SCO Madness Reigns Supreme

Sri Lumpa writes "It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories and read their latest filing that an IP attorney, Douglas Steele, Esq., thinks that 'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.' Meanwhile, more lawyers give their opinions, with Eben Moglen saying 'It's just rubbish,' while another says of SCO's defense: 'From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated,' while Blake Stowell of SCO believes Congress has drawn a boundary between proprietary and open source and still insists that IBM should indemnify its Linux users while refusing to indemnify SCO's Samba users against a potential MS lawsuit. More links to related news stories continue to appear in the comment section of the first link, thanks to the Groklaw readers." Read on for another handful of updates in SCO vs. The World.

Roblimo knows good, honest Constitutional argumentation when he sees it, and over on NewsForge amplifies SCO's claims that the GPL is unconstitutional.

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

And perhaps today's most interesting SCO submission: 1HandClapping writes "In alwayson-network.com, Mark F. Radcliffe (HIAL) writes about a little-reported aspect of the SCO vs IBM case: 'Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.'"

Comments

Noorda's revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

One crazy thought that keeps popping into my mind is that the entire SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final revenge on Microsoft.

Consider that Noorda has been around the tech industry a LONG time, that he has been involved in a lot of companys, he presumably knows who the A-team and B-team players are, and that he appears to dislike Microsoft a little bit.

So - he takes one of the organizations under his control. He fills it with C-team players. He fills (or prompts someone to fill) the C-team with truthful but misleading information about SCO's purported "intellectual property". He advises them to go after the biggest target first.

Then he sits back and watches while SCO leads a hopeless charge against IBM. This has the dual effect of (a) laying down case law _supporting_ the GPL that Microsoft will have a very hard time overturning (b) smoking out various linkages and anti-competitive behaviour on Microsoft's part.

Crazy, but I have a hard time seeing why else SCO is being so incompetent.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

a rube goldburg...

pure genius :^)

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[stephenry]

There was a line in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which stated that if someone ever found out the true meaning to life, the universe and everything; God would simply destroy it and replace it with something even more unexplainable. Just because it can't be explained doesn't be that it can't be. Let's hope that whatever is lurking in the future for Linux has a case as plausible as SCO's.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice way to work a completely unwarranted Hitchhiker's Guide reference in there, nerd.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[retro128]

Well if you are in to conspiracy theories, it could also be said that maybe Microsoft is pulling the strings and funneling money into SCO to try to undermine the Linux movement. That makes more sense then Noorda starting this whole mess.

Why, if he wanted to get back at Microsoft, would he do something that directs most of the damage to IBM and Linux? Microsoft is loving every minute of this Linux FUD. Even if he advised that SCO go after IBM, if Darl McBride was the least bit sane he would have known he could never win.

The only explanation is that there's money involved somewhere, and a whole pile of it. And who's got the piles of money, and who has the most to gain by the FUDding of Linux, and who's got a previous relationship with SCO?

SCO's claims are ridiculous. Any person of reasonable intelligence can see that. If this were a valid IP claim they would want this to go to court as soon as possible, but they won't even pony up the evidence and all they do are press releases. They are doing nothing but trying to drag this out for as long as possible. Now ask yourself, who is going to gain from all this extended FUD?

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[sphealey]

Well if you are in to conspiracy theories, it could also be said that maybe Microsoft is pulling the strings and funneling money into SCO to try to undermine the Linux movement. That makes more sense then Noorda starting this whole mess.

After losing the first anti-trust trial (not the one most recently concluded), Bill Gates vowed never to be out-maneuvered in Washington again. And he appears to have purchased the best and the brightest in political, lobbying, and legal advice. If he wants to go after the GPL he will do so in a much more controlled and precise manner. In fact I think Microsoft is lobbying right now to have the GPL outlawed, but you aren't hearing about it in Infoworld. No, this doesn't smell like the new, politically aware Microsoft. Not that they aren't enjoying the pre-game anyway.

