" so they cannot be later deemed to have waived them. For instance, a defense that "the complaint fails to state a claim under which relief may be granted" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is nearly universal, even though actually winning on that defense is rare. "Relief under FRCP 12(b)(6) is extraordinary and rarely granted," so says the case law. In fact, just about all of those FRCP 12(b) defenses are raised so as to avoid waiver.
Will SCO prevail on it? Probably not. But they've now preserved the defense for later (and for the interminable appeals that will ensue lest cooler heads prevail soon in this debacle.)
On the contrary, thousands of years of economic theory actually supports GPL software. Free software is solidly transaction based: I let you use my software, I get to use the changes you make, and we both benefit. It's a transaction, and we both got what we wanted, and are better off.
Its economics, just like barter is economics. The GPL relies on respect for other people's property, and the conditions they put on what they produced, and what they are willing to offer it for.
Firstly, the GPL does not automatically assign copyright to the FSF. Some people do it because the FSF has more ability to enforce the license than J. Random Developer but a copyright holder who employs the GPL still holds copyright. The original copyright holder can even license the same work to different parties with different licenses.
Secondly, the GPL has no provisions whatsover against diarrhea of the mouth. SCO can trash talk the GPL all day without violating it. The GPL is only going to bite them if they distribute binaries without source or attempt to extort fees from users. Basically someone who is approached by SCO with a bill or legal threat needs to go the kernel devs and other kernel copyright holders. Then and only then does SCO get held accountable.
I humbly suggest the v3 of the GPL have oral diarrhea provisions.
Two points:
1) You have to realize that this is SCO's *Answer* to IBM's counterclaims. This means that it has to (a) respond point by point to IBM's complaint/counterclaim, admitting, denying, or otherwise, well, answering each allegation, and (b) give a list of "affirmative defenses" to IBM's overall complaint. (a) is self-explanatory. (b) is a list of arguments and/or facts that mean that, if true, even if everything that IBM alleged in its complaint/counterclaim is true, SCO should still prevail.
Hopefully you can guess, then, that the defense attorneys will throw pretty much anything they can think of into the "affirmative defenses" list. In fact, a lot of them are practically boilerplate -- they're things that "everyone" puts in an Answer. For example, the 25th AD says "IBM lacks standing to assert that SCO infringed some or all of the patents at issue." Of course the defense is going to throw this in -- it's a basic constitutional issue. The point is that SCO has to (in general; there are a few defenses SCO can raise later) plead any and all affirmative defenses it can think of in its answer, lest it waive any (which, obviously, would be bad for SCO and practically malpractice for its attorneys). Just as IBM doesn't have to have complete proof of each and every allegation in its complaint/counterclaim, SCO doesn't need complete proof for each reply and each of its affirmative defenses in its answer.
The claim that the GPL is unenforceable is, frankly, an obvious affirmative defense that really needed to be made in the reply. I would think, though, that SCO would prefer not to have to prove that particular defense.
2) People seem to be caught up in the "selective enforcement" affirmative defense. They are right that enforcement is wholly up to the copyright-holder. However, wrt the GPL, we're talking about a contract. Waiver and estoppel are easy and obvious defenses to make in litigation over contracts; I can't really imagine a situation where you wouldn't throw them into your reply as a matter of course.
The way I look at it is this.
The GPL mindset is designed, at the very core, with the sole end goal of making the best computer program possible. Everything else-- the financial success of companies like Redhat included-- is merely a means to that end, or coincidental.
The capitalist mindset is designed, at the very core, with the sole end goal of making a bunch of money. Everything else-- creating a good product included-- is merely a means to that end, or coincidental.
People can sit down and found an open source or a commercial software products with these not being their goals, but the open source project or the company will, in time, take on a life of their own. The project will fork, and leave the hands of the maintainer, if the maintainer does not do everything he can to promote it being the best program possible. The company meanwhile will eventually pass out of its original creator's hands, usually into the hands of a board of directors who care only about making the most money possible.
Because these different mindsets are so different, things the open source community does tend to seem completely mind-bogglingly nonsensical to the commercial community, and vice versa. Both sides would have an easier time understanding each other if it were understood on both sides that with a GPLed program, it is not the people, it is the source code, that is in control; and with a company it is not the people, it is the corporate culture, that is in control. Some groups of people do a better job of keeping a reign on their code/corporation than others, of course, but this is still what things seem to tend toward.
Now, there's something slightly more complicated going on here. It is that in most cases, the corporate side of things comes from a culture in which capitalism as a philosophy reigns supreme. This philosophy says that the free market will always defeat everything, because it is ultimately efficient. The mutual selfishness of everyone, acting upon each other, will ensure that only the strongest companies survive, the market winds up with the most fitting goods possible, and the capitalist system overall ends with as much wealth within it as is possible. They then get confused when these open source "things" crop up that don't seem to follow the rules of capitalism at all. They get confused because their philosophy tells them that the way to succeed is to let capitalism optimise everything; but then they see "inefficient", unoptimized, seemingly altruistic open source succeeding, they can't understand why that is. The first thing they've missed is that the open source world is going for a completely different kind of "efficiency" than the capitalist world. Both worlds want efficiency; they just want efficiency at different things. The second thing they've missed is that Open Source does indeed work within a survival-of-the-fittest free market very much like the one capitalism describes. It's just that it isn't a market of money. It's a market of ideas.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Please do not DOS them.
Allow them the maximum use of their bandwidth.
This will allow them to discredit and incriminate themselves much more effectively.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Okay, it is just barely possible that a failure by the Free Software Foundation to enforce the GPL on works that the FSF holds the copyright to bars the FSF, as a matter of equity, form enforcing it on FSF-copyrighted works. "[M]atter of equity" is a rather broad argument, and a judge can drive a truck through it if he is so inclined, though it ups his chance of being reversed on appeal.
However, the actions of the FSF in no way impacts IBM's enforcment of its licensing terms for software to which it holds the copyright, whether or not they license it under the GPL. The FSF and IBM are different corporations, even if they, like SCO itself, have used the same license on some software.
Example: I could license software on which I hold the copyright to you under terms identical to a Microsoft license. I could then fail to enforce that license. That would in no way impact Microsoft's right to enforce its licenses on its software, ever. Similarly, how the FSF treats violations of FSF licenses to FSF code has no relevance to IBM's rights regarding violations of IBM licenses to IBM code.
Frankly, if I were the judge, I'd pin SCO's ears back for making the argument. Yes, shotgun claims area common practice, but this is especially ridiculous, and needs to be discouraged.
Curly: Yeah! Habius!
Mo: Shut up, ya moron, you're blowing our case!
Larry: Hey, what about the GPL?
Mo: I'll GPL you, wise guy!
Bonk! Ow! Smack! Smack! Smack!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
... Guys, don't forget that we are talking about IBM here... No one can honestly call them the "little guy"
IBM will surely have first class lawyers, and no matter what you think of the judicial system and judges/politicians only thinking about money and what not, who do you think they would side with? IBM or sco?
I'm betting on IBM.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Seems to me that out of all of the possible challenges the GPL could face, SCO's legal tactics to date have ranged through many of those possibilities. Their defense posture has changed from one to the next at least 6 or 7 times, possibly more, by now. This is an excellent test for the FSF lawyers, the GPL, the use of Linux as a viable platform(legally, morally, and technically), and anyone who may one day be interested in using the GPL or other free software licenses. ;)
Also, thanks to whomever (M$?) for funding $CO's ability to make this all possible!
--SuperBug
Of course, this idea has a long tradition in the academic world, where not only code is shared openly, but ideas and research. Can you imagine how slowly civilization would move if the current ideas about patents and intellectual property had been applied to the knowledge of people like Newton?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'm going waaaay out of line here, but I imagine the slight possibility of SCO playing a double game here.
Microsoft's involvement has been thought of before, but imagine the scenario where both IBM and Microsoft are put against the wall and SCO's only looking for the highest bidder to get bought.
Goes like this: SCO sues IBM for some nonsense involving the GPL. It's quite obvious that IF this goes to court, SCO's gonna loose and that's possibly gonna set a precedent for the GPL in court and be a big bump for Linux on the mainstream press.
Microsoft, being one of the few who would get hurt by Linux growth (maybe the last after Novell integration) would seriously consider buying out SCO to silence it before this FUD causes more good publicity on Linux than it already has.
On the unlikely event of a court win, IBM would probably profit more from buying SCO than from paying all the licences.
In both cases SCO gets bought and for me this looks more likely than just an IBM buy out, since it explains the reason behind the absurd claims: if the press goes towards IBM, Microsoft buys SCO, if the press goes against IBM, it buys SCO itself.
my paranoid and over creative $0.00000002
--
- I wish life was like a *nix variant...
- What for? You wouldn't be r00t!
The Open Group may have to step in to defend the UNIX trademark as the pice at groklaw points out that they are claiming that Linux is an unauthorized workalike to UNIX(TM) however SCO has no standing to make that cliam since it is the open group who controls weather or not an OS is a UNIX(TM).
Now the open group has already stated that the UNIX trademark belongs to them and that they are neutral in matter of SCO v IBM. They have no flavor of Linux certified as a UNIX, so SCO can not arbitrarily assign the UNIX trademark. It sounds to me like the Open Group may have to step in and defend its trademark in court, as if SCO didn't already have to beat up an 800lb gorilla with a spoon.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
if frivilous lawsuits were illegal
Actually, in a sense, this lawsuit isn't frivolous at all. This lawsuit is - if (as looks likely?) it goes to trial - going to be make-or-break time for the GPL. It's finally going to be tested in court.
If a ruling is passed in favour of the GPL, then well and good. What I'm worried about is what SCO (and guys like MS, and Sun I guess) would be angling for is that the GPL is defeated. In which case, where does that leave us? It'd be Armaggedon for those of us who feel the GPL serves a purpose and is a good tool. To add insult to injury, what would happen subsequently to that will be wholesale theft of the already-out-in-the-open GPL-ed code by all sorts of unscrupulous and/or "careless" companies.
The stakes in this are so high that I am worried.
No, the freeness isn't really the point, and in fact Open Source is hardly "free". That demeans the efforts of those that have poured body and soul into it. Millions of man-hours of work by some extremely talented individuals have gone into the various Linux distributions alone, and as for the application base ... well. Their efforts constitute time and energy that society has paid in order to benefit from Open Source, effort that would have gone to produce other things had their been no Open Source movement. So none of this is free, exactly. However, the people behind Open Source have consistently exhibited a degree of social consciousness and a sense of enlightened capitalism that is totally lacking on the part of successful proprietary vendors such as Microsoft and Adobe.
On the other hand, what Open Source (particularly GPL'ed) applications are most definitely not is controllable, and they can't be easily killed off by economic or legal means. That just drives bamboo splinters under the fingernails of the likes of Gates and Ballmer, since control is the name of their game. They will, in fact, do pretty much anything both above and below board in order to stop this evil viral GPL "open source" free-as-in-beer rogue-operating-system stuff. They are correct in perceiving Open Source as the very real threat that it is. The desire to protect what they have is natural, even if the means by which they do so is often unethical or illegal.
SCO's executives, on the other hand, haven't even have that much principle at hand. Companies that operate under the GPL have a synergistic relationship with each other and with their customers: that synergy is, at the core, the raison d'etre of the GPL. This is in contrast to SCO's leadership, who are parasitic creatures at best. They are bad parasites at that because they are perfectly willing to kill the host.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If they win we can all stick are heads between our legs and send money to Redmond. If the polititians and judges are bought off to this extent, then it is the signal that the largest part of the software industry has become a corruptor of human rights and perhaps even the very Constitution which it relies upon for freedom of enterprise.
Voiding the right of lawfull property owners to do as they see fit with their property, even give it away, would be a grave blow to the American Constitution. This blow could become fatal. I cannot believe that a sworn officer of the courts will alow this to happen. SCO, the corporation and proprietary Unix is going to die, soon. A very bleak and blue screen of death.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Better than that, if they did enforce their terms on YOU, they would be selectively enforcing them and , and THATS NOT FAIR, THERFORE IT'S VOID BABY, YEA!
So on crack, they are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If a ruling is passed in favour of the GPL, then well and good. What I'm worried about is what SCO (and guys like MS, and Sun I guess) would be angling for is that the GPL is defeated. In which case, where does that leave us? It'd be Armaggedon for those of us who feel the GPL serves a purpose and is a good tool. To add insult to injury, what would happen subsequently to that will be wholesale theft of the already-out-in-the-open GPL-ed code by all sorts of unscrupulous and/or "careless" companies.
No, it either leaves work under the GPL protected by basic copyrights, or in the public domain.
No-one is going to die, open-source is not going to disappear. The worst that can happen is more widespread rights for interested parties to incorporate GPL'd works without credit, and all the GPL favouring authors will have to find a new license to place future works under.
In a way, even the worst case scenario is likely to weaken the case for other corporates wanting to follow in SCO's footsteps, because commercial vendors are far more likely to incorporate the huge volumes of truely free software into their proprietary products, and will then have difficulty proving whether they incorporated said code into theirs before or after that code was licensed under the GPL2 or whatever replaces the GPL.
For this reason, smart companies will steer clear of assimilating GPL'd code regardless of the legal status of the GPL.
However, I think the GPL will be found to be legally sound, and SCO are just blowing steam like they have so far.
Via the use of a special GPL'ed digital video analizer and through
M.O. comparative analysis, it has been determined that
Darl McBride and Billy Mays are one and the same.
They are both so extremely obnoxious and both make such outlandish claims and
look very much alike that they could only be the same person.
It's jus too funny.
Nope..
While reading the Groklaw article, I finally figured out what SCO is trying to do with this submission..
They're trying to kill IBM's lawyers!
We've all seen the Monty Python sketch, where the Allies use the world's funniest joke to kill the Axis forces - this is SCO's attempt to do the same thing to IBM's lawyers!
The problem is, of course, that while it is side-splittingly funny, it's not funny enough to cause someone to die laughing.
It seems to me that if SCO has ever distributed a Linux ditro with the offending code in it, then they have given there code away and have no case.
The must have lots of funny mushrooms in Utah for them to come up with this stuff.
Bah.
Since everyone is just throwing legal opinions around, I declare SCO threats to be legally unenforcable. There. Nya nya nya! Come get me!