Why, if he wanted to get back at Microsoft, would he do something that directs most of the damage to IBM and Linux? Microsoft is loving every minute of this Linux FUD. Even if he advised that SCO go after IBM, if Darl McBride was the least bit sane he would have known he could never win.

In the short term, Linux is being "harmed" in some eyes. But if the outcome is solid case law that backs the GPL and once-and-forall resolves the SysV ownership issue, then the long term benefits to Linux will be immense. And IBM really isn't being hurt by this. Their lawyers get paid whether they work today or not, and IBM can make money selling Linux, AIX, Unixware, Multics, Windows, whatever. They are pushing Linux right now because it is hot and it keeps Microsoft under control, but they don't have any intrinsic stake in anything nowadays except the S/370 systems.

sPh

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[drteknikal]

I think you give Ray way too much credit.

I'm not saying he isn't behind this, or that he wouldn't approve of your projected outcome, but subterfuge and finesse were never his strong points. His mind was also fogged long before he left Novell.

I have a problem. I always assume intent. More often, stupidity is a more correct reason. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[Ralph Yarro]

Honestly, I think even my explanation was more convincing than that, and that's saying something.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[VivianC]

They are doing nothing but trying to drag this out for as long as possible. Now ask yourself, who is going to gain from all this extended FUD?

With Longhorn still two years away, it might be best to drag this out as long as they can. You wouldn't want people changing over to Linux while you try to figure out your new OS, right?

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[silicon not in the v]

Why, if he wanted to get back at Microsoft, would he do something that directs most of the damage to IBM and Linux?

Damage? I don't see IBM or Linux getting much damage from this. I don't necessarily see his theory about Noorda as being very realistic, but this probably will end up having a pretty good outcome for Linux and OS in general. SCO will look like fools, and the GPL will come out looking very legitimate and having gotten a lot of publicity in the process--kind of like the valiant hero who defended against the overwhelming advance of the unwashed mass...er, I mean barbarian hordes.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[jmorse]

Riiiiiight. Kind of like George W. Bush is secretly hoping to help the poor and middle class in thee US. It's all a secret plot.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the greatest theory I have ever heard. My own take has been that it's Bill Gates and company. Bill and SCO go a long way back, and Bill's fear of open source, Linux, and Linus are well known at least since Eric R was given the Halloween Documents.

But if this indeed were Ray doing it, I think I would raise my glass to the guy.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[retro128]

I don't disagree with out that Linux will come out on top and that the GPL will be vindicated, but by "damage" I meant PR. No doubt there are some PHB's that are afraid of liability and will think twice about deploying Linux. This affects IBM's business as well because both of their core OS's, AIX and Linux, have been implicated in this so-called IP dispute.

If the PHB's were not afraid, you wouldn't have HP's move to indemnify Linux users. That sounds like damage to me. But will it stem the tide? No. Will Linux be a casualty in some IT departments? Probably. Looking at the Noorda theory, this whole thing is a way bigger gadfly to Linux and IBM than it will ever be to Microsoft. Therefore, IMHO, if anyone besides the loonies at the head of SCO are behind this, it would be Microsoft.

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[kosmonaut pirx]

Ok, sounds convincing, but never underestimate the sillyness of human beings!

Re:Noorda's revenge?

[mbogosian]

Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity.
-- author unknown

(e)stop the madness

[Empiric]

By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled from any course of action whatsoever?

Maybe just a non-lawyer's wishful thinking...

Re:(e)stop the madness

[devphaeton]

By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled from any course of action whatsoever?

In a way, i kinda hope not. I would really like to see this go to court. Not only for the satisfaction of seeing SCO get smashed by an elephant, but also to see how the GPL will shake out in the courts. It's only a matter of time before the GPL gets called into court, and down the road there may be other opportunities, but it would really be advantageous to those supporting the GPL (of whom are habitually broke) to have this happen now, with the muscle (and finances) of IBM in our court.

At any other time, the "attrition strategy" of prolonging the court process until the other side is bankrupted might get turned against us.

We all know that even if the GPL is completely rock solid, it can still lose in court depending upon its presentation. And if it *does* lose in court, that could potentially start a firestorm of FUD and abandonment, if not a poor perception of Open Source products (even BSD-license ones.. consider how a PHB thinks). Next thing you know, we'll all be replacing linux/bsd servers with Windows Server 2003 or SUNW at our workplace.

I would hate to see the party crashed just as it was getting started, you know?

Re:(e)stop the madness

[baileytal]

My understanding of estoppel is that it only operates when party A has 1) made a statement that it knows to be untruthful or incorrect and 2)party B actually relies upon that statement 3) after which party A seeks to rely on the actual state of affairs 4) to party B's actual detriment or loss. Estoppel would stop party A from being able to give legal effect to the actual state of affairs.

The textbook example I remember involved trespass, which is a pretty cut-and-dried legal doctrine. In that example, party A owned a piece of land, which party B used to regularly travel over. Party A allowed B to continue to regularly travel over the land for a long time, such that B actually developed some sort of monetary gain from it. Party A then tried to sue B in trespass. B pleaded estoppel, and the court agreed. It was outrageous that A should lie in wait, and lead B to believe that it had no objection to the trespass.

It's essentially an ancient legal doctrine meant to counter frauds or bait-and-switch operations.

It's important to note that estoppel is an equitable doctrine, meaning it's a subset of legal arguments traditionally pled where someone's clear legal rights will lead to an egregious injustice.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[Empiric]

Like... SCO's original "Download our GPL'ed product, and you're free to use it as you see fit" followed by "Pay us $699 per install or face legal action?", for example...?

Re:(e)stop the madness

[cmason32]

You're thinking of equitable estoppel. There is also collateral and judicial estoppel. Collateral estoppel means that once a court has come to a decision, that decision affects other similarly related facts. Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting one thing in one instance and then the opposite in another instance.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[Planesdragon]

IIRC, doctrines like estoppel apply to courts, not judges.

it's perfectly alight, for example, for a lawyer to argue "My client didn't fight your client, and even if he did, it was self-defense."

Re:(e)stop the madness

[DeadTOm]

I wasn't really sure where to put this but this seemed like a likely enough spot. SCO has been for years, and is still now, developing and destributing software under the GPL have they not? So wouldn't that mean that they AGREED to the terms of the GPL? So now that it's not working in their favor, they are saying that it's unconstitutional? So did it just suddenly occur to them that the GPL is unconstitutional or did they think so when they initially agreed to it's terms? You'd think that they would have looked into it with the same care and attention to detail when they first agreed to it, knowing that their customers where agreeing to the EXACT same terms.
I don't know where exactly I'm going with this but hopefully you get the jist of it.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[Brendan Byrd]

Too bad estoppel didn't stop Unisys from suing for counterdamages of an 20-year-old GIF standard.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[The Winter Queen]

I think they must have spent all that money sco just got on crack. Once they've smoked it all they'll drop the lawsuit.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[twiddlingbits]

That assertion would have to have been entered as evidence in court. Right now SCO can talk out of both sides of their mouth with out being silenced as no actual evidence has been entered as the trial has not begun, only Discovery and lots of legal motions related to it.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[vsprintf]

I would really like to see this go to court. Not only for the satisfaction of seeing SCO get smashed by an elephant, but also to see how the GPL will shake out in the courts.

Normally I'd be rooting for the underdog rather than the elephant. I want to see SCO get whacked because they're lying theives, and at least in this case, IBM is right.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[Zeinfeld]

It's important to note that estoppel is an equitable doctrine, meaning it's a subset of legal arguments traditionally pled where someone's clear legal rights will lead to an egregious injustice.

Right, the biggest problem with SCO's case is that they refuse to mitigate their damages by telling the Linux community what the parts of the code alleged to infringe are.

It is very clear that the minute SCO reveals that information that the code will be yanked and replaced by non infringing code, most likely within hours, days at the outside.

This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.

The analogy would be to the distributor of a compilation 'best of hits' CD consisting of a selection from the distributor's archives, being challenged by a record label claiming that it is actually the legitimate owner of the rights to one of the songs on the compilation but refusing to specify which song is in dispute. The distributor of the compilation is then given the choice between not distributing the CD at all and risking a possibly bogus infringement claim. If the distributor is told the song that is in dispute they can easily swap it for a different one, it is the refusal to be specific that is the only reason that the plaintif's claim has standing.