No, it either leaves work under the GPL protected by basic copyrights, or in the public domain.
This goes against a couple centuries of copyright law interpretation which is firmly *against* entry of any copyrighted work into the public domain without the express indication thereof by its author. This just isn't going to happen.
C//
SCO has admitted to violating the copyrights of dozens of companies and hundreds of individuals on content probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They are now by far the biggest pirates ever. I think it's time of all of these copyright holders to contact SCO's ISP, xo.net, and demand that SCO's site be pulled down. To do this, you send by fax or paper mail to xo.net an identification of the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed (specifying the portions that you claim), an identification of the material that you believe to be violating it, contact information for you and for SCO, the statement "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.", the statement, "I swear, under penalty of purjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.", and your signature. (Assuming that what google requires is what is mandated by law).
I'd enjoy the whole SCO fiasco if SCO spent the time before their case comes to trial shut off the internet for running a warez site.
SCO claimed that "secret codes" found in the Bible, Torah and Koran proved that the famed religious texts were in fact a violation of SCO intellectual property. SCO says that all christians, jews and muslims will be able to continue to practice their respective faiths legally for a modest licensing fee of $699 a year.
This is my sig.
It's the reverse of high school. Two F's is good. Two A's are bad.
paintball
... their illogical behavior, tending towards the self-destructive, and their obviously impaired perception as evidenced by conflicting claims, supported by assertions later self-refuted, would be sufficient to get them labeled as incompetent to defend themselves. A psychiatric evaluation would probably result in a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. If corporations are to be considered as artificial entities, why isn't the public at large (including other artificial entities) afforded protection from them, as they would be from an obviously psychotic individual? This isn't an issue of intellectual property protection, it's a cry for help. My money says SCO wants Uncle IBM to forgive their tantrum and take them in, because they can't take care of themselves.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Communism has been tried before,
Incorrect. Communism has never been attempted by any human civilization. You may have been confused by the Soviet Bolsheviks, who claimed to be "Communist", but they were liars. As were the Maoists who imitated them.
If Communism is ever tried, it might succeed in one of a few ways. Possibly, Marx will have been correct, and the natural evolution of a mature, capitalist society will be towards greater and greater corporate control, until a handful of merged companies + unions control the entire economy, and are indistinguishable from the government.
Or, there's the even more off-the-wall chance that a resurgence of Christianity will bring with it the recognition that their religion is doctrinally Communist (as laid out in Matthew 25:44, amoung many other places). Some people think Communism implies atheism, but they are independent social factors. A strong religion might be one way to overcome the natural greed that impedes Communism.
IANAL etc, etc.
SCO is claiming they own the intellectual property of foreign nationals. Yes, the intellectual property is shared freely, and even allowed to be improved upon by others BUT it is still the intellectual property of a foreign national.
Just because you haven't purchased a US copyright, or filed a trademark doesn't mean you aren't entitled to the rights thereof. Patent suits are often between two competing companies (who both think they own the same IP) but at times someone who can show proper evidence of Prior Art can demonstrate validity of the supposed copyright/trademark/patent.
However, the LETTER of the law OFTEN outweighs the SPIRIT of the law in our litigious society. SCO is trying to invalidate the GPL, and insodoing invalidate the copyrights of the creators of the intellectual property.
SCO has no ground whatsoever regarding the true ownership of Linux. Sure, some ancient possibly proprietary (most likely public domain) source is in Linux. As soon as the information is presented in court, the community will start writing patches. It's worthless for them to even disclose the code.
What isn't worthless, is disputing the entire GPL, making the Linux codebase a free for all, and bringing hundreds of thousands of man hours into disputed ownership.
Now, if this black helicopter theory holds any water, then Microsoft (who has openly backed this) stands to gain a lot. Imagine all the endless applications THEY would have access to port directly to the Windows Operating System with that kind of legal precedent.
The only thing preventing them from doing that, is COPYRIGHT law. Who woulda thought, the giant stick they're trying to beat the GPL with, could be their undoing. Who knows.
END OF RANT
Why don't end users sue SCO for making unsubstantiated claims? If 50 people in each state file on the same day it would send a message to SCO that they would have to respond to...
Right?
I actually got a reply back (I'm in Japan, so it appears to have come from their Japanese subsidiary).
It's worth a laugh, so I've posted it below:
Thank you for your sending your message.
It is unfortunate we can not make joint market for both products.
You may understand SCO position from following URL:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
It may not be good explanation for current SCO's action, but like someone
would took your technologies, such as some of your xxxx xxxx platform,
and included into some software under GPL, then how your company
would do. SCO protects SCO's assets of UNIX technologies which SCO owns
now, and some of the technologies under UNIX has been included into Linux
OS under GPL, so SCO is fighting to recover this situation. Though in
Japanese, you can see SCO's Executives interview with Nikkei Electronics on
this issue at Nikkei Electronics 10-13-2003 issue Cover Story "SCO's Linux
Shock".
I hope you can understand correctly and come back again with us.
Our SCO UnixWare product is very reliable and stable UNIX operating system
for IA-32 platform and easy port from Sun/Solaris platform.
And SCO Authentication product provides the single login system over
Sun/Solaris UNIX, IBM AIX, HP-UX, SCO UNIX, and RedHat Linux working with
Microsoft Windows 2000/2003 Active Directory.
Please visit our SCO Japan web as well at www.jp.sco.com for more
information about SCO's products and services in Japan.
Hmmm... "like someone would took your technologies, such as some of your xxxx xxxx platform, and included into some software under GPL, then how your company would do."
Well, I'm sure my company would first be very careful indeed to see whether or not "our" technologies were in fact ours before accusing anybody.
As for "understanding correctly and coming back to SCO" - sorry guys, but YOU FAIL IT!!1!!!
Why the tags? All too many people think capitalism requires everyone be in the game for profit, and that no one has a right not to play, or to play for any different goals. This is precisely why some people think Microsoft put SCO up to this. It's been said quite often that no one can beat Microsoft if they let MS set the rules of engagement. SCO's actions look more and more like an attempt to force everyone to play every game of the series in Steve Balmer Stadium. When the first SCO stories broke, I didn't particularly buy the claim that MS was behind it all, but with subsequent revelations, the line SCO is trying to drive other firms and innovative individuals across looks more and more like the exact same line Microsoft wishes every competitor would stay inside.
Who is John Cabal?
I may not be a Lawyer, but I have had several survey classes on Common (ie Anglo-Saxon, ie US & UK) Law Vs. Civil Law (like in Germany) especially regaurding technology issues including copyright laws and the EU.
The GPL needs to have this court case, because if the thing is shot down, it will put a serious damper on development in the Opensource community if not kill it.
As a technology consultant, this legal issue has stopped two of my larger clients, that actually have open-minded CIO's, from rejecting linux in favour of SUN because of these legal issues. While the risk is low, its enough for already embattled IT departments not to risk it when they know that with M$ or SUN they will not have these issues.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It sounds like the GPL is going to get an airing in court. IBM and most of the other big firms with a stake in Linux probably want that because the GPL is the cornerstone on which Linux was built.
And how nice that SCO is being an obvious pack of assholes about the whole thing. This puts the defenders of the GPL in a much better situation than if they had been reasonable.
You'll recall how, when the Forces of Law'nOrder try to set a precedent confirming the enforcability of some new law (especially if it's constitutionality is questionable), they'll go after the worst scumbag they can find first. (Like going after child pornographers when trying out the latest restriction on the free press.) Once they get the precedent set, they can then use it to club anybody else who publishes something they don't like.
SCO, by taking on the entire world and insulting the intelligence of the judges who will be handling the case with a stack of obviously bogus claims, has voluntarily put itself in a position with respect to the GPL of the child pornographer picked by a prosecutor to try out a new censorship law. VERY convenient for the GPL side.
This reminds me of a saying from the heyday of usenet news political discussion/debate groups. Often there would be a regular poster on one side who would trot out every tired, repeatedly disproved, position of that side of the argument. He could never be convinced to change his position. But he'd make a DANDY foil for presenting the counter-arguments, for the edification of thousands of neo-lurkers who hadn't yet heard them. Then, a few weeks later, once a new crop of newbies had gathered and/or another news item made the subject front-page once more, he'd rehash them AGAIN. How convenient!
After a few iterations some of the posters would get bored or annoyed with him and start asking how he could be discouraged (or kicked off, if the group was moderated). Then the old hands would point out how CONVENIENT it was to have someone from the "other side" to periodically hoist the strawmen and give the rest of us an opportunity for a bonfire.
SO convenient, that it would often be said that "If [whomever] didn't exist we'd have to invent him.", i.e. we'd have to plant a shill in the crowd to do the same function (but less believably, because someone who actually believes the opposite position won't get the rhetoric quite right.)
Of course you'd never know if [whomever] actually WAS a shill - a particularly convincing one. (And that uncertainty also helped. It implied that if he WAS a shill, he'd only be raising arguments that were defective. So simply by raising one of "his side's" arguments he discredited it. B-)
SCO has been so PERFECT in this role that the old saw applies.
If the GPL can't handle a legal challenge, it's better to find that out sooner rather than later.
SCo has been so perfect for our side that it's almost enough to make you wonder if SCO *IS* a shill.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I want a refund for the Louisiana Purchase, while we're at it. ...
Oh, the reciept? *pats pockets* Let's not get bogged down in trifling details...
If the GPL is ruled invalid, why would companies only then steal the code? The code is still owned by the copyright holder. All the GPL does is pass on extra permissions to copy. Without the GPL to allow copying, no copying is valid except by the copyright holder.
Why the dickens would thieves wait to steal?
As for the chances of the GPL being ruled invalid, for what cause? It does not remove permissions, it only adds permissions. If it is ruled that it violates the copyright clause of the constitution because it expands on said clause, then every license does, including every EULA out there. You think Microsoft wants that?
Infuriate left and right
As soon as GPL holders start suing SCOX for copyright infringement (based on SCOXs argument that it's invalid), SCOX can then say 'hah - the GPL's invalid nyah nyah'
Kinda like the chicken-and-egg thing.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Captialism: Man exploits his fellow man.
Communism: The other way around.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Your argument is laughable. Nothing has been proven yet. Just because someone has challenged it, doesn't make it invalid. :)
:)
BTW, FreeBSD, which Apple used heavily in revamping the BSD layer of Mach for Mac OS X, is under the BSD license which has many of the same provisions that SCO is arguing make the GPL invalid.
Better hope they loose, huh?
Moron.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I think I have to take issue with this.
.
.) who haven't yet realized this value in this proposition, or who have vast sunk costs (either real or perceived) and are unwilling to write them off.
The way that you are portraying this conflict, as if the GPL(and/or the notion of free products produced for 'the love of the game) can not coexist with notions of business.
I think that is only part of the story. Opponents of free products, mainly business people incapable of producing a good product, often feel this way.
There is another position, and its not actually that new of an ideology.
Think Patents. Now, I don't think that the cookie cutter 14 years is good for all patents, and I certainly don't think that the broad way in which patents are interpreted is necessarily good, but, think about it: Being part of the patent system means giving up your secrets/methods to the public.
Yes---After 14 years, whatever it is you have patented becomes avaliable for anyone to use, no questions asked.
If you think back even farther, there was a time (perhaps renaissance age+earlier) when works of art/craftsman ship were commissioned, not purchased. Imagine a world in which corporations decided they needed software to fill a certain job, and therefore commission a developer to create it.
Given that it is much easier to stand on top of the sholders of others than starting from scratch, and as long as the software itself isn't your core business, most business people wouldn't have a problem releasing it to other corporations+individuals as an act of 'good faith'.
It was only a matter of time till someone understood this, but the situation needed a jumpstart---hence, the FSF.
Corporations picked up on it, and now sell improvements to Opencode bases. Software programmers now act as coders for hire, rather than peddlers of a product.
Fast forward a few years more, and you have huge corporations who have picked up on this model. Redhat, Sun, IBM, etc, etc . .
Of course, there is always the old guard (SCO, MS, etc. .
But free software makes sense. The only problem is how you can prevent someone from taking your work (i.e. MS) and embracing/extending.
As much as I disliked RMS, thinking of the GPL in game theoretic terms, it really makes a lot of sense.
The GPL is, for the most part, a tit-for-tat strategy. Any game theorists knows that in the long run tit-for-tat is the guaranteed best strategy in any game---> It always allows for win-win, and discourages attempts to take advantage of the other (defecting). I play nicely with your code? You can then use mine! I refuse to reveal my code? Then I can't integrate yours.
It even has a little bit of a blacksheep clause, where if the GPL is declared invalid on one part of a codebase, you are no longer permitted to distribute any part of that codebase.
It seems to me that a brillant extension of the GPL would be a cross-product restriction---i.e. the GPL v4 could include a provision whereby if you violated the GPL on any codebase that your organization offered you would no longer be permitted to use the licensed codebase (I'm pretty sure that the restriction could only apply on a case-by-case basis, but that wouldn't matter if everyone upgraded to the GPL v4).
Any, just my $0.02. Not every business man is the way you are portraying. Many honestly love what they produce, and are extremely proud of having an excellent product.
They would produce that product even if they couldn't make any money off of it---They would produce it for the love of the game.
This sort of envy of free 'works of art' really only comes into play with substandard producers attempting to make a quick buck (I would argure that MS is one of those corporations).
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
The GPL mindset is designed, at the very core, with the sole end goal of making the best computer program possible.
Even if you've missed the constant dogma of promoting freedom, you need look no further than the first two sentenses of the GPL's preampble:
What makes this a troll is the tension between "Free Software" and the "Open Source". Richard Stallman, for the last few years, as argued that the term "open source" is a deliberate attempt to discard the importance of freedom (the clear purpose of GNU, the FSF and the GPL) and instead emphasize the superior performance and development of software. On the other hand, OSS advocates like Eric Raymond intended to "rebrand" free software to "sell" it to businesses, primarily by chaning the name to something less ambigious (in English) and by emphasizing characteristics that commercial interests care about (mostly superior software and development methodology).
Many a bitter flame war has errupted over this.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Than I suspect Darl and Co will get jail-time.
Someone should have warned them about this.
GPL=void.
Samba=no longer able to be distributed.
SCO sells Samba as part of Unixware.