This is not estoppel, but estoppel could also apply. SCO has allowed Linux to be distributed for many years and is in fact a distributor itself. Failure to enforce claims can result in them being lost. In fact this is the same claim that SCO is making against the GPL.

I don't think that the SCO objection holds because it is the behavior of IBM that is at issue, not the FSF. In this case IBM does not appear to have a history of failure to enforce its limited reciprocal rights under the GPL for the simple reason that SCO is the first company to attempt to sue...

Re:(e)stop the madness

[Khalid]

This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.

Actually SCO can't claim any damage !!

This has not been publicised very much, but a clause in the sale contract between Novell and SCO gives Novell the ability to waive SCO'S right to claim any damages for the violation of it's rights, which Novell did on it's behalf.

Re:(e)stop the madness

[bigbluefin]

It is very clear that the minute SCO reveals that information that the code will be yanked and replaced by non infringing code, most likely within hours, days at the outside. This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.

Don't you see, the reason SCO is not identifying the infringing code is to prove to the court later that the Linux stewards don't know where this, or any other potentially infringing code, is in their own kernel, that the open-source model is not protective of IP because the people managing the kernel can't tell when code comes in that it is infringing, and it could be happening hourly. In SCOs eyes (actually not SCO, they are just the stalking horse here, period.) the argument that the code is open source, and is there for all to see, can be attacked by saying that the Linux maintainers are requiring a burdensom, affirmative obligation on the part of everyone out there with software IP to constantly analyze the Linux kernel, looking for improper use of their code. Make no mistake about it, this is an attack (not the entire war, just one tactic in a larger strategy) on the GPL by one company. In a legal system with integrity, this case could never succeed, and the company sponsoring this would finally get their just anti-trust due. But I think we all have to be congnizant of the fact that after November 2000 that, at the top, which is where this will wind up, the fix is in, and if the FSF and IBM aren't on top of their game, this could turn out very badly.

The Madness of King Darl

[whig]

I posted this to LWN earlier....

It's important to understand that this really is a war, and SCO has a point, albeit not one that sane people should accept.

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable.

By this reasoning, then, SCO will claim it has every right to use GPL code in its proprietary distributions, but on the other hand, can contend that its own code (or code which IBM created under a license which grants SCO ownership of their code) was never intended (by SCO) to be released under GPL nor public domain.

Now, to fully understand these arguments, you must put yourself in the mindset of a madman. Which, undoubtedly, Darl McBride is. Microsoft and others have surely encouraged his delusional state, and given him the resources he needs to pursue his dreams of world domination, with the understanding that even if SCO has no chance of succeeding in the final analysis, the legal case can and will create FUD to slow the adoption of Linux and buy time for proprietary firms.

If this is a war, SCO is a foot soldier. SCO will die, of course, but that's what foot soldiers are expected to do.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[CrimeDoggy]

Very good point - but the missing thing from all of this IMO is an exit strategy. what is the end game for SCO? they know they can't win, unless the level of madness is so deep McBride is truly delusional. So what is the secret hidden goal they are going to piss away millions in legal fees in vain for? And the worst thing - I keep trying to short SCOX and there are no shares to borrow!

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[dreamchaser]

The exit strategy isn't for the company, it's for the execs who plan to make a ton of money with this pump and dump scheme. They could care less what happens to the company long term.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[sphealey]

Well, we haven't seen SCO's detailed arguments on these points yet. At a minimum a couple of problems seem to pop up.

SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.

Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

I can make all the high speed routers I desire, and I can license them under any terms I like. I just can't sell them to, e.g., North Korea, and if I do I can be prosecuted. How is distributing GPL software any different?

sPh

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mark-t]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software

Wrong... it is *designed* to generate _THE_ best software that is humanly possible, whether for financial gain or not.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[whig]

McBride is *truly* delusional, IMHO.