Willful infringement for the purpose of commercial/finanical gain.
Felony charges. Minimum 3 years in prison.
Generally, I believe that the amount of prison time is proportional to the distribution. In SCO's case, it is going to be pretty damn big.
And, you know, depending on why the GPL is declared invalid (not that I think it will be, infact, I'm pretty damn sure it won't) one of two things may occur:
a)GPL won't actually be found invalid, instead, SCO's crazy ass-ed interpretation of the GPL will force them into some kind of bind where they will be inviolation of it, and loose the right to distribute under it
b)It will be found invalid in some tiny and specific way, and only the current revision of the GPL. GPL v4 will come out quickly, fix whatever error existed, and the opensource world will have a hell of a time moving everyting over to it. Or even better, it will only be found inapplicable to the linux kernel for some crazy reason, in which GPL v3.x for linux will be released, fixing the problem.
If either of these occur, or the GPL is just plain busted, SCO execs will go to jail and owe huge fines.
Not that it is much consolation--->It would really suck if the GPL was crushed. But it would feel good that the people who did it were screwed in the end anyways.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Actually, a more entertaining possibility came to my mind a couple of weeks ago
Assume further, that I was in a position to advise certain well-known people in the FLOSS world (IAAL, so *that* argument (IANAL) won't fly), I'd advise my clients (Linus, Alan, Theo T'so, etc, etc, 20,000 x "etc". to immediately sue SCO and request sequestration of the judgment funds! If the GPL is held to be null and void, (which seems to be the position SCO is taking) SCO has been infringing their (the kernel contributors) copyrights for YEARS!
Just my US$0.02
utter rubbish
The GPL mindset is designed, at the very core, with the sole end goal of making the best computer program possible.
I dunno... a lot of OSS contributors seem awfully concerned with fame. Some want to become famous; others just want to bask in celebrity's warm glow. In a way, it's a lot like the irrational obsession some people have with movie stars.
They get confused because their philosophy tells them that the way to succeed is to let capitalism optimise everything; but then they see "inefficient", unoptimized, seemingly altruistic open source succeeding, they can't understand why that is.
Actually, I think a lot of OSS advocates have a deep seated belief in capitalism. They believe that capitalism is such an omnipotent force that you can take away patents, copyright, trade secrets, collusion, and any kind of leverage, and capitalism will still prevail. These are the people who become incensed if you suggest that the GPL is not capitalist. (I call those people naive.)
-a
If you don't like communism, just say so, but no need to get derogotory about it.
/is/ selfish, and I am totally in favour of unfair systems, as long as I get the best out of them. But at least I can admit that to myself and others.
The intent of communism is that everyone is equal and should be treated fairly, the basic premise is that everyone deserves to be part of a sharing community where people aren't taken advantage of. Everyone that can provide, should. And everyone that needs, should be given. In such a society no-one shold be considered a freeloader, because everyone should pitch in as much as they can.
Capitalism could be viewed as the opposite, where everyone is out for themselves rather than for the benefit of the whole.
Of course, communism is always doomed to failure because humanity is inately selfish (a necessary evolutionary trait), and the chance of a benevolent leadership persisting indefinately is unlikely.
However the fact that the ideals of communism are benevolent should not be overlooked. And it is uninformed and rude to suggest that an ideological system that exists only as a fanciful mental construct in which everyone is truly equal should in some way be feared and/or insulted. Perhaps this is just a left-over fear from the Cold War? But let's stop thinking of comunism as being the opposite of democracy, and let's stop thinking that capitalism is identical to democracy.
As it happens, while I hold many socialist views, I must confess that the core of my being
Follow the money.
There is only One Company in the whole world the SCO lawsuit helps. Hint: It isn't SCO. Arguing about the minutiae of SCO's claims misses the point. SCO is noting but a tool. The real question is how far will the One Company go?
Why did SCO get 50 million bucks in new investment? Does anyone think SCO will ever sell anything again? Everyone that would ever buy their kind of product hates them. They needed the money to pay lawyers. They also need to pay big salaries to the people at SCO who will be poison in the industry. Would you hire any of them? If you can buy Senators and the Justice Department you can certainly buy the little piss-ants at SCO. It isn't called bribery it's called investment.
As an example of what money can do; Why do you think the DMCA was passed? Because the Senators and Congressmen care so much about intellectual property rights that they made criminals of 100 million Americans? No they were paid by the RIAA. It isn't called bribery it's called campaign contributions.
The One Company must be quaking. Everyday it seems major governments are supporting open-source projects and products. Everyday it seems new announcements are made of products moving away from the One Companies products to open-source. Today the Army's Land Warrior project announced that they are moving to Linux. A better product CAN win and is winning. The One Company will lose on a fair playing field. But don't expect a fair playing field. They will buy whoever it takes to keep what they have. It isn't called bribery it's called influencing the public debate.
Start prophesy:
IBM lawyers will dig out the connection between the One Company and SCO and it will turn out to be even more disgusting than you can imagine.
Several Senators will introduce a bill that subtly or not so subtly attacks the GPL while ostensibly propping up American intellectual property rights.
Since neither Bush nor the Democratic candidates understand, or care for that matter, about open-source any bill the One Company cares to have passed will be signed into law.
Only Americans will get screwed. The rest of the world will tell the One Company to get stuffed.
End prophesy
Did you think it would ever get to the point where the RIAA would sue 12 year old girls? How far will the One Company go? From their past history there any limit?
I'm not sure how this works in the US legal system, but this document that SCO has produced is a legal document. That means it's a statement of fact in court as seen by SCO. While this might be a standard way of doing things i.e. throwing every available answer at the opposition so that those defenses are not nullified by ommission, it also is a very good vehicle for anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel to warn SCO that they (the contributors) intend to sue SCO for abuse of copyright as SCO clearly states that it distributed GPL software in full knowledge that they did not accept the copyrights of those authors since SCO claims that the GPL is invalid. This suit would work whether or not the GPL is invalidated.
All it would take is for Linus, Cox, Marcelo and the hundreds of others who contributed to warn of an intention to use AND GO TO THE PRESS WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Even the shitrag IT press such as CNet would understand such a legal threat and it would cause a major drop in SCO's stock value. Repeated a number of times by other developers, such as those of Samba, it would make SCO effectivily worthless by the time this trial gets going.
The sad thing is, that while many talk about class action lawsuits, it is almost wholly hot air and will never materialise, since talk is cheap and action requires effort.
If this doesnt cound as redistributing Linux, I'm not sure what does...
Incorrect. Communism has been attempted several times. It just happens that every single time the end result has been an oppressive dictatorship. Oh I know that you are going to say that "Yes, but that isn't REALLY communism!". But you know what? I don't care! All I care what communism is like in real-life! I don't care what some whacko theories and books say how it should be, I care about what it's reality is.
And reality is that communism is a monumental failure. If you need proof, take a look at the communistic countries and their actions.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The primary problem with Communism, and the primary reason that it wouldn't work, is that in the "ideal Communism" there would be no reason for anyone to try harder, and go above and beyond. It is the same problem that plauges Socialism. If you want real-world examples of this look at the Yugo, the great fruits of COmmunism right? And also look at the German telephone system. I remember someone that was a Contractor working on an American Military Base in Germany, got a cordless touch-tone phone for christmas one year, couldn't use it for 3 or 4 years because the German Telephone System didn't support Touch-Tones. When there is no competition for an industry, then there is no reason to improve the way it is done.
I find it funny that it seems the same people that are critizing Microsoft for thier "supposed Monopoly" are the same people that say that Linux is a viable and better alternative to Microsoft, and also the same that want this "Ideal Communism". First off, in a communistic society, there will be no competition as the only industry would be owned and run by the government, and secondly, if Linux is a viable and better alternative to Microsoft, then they cannot have a Monopoly!
Don't get me wrong, I like Linux better then Windows, but come on, lets see some common sense.....
Patrick
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
I confidently predict this will never actually reach court. SCO haven't a leg to stand on, and they know it. It's no use to Microsoft having the GPL formally validated in a courtroom - they need long term FUD. So the case will get pulled in a month or two...and then in three months time another stalking horse against Linux and the GPL will miraculously appear to continue the FUD...
Extremely insightful pointing out that communism has never been tried before (at least not on a scale large enough for anyone to notice). It's true, communism has been a red herring for the former Soviets, the Chinese, eastern block Europe, and any of the far eastern states that claim communism only to "hide" the fact that they're merely dictatorships.
/. readers are probably a bit outside the norm when it comes to that human nature. Then again, most /.ers are a minority when compared to the masses that don't think a little extra effort can go a long way in society.
I also agree that Marx was probably correct, in that capitalist society is doomed to merge larger and larger corporations with government, until they are one in the same. I honestly think we're seeing evidence of the early stages of that, considering the influence large corportations already have on policy/law making.
I don't agree, however, that communism would ever work on a large scale. I base this on human nature alone though. While everyone working toward the good of the state and sharing the fruits of their labor is a noble premise, it never takes long for society to divide itself. It's happened everywhere, and not by accident. People who think their work is more important want more for that work. People who don't think they're making a difference don't want to work as hard. It's also in human nature to eventually do as little as possible, as long as you're getting by or ahead. That's why we have such great inventions as the tractor/combine, telephone, even the tv remote. I will work to create something that will save me time and energy, so I can relax more, or sit around a bit, or get a little more sleep, or...
I realize that communism isn't completely about the sharing of work in the state. It's about sharing power as well. In that light, human nature also takes it's run. Those with more influence eventually start exercising it (we've seen this happen throughout history many times). What you have at that point is something resembling an ologopoly.
Communism might work if you can remove human nature, and most
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
You sound like a bigot. Replace "Old white men" with any of your favourite derogitory words and you would sound essentially the same. There are alot of non-"OWM" who would jump at the chance to screw over their fellow man.
The basic problem? Instead of taking responsability for their circumstances, the American underclass attempts to santify otherwise bad behaviour. When "OWM" is shouted from the desktop, nobody seems to be offended, but if they choose a different phrase, watch out! Unless you know a particular "OWM" before you judge him, you are prejudging him, and last time I checked perjudice and bigotry are synonyms.
There is a cardinal rule of society which has withstood the test of time:
If you think small you will always be small.
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
No, the "Render unto Caesar" remark is more appropriate.
The Kingdom of Heaven is completely orthogonal to the political system of the country in which you stand.
My (perhaps flawed) interpretation is that Christiaity teaches a respect for law, and copyright. Thus, I can freely use GPL software where it makes sense, and contribute to GNU buy buying manuals and such, and use Mr. Softy's products at will, as I pay for an MSDN license.
The scary people are the ones on either end of the argument who attack the American-ness, sexuality, and motives of the other end.
Bottom line: Free Speech and Free Enterprise are both American.
That tension exists between the two is just another unfortunate accident of existance. I love you all!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Seriously folks (especially you with the mod points to waste on the parent (Insightful? In what way exactly?)), the constant "Stop with the SCO" is getting aggravating.
Ok, so you don't want to read about the largest currently running legal threat to various aspects of geek life. Guess what? No-ones forcing you to! Read "SCO" in the headline and skip on down to the next story if you so desire.
In the meantime those of us that are actually quite interested (and/or worried) about where all this will eventually end up
(as opposed to debating the treatment of recordings of game screens as movies or the use of flat screen tv's as picture frames (cool, but overpriced))
can continue to appreciate as much info on real world/relevant nerd news as we can get.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
I say we nuke'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure......
All this rhetoric is getting old. I just wish that when it reaches court IBM would file a motion requesting to "televise" the whole thing via a webcam. It would be better than OJ!
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
GPL is a license. It is a contract between the consumer/user of the software and the copyright owner, explaining the rights of the user as permitted by the copyright owner. Regardless of the license, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. It's yours, and neither SCO, IBM, FSF or anyone else can take away that ownership. Period.
This is yet more FUD.
I searched the SEC website and found no information about ongoing investigations. (Apparently it is their policy to not publicize investigations.) I filled out a web form on their site and was quite surprised to receive a phone call the next day from an SEC investigator.
I spoke with the gentleman for about 45 minutes. He's a stock geek, and I'm a computer geek - different worlds, to be sure.
I did my best to communicate what I believe are the essential issues in this matter - that SCO
Is filing lawsuits to manipulate potential investors' opinions about them and their products
Is lying about the core issues in the case
Is a sham - not really developing technology but using IP (their definition) to wrest dollars from "infringers," and
That the leadership within the company is pumping and potentially dumping stock
The investigator listened patiently to my explanation and asked good "process" questions - he heard what I had to say.
He indicated that he wanted to be sure that he understood my issues (IP and copyright issues are not day to day issues for them)
Unfortunately he indicated that he did not believe that he could express my concerns cogently, and that there was not enough volume of stock being sold by insiders to justify starting an investigation.
He did tell me that if we could demonstrate that SCO leaders knowingly lied about their products or other companies, he needed to know about that because that was substantive enough to justify an investigation.
Note that we don't have to find where they sold stock on the basis of the lies, only be able to demonstrate clear false statements.
I found it interesting that
a) They would contact me
b) They would listen to me
c) They want to protect the public from abusive leaders, and
d)They would show me how to help them initiate an investigation.
Find the lies and report them, and the SEC will get engaged. Remember that what seems completely obvious to a tech geek may not be clear to a stock geek. (and vice-versa) Do the legwork, find the proof and then in a clear, concise, non-inflammatory way using layman's terms communicate that to the SEC, and they will do their job. They can't do what they don't understand. Remember that they have to prove it in a court of law, not a court of open-source advocates.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
That's called fascism. And yes, there have been academic papers categorizing fascism then comparing modern American politics. American Fascism is a real possiblility, just because they won't all dress up like Nazis and try to kill an entire ethnic group or two outright doesn't mean it's not fascism.
Fascism is a danger to all democratic states, as it requires a democratic state to breed fascism. Read this for some primer info:
Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis
BTW, Communism is bunk. It will never work, black markets are part of a body of evidence that shows humans are pre-disposed to capitalism at some level. Also Marx was railing agains the oligarchic crony capitalism, not the free and fair markets that the large part of American capitalism enshrines. Marx would probably be an economist if he'd grown up in modern America. But, he'd still see the danger of the crony capitalism we've seen with the recent Wall Street fraud. He'd probably be rapidly anti-Fascist too.