As for the attorneys, under the amended agreement with SCO, they get 20% of certain licensing fees and investments, I believe. Which means they probably pocketed $1.6M from Microsoft's most recent licensing payment, and perhaps $10M from the RBC/BayStar investment.

Quite a motivation to continue pursuing a losing case. Even if Boies & Co. were to be disbarred, this is the kind of money that can make them say, "So what."

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[stephenry]

The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government, secondly, export controls only apply to that which is not already freely available to the public. Unless, US law suddenly applies to everyone else in the world, I don't see this being successfull.

Shame really. I can just see it now. McBride's just spent his new $50 million hollowing out an old mountain (for SCO's new headquarters), bought him self a brand new white cat and leather chair and got his employees kit-ed out in matching grey overalls.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[whig]

Quote from the GNU Manifesto:

"GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems."

The same principles apply to non-OS GPL software, although the original concept was just to create a replacement for Unix.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[haystor]

One reason they are going through this madness is to put on a show that they sincerely believe themselves to be right. They are wrong, everyone knows it, but right now they have to put on a show of believing their wrongness so that it's harder to prove they are guilty of fraud and not just bad decisions.

Then they'll just use the standard "needed to sell the stock to pay for the house(s), the timing was just a fluke" in order to avoid SEC charges.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[tuffy]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? If one defines freedom by lack of restrictions, GPLed code is less free than public domain code by virtue of the GPL's specific copying conditions. Thus the only thing seperating GPLed code from other proprietary code is those cost and conditions.

Mad King Darl, it seems, doesn't like the GPL's cost and conditions because of what they mean for his stock price.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[sphealey]

The exit strategy isn't for the company, it's for the execs who plan to make a ton of money with this pump and dump scheme. They could care less what happens to the company long term.

Yes, but shareholder lawsuits can go after the executives' personal fortunes. The SCOids have to know this, yet while their lawyers use careful, lawyerly, deniable language the SCO execs continue to say things that "could be used against you in a court of law". That is hard to understand.

sPh

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[whig]

Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.

It isn't unconstitutional by any stretch of *my* imagination, but that's just because I'm not delusional enough to buy into SCO's theory.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[sphealey]

The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government,

That argument has been advanced since the dawn of the Internet, but it turns out not to be the case. A lot of Linux developers do live in the US, RedHat is headquartered in the US, and at the moment Linus lives in the US as well. Whether or not "Linux" could be controlled by the USG, a lot of people who work on Linux could suffer adverse consequences if distribution of Linux is found to violate US export regs. Not that I think it will or that the argument is strong, but the potential consequences are there.

sPh

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFL:: the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[judd]

No.

The GPL is designed to ensure that there is free software. That is all.

Any quality benefits are purely coincidental. (The Open Source crowd disagree, but that's a different kettle of fish, and a whole other bunch of licenses).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[devphaeton]

So what is the secret hidden goal they are going to piss away millions in legal fees in vain for?

according to the tinfoil hatted masses, it isn't SCO's millions that they are pissing away. Maybe Darl is just having fun... playing a multimilliondollar game of Scrabble that he knows he won't win, but will enjoy the ride, nonetheless.

The more crap he spouts, the more "sponsors" he'll get. The more sponsors will submit more millions to keep the company afloat longer. The longer the company stays afloat, and the more millions it brings in, the more that the execs can pump n dump..... GOTO 10

etc.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed

Not quite.

You can't GPL something, accept contributions and enhancements to it, and then take the current version proprietary, and redistribute further closed enhancements to that. Doing so would violate the license all those contributers gave you.

This has been a sticking point for me in the past and has acted to

prevent

distribution of some code as GPL. Consider, we'd have a body of code, some rather generic, and some quite specific to our edge in the market. The two parts are quite tightly bound together. We'd like to release the generic part and encourage it's enhancement, and incorporate those enhancements with our specific part, but keep the latter proprietary (or at least keep it from benefitting our commercial copmpetition).