Quit sitting around on the fringes between libertarians, neo-cons and commies. There have been a lot of moderate voices who have studied all of these different systems and agree that free markets with enough regulation to keep the markets fair for new entrants is the wisest course. Regulate where it makes sense, free markets where it benefits all citizens. As Roosevelts' VP Henry Wallace once said,
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
IANAL, but I have to wonder here. We all know that SCO was giving away under the GPL what they are now claiming should never have been given away. Furthermore, they are claiming the GPL is unconstitutional.
So why did they enter into OpenLinux?
I think they are now damned if they do, damned if they don't. *IF* everything they claim is true, then they mislead their business partners in the OpenLinux effort. These partners contributed additional development effort, money and other resources to an endevour that SCO now claims they own in its entirety. Wouldn't that be fraud?
I have heard SCO attack our rights and our property.
(Yes, I believe we all own rights to Linux under the GPL)
I feel we have all been guilty of apathy.
SCO has corporate clients. We need to put pressure on any user of SCO software.
We can call, write, e-mailand protest in front of SCO Scum Clients ASAP.
A few million boycott e-mails to each, would work.
These are SCO supporters that I am aware of:
(from http://www.sco.com/company/success/)
HP and Compaq
McDonalds Corp.
PizzaHut Corp.
Wendys Corp.
i Mobile Computing, Inc. (iMC)
HON Industries
Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners
Michaels arts and crafts
Peter's Food Service in Bedwas, South Wales
Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. W. Bridgewater, MA
Sound Advice Electronics stores
Shoppers Drug Mart, Canada
Kuwait Petroleum Corp.
Sodexho Australia, Telstra Stadium in Australia
Pearle Europe B.V.
Costco Wholesale
Family Mart, Taiwan
Save Mart Supermarkets, the Modesto, Calif
Professional Datasolutions Inc (PDI), Temple, TX
Rouse's, Grocery Thibodaux, La.
Store 24, Waltham, Mass.
Swiss Chalet, Los Angeles, Houston and Miami
Condor Software, Pelham, Ala.
PCMS, Coventry, England
The Dixon Group, England
Currys
PC World computer specialty stores.
The Link mobile phone specialty stores.
Telsoft
Switchview
Nuance
APEX Voice Communications
Brooktrout Technology
Virginia- based EIS International
Faximum Software Inc.
Fujitsu
Chelmsford, Massachusetts-based Voicetek
NEC America, Inc.'s (NEC) Corporate Networks Group
Priority Call Management of Wilmington, Mass
Richmond Hill, Ontario based Synamics Inc.
Microlog Germantown, Maryland
Nortel, Brampton Ontario, Canada
Palace Resorts Cancun, Mexico
Cendant Corp
Cendant lodging brands include Amerihost Inn, Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Knights Inn, Ramada Inn, Super 8, Travelodge
W.E.T. Automotive Systems AG, Odelzhausen, Germany
If Linux users loudly boycott SCO clients, SCO will back down FAST.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Licenses are agreements, made on the own terms of the parties involved, yes. But ask yourself.. what happens when people want to exit an agreement?
Typically, the answer is litigation. What happens in contract litigation? Contracts are brutally picked apart, word for word. If the contract is found to be problematic, parts of it may be void. e.g. if the GPL violates contract law, it's out in the cold. The (ugly) beauty of it is, a single case that breaks the GPL is all that's really needed for anyone else to present the same arguments and get out of that same agreement.
Now, the main purpose of all that obscure language in a contract is to protect each side's interests against that. But its mere presence demonstrates why it's needed.
I knew a pretty good IP lawyer once. He said 90% of the protection against litigation is outside the contract.. i.e. not getting in bad relationships in the first place. Once it's down to litigation, it's very much a question of time and money how it turns out.
Now, the GPL, at least to my eye, is a fine contract with a lot of attention to detail. We should be very grateful to the FSF for making it so well.
However, the vested interests of the software industry have had the GPL in their sites for some time now. Even at the small companies I've worked for, there's kind of a underground rumor mill between the execs and general counsel about possibilities for breaking it. The few times I've had the oppportunity to talk to execs at larger companies, it's positively hated. This isn't conspiracy, it's competition... even *ideological* competition. There would be a huge sigh of relief in the old business community if the GPL could be ignored. I have some choice epithets in mind to describe this kind of thinking, but we've heard them all before.
I think it would be very unwise for the free software community to underestimate the risks involved here. The more this story develops, the more it looks like SCO will be the first concerted, and possibly successful effort, to kill the GPL.
We want to say "but it does the right thing in the right way". They want to say "find a way to break it so we can make money." This goes back to not getting in bad relationships in the first place.
So, think damage control. Don't be surprised to see a GPL version 3 in the works. We'd have to get it out en force to keep things honest.
The Constitution is a document that RESTRICTS what government can do. As the FSF is a private charity and not a government, it is impossible for the FSF to do or create something that is unconstitutional.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
If you stand in a country but have no power over it, then you should not be judged as that nation is. But if you are a member of the ruling class- if you influence decisions and are rewarded by the actions of a nation- then you bear guilt for whatever ills it does. To encourage and justify a way of evil is to do evil yourself.
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw
When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them
Bottom line: Free Speech and Free Enterprise are both American.
I believe they're American. But they're not Christian, and the USA is not a Christian nation. It may follow the pattern established by so-called "Christian" churches in Europe since the founding of Catholocism, but that behavior is a far cry from what is actually expounded by the New Testament.
WWJD? He sure wouldn't spend 25%+ of the federal budget on weapons and warriors! He wouldn't launch an transcontinental war to hunt down a few Muslims who blew up some towers. He'd never impose a death penalty. He would not approve of the violent methods which the "born-again Christian" president of the USA excells at.
> If the gpl gets declared invalid ...
Then US copyright law will need to be evaluated from first principles. The GPL is very straightforward, and is merely an application of copyright interests, making specific grants of distribution rights which are reserved to authors under copyright law.
If there is anything to find "invalid" about the GPL, it's going to be very, very difficult for such a finding to be narrowly tailored so that it only affects the GPL and does not affect every other agreement that has ever been made under copyright law, and it's also going to be a challenge for a court to make a finding that ONLY respects the GPL, because that would not pass the basic test of fairness and gets into 14th Amendment territory.
No judge is going to order the GPL "invalid" without stating the reasons. Any reasons given are guaranteed to affect other licenses. Without reasons given, it would obviously be a case of prejudice against the "GPL".
There might be specific problems with the GPL, but the overall implication of the agreement is solid and doesn't do much besides exercise an author's right under copyright law. I have never heard an argument against the GPL that does not abridge authors' rights under copyright law, and I doubt that such an argument can be made.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Matthew 6:20
Giving is from the heart, not from the state. Remember also to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's"; and "There is no authority on earth which God himself has not established.""But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The Center for Responsive Politics runs this great site called Open Secrets, which tracks who's giving and who's getting the publically-trackable $ in D.C.. This is their overview of the Software/Internet industry.
Notice the part below about law that was passed by virtue of the the interests of big software companies. Does GPL sound very interesting next to trade relations with China? Or, right next to "passage of Y2K liability reform" imagine the addition of "passage of GPL liability reform".
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/backgroun
"Background: Computers/Internet
The past decade saw the computer industry rise from the back benches of the American economy to become one of its major players - so important that it's now a driving force in the economy's overall health. The industry's breathtaking success has produced an equally stunning rise in political activity, particularly through campaign contributions. In 1990, the computer industry ranked 55th out of the roughly 80 industries the Center tracks, with about $1.3 million in contributions to federal candidates and parties. Just 10 years later in the 2000 elections, the industry cracked the top 10 list, with more than $30 million in contributions.
Not surprisingly, the high-tech companies that are responsible for the largest amounts of campaign contributions also have netted the biggest profits during the Internet boom: Microsoft, America Online, Cisco, Dell, and Oracle. Their generosity helped win several big victories in the 106th Congress. Among them were passage of permanent trade relations with China, an increase in the number of visas issued to foreign high-tech workers, passage of Y2K liability reform, an increase in federal funding for research, and enactment of a tax credit for research and development. The industry also met with success in what Congress did not do - namely, advance plans to tax Internet commerce.
The computer industry's strategy for the current Congress resembles that of a sports team with a large lead: play defense and preserve the status quo. The industry wants to prevent any attempts to reverse its recent successes, focusing in particular on preserving the moratorium on Internet taxes and limiting the federal government's role in Internet privacy issues.
Microsoft has an additional concern all its own: the federal government's attempts to declare it an illegal monopoly and break the company into pieces. President Clinton's Justice Department vigorously pursued its antitrust case against the software giant, and company executives are hoping to fare better under President Bush's administration.
Overall, the industry has been scrupulously bipartisan in its contributions, giving nearly equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans, and thus ensuring broad support on both sides of the political aisle in Congress.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. "
>If the GPL is invalid...
>then SCO is guilty of pirating the Linux kernel!!
Absolutely. It actually should be worse than that for SCO:
EVEN IF the GPL is NOT invalid, SCO has publicly rejected its terms.
So the validity of the GPL does not enter the discussion, period. SCO has no right to use the software unless it has negotiated some other license terms, period.
I'm surpised we aren't already hearing about TRO's being filed, C&D's being sent, and suits being filed on this. It's pretty simple: GPL software is licensed, not sold. Either you accept the terms of the license, or you do not. If you do not accept the terms of the license because you believe the license to be invalid or because its terms are not legal in your jurisdiction or because of other interests you may have, that's just too bad for you.
If your mortgage agreement has an illegal clause in it, you don't get your house for free.
If I don't agree with what's written on my parking ticket, it's not going to stop my car from being towed if I don't move it.
If I have legal problems that prevent me from agreeing with the GPL, I cannot use SAMBA on my network, period.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Must....resist.....arguing.....can't...do...it...
Doh.
The intent of communism is that everyone is equal and should be treated fairly, the basic premise is that everyone deserves to be part of a sharing community where people aren't taken advantage of. Everyone that can provide, should. And everyone that needs, should be given. In such a society no-one shold be considered a freeloader, because everyone should pitch in as much as they can.
1) Any system whose fundamental premise is that everyone is equal is going to be flawed. Obviously, everyone is not equal (Rousseau's _Disocourse on the Origin of Inequality_ comes to mind about this discussion) However, everyone should be equal before the law See the evolution of the English legal system (Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, Rights of the Englishmen) It's been a while since I've read the _Communist Manifesto_, but I don't recall much about equal rights before the law in there.
2) For an interesting culmination of what happens when "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is implemented, you may want to read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_. A little dystopic, to be sure, but is certainly thought provoking. In essence, it displays the unfairness that this philosophy engenders.
Of course, communism is always doomed to failure because humanity is inately selfish (a necessary evolutionary trait),
In other words, people are doomed to be who they are. Nice.
Motivated self interest (AKA selfishness) is how people are wired (at least that seems to be the general consensus around here). Selfishness is not a bad thing (although it has a bad connotation in today's society) For example, it is in my best interests to fund general schooling of the population, rehab centers, and welfare (to name a few social institutions) Another Ayn Rand book _The Virtue of Selfishness_ discusses the concept in a rather interesting way which you won't find in your standard religion or civics classes.
However the fact that the ideals of communism are benevolent should not be overlooked
This sounds strangely like the ends justify the means...Which ideals are you talking about? Equality -- false premise. Fairness -- sure, but communism doesn't have a monopoly on advocating this concept. The ideal that the group is more important than myself is definitely not benevolent as it makes the individual subservient to the group, which is not a very fair situation.
And it is uninformed and rude to suggest that an ideological system that exists only as a fanciful mental construct in which everyone is truly equal should in some way be feared and/or insulted
Resorting to ad hominem attacks is not extremely pursuasive. I consider myself informed and very fashionable, and I have no problem with insulting communism.
I am totally in favour of unfair systems, as long as I get the best out of them.
This is just plain wrong, no matter what political system you may advocate.
I can't believe that the parent was modded to 5...
Chooks
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Great. "My ideal utopian assumptions have never been tried before". Why not? Because your utopian model of society assumes things that simply are not so. Communism (which you fail to define) has never been tried before because it's not practical. It assumes conditions which are simply not true. Read on...
*GPL is not Communist. It's cooperative. If I make a buck selling manuals, boxes, CDs, and consulting/design services for GPL software, it's my buck. It does not go to "the community" unless I want it to.
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
Communism and capitalism--defined here in very simple terms are the two systems of economics most often discussed. There are other systems, of course, but
Capitalism: "Every man for himself" assumes human greed. A capitalist system acknowledges this and involves laws, social mores, and regulations which use this tendency (human greed) to produce good things for society. The individual's greed is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." depends on human altruism. Similarly to capitalism, a communist implementation of social structure tries to use this tendency (human altruism) to produce good things for society. The individual's concern for his neighbor and for society at large is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Failure Modes are the problem. Look around you. Go to longbets.com if you're sure you're right--make a prediction that demonstrates the superiority of communism, and test it.
In an "ideal" society (that's one where everyone behaves the way you want them to), communism looks like utopia.
In the real world--greed kicks the ass of altruism. Every time. You don't find the wealthy embracing communism, giving away all their possessions and dedicating their lives to the service of the poor.
Hey, look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--that's altruism, right? Nah. That's PR. Just like the Carnegie Libraries. Sure they did good. Not by putting themselves in the same financial situation as "the people", though. I'm sure you're familiar with the parable of the widow's mite.
The proponents of communism aren't so altruistic, either. In fact, those are generally the best examples of the greed that makes capitalism successful.
Because "Let's Share" always seems to mean "Let's share...yours"
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
It is interesting that GPL software keeps being cited as communist rather than what it truly is... enlightened self interest, which could be translated to capitalism. Allow me to expound. The GPL is a market where I write code that helps me, and deliver it to others in exchange for any code they write to improve my code. The "I" and "others" above can be translated to IBM, Red Hat, Linus, Alan...
GPL software is really a barter system where the unit of exchange is code, testing, bug reports... This is why it messes up money focused capitalists, they assume if money is not exchange it isn't capitalism. A point that should be made is that barter unless there are sufficient people willing to trade in that currency. This would suggest that certain kinds of specialized software where a critical mass of contributors cannot be reached should continue to use the proprietary model where money is exchanged for labor.