We can't release the generic part under the GPL and leverage improvements made to it with our proprietary code. We don't want to releae the generic part under the LGPL (which would get around this problem), because we don't want our competition to make proprietary enhancements to that and leverage them -- we're willing to share the generic part, but only equally.

In practice, nothing gets opened up because of this dilema, and the entire package remains proprietary :-(.

Now, we might be able to come up with some creative networked binding via pipes or sockets that "gets around" the GPL, but this (a) requires effort and may impact performance to an unacceptable degree, and (b) RMS, at least, has not taken kindly to such ideas (not that this is a surprice), even if it means that nothing gets released in "somewhat free" manner. Somewhat free is not a slippery slope that RMS, nor the community at large, would like to see.

I have suggested a transitional dual license in the past: GPL and GPL with an explicit exception for us as described above. Contributers could chose if they would permit our using their code in a proprietary fashion or not. Even RMS has found this acceptable. Of course, such a release could fork immediately, with no community development on the "somewhat free" license side (and that's why RMS probably approved). This is generally an unacceptable risk to most businesses that think all software has greater value if kept secret and would only consider a free release if there was a good chance it would enhance some other aspect of their business.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Java Pimp]

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable.

You make a good point and I can see SCO trying to make these claims. The problem with the argument is that the GPL doesn't grant any freedoms beyond what is granted by law.

All code, proprietary or GPL licensed will always be restricted by export controls. Nothing in the GPL even attemts to make a claim to the contrary. All code, proprietary or GPLed, is protected by copyright law. The code is owned and controled by the original author and will always be* until that ownership is transfered to someone else. The GPL does not provide for the software to even come close to being property of the public domain. The GPL only provides the express written permission given by the original author and owner of the code, outlining the terms and conditions in which others may use his/her copyrighted works. Nothing more.

It does not say "This code is immune to export control"
It does not say "This code is freer than free"

It says, "This is my copyrighted works, and this is how you may copy, modify and redistribute it. If you don't like my terms for copying, modifying and redistributing my works, you are bound to the limitations of use provided for by copyright law."

* Provided for by the perpetual nature of copyright and our friends at Disney.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[The_K4]

Or the ever popular, I had a pre-aranged sell price, it hit that price.... Where have I heard that before? *cough*Martha*cough*.....:)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Edmund Blackadder]

I think the export controls argument is based on a an incorrect understanding of the GPL. The gpl does not require you to show the source to everyone, only to the people that you distribute or sell the software to.

Since export controls prevent you from selling the software as much as disclosing the code, i dont see how GPLed software is as compatible with export controls as all other software.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Steve B]

The SCOids have to know this, yet while their lawyers use careful, lawyerly, deniable language the SCO execs continue to say things that "could be used against you in a court of law". That is hard to understand.

I think that they have simply painted themselves into a corner. By the time they realized just what a mess they'd gotten themselves into, they were stuck -- they had to win somehow in order to avoid (at best) losing their shirts or (at worst) going to prison.

Having examined the problem from all angles, they found it to be plainly hopeless. Logic informed them that, under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[muddafunkinit]

unfortunately, rationality, coherence and constitionality have very little to do with how legal decisions come down in this country. See any final adjudication of an anti-trust suit against Microsoft for support.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[The_K4]

So you want the benifits of other giving you their time and effort on your code, but you don't want to pay the price of having to make ALL of that software open. The GPL was written to hold people to the "show me your and i'll show you mine" type of system. You want to avoid that. I can understand people not wanting to let you get away with that.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Malfourmed]

Having examined the problem from all angles, they found it to be plainly hopeless. Logic informed them that, under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation.

Please do not, under any circumstances and no matter how unintentioned, compare Darl McBride with Mr Spock in "The Galileo Seven".

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[ph4rmb0y]

Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed

Call me old fashioned, but this seems LESS FREE. More restrictions = Less Free

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[lobsterGun]

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

I've been thinking about this. The GPL say that I have to give source code to anyone that I give my object code to. If I am prevented by law from giving a person the object code, then I don't have to give them the source either.

Am I right? is that the way it works?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in florida. Money to the Carribian, houses in Plam Beach.

I for one would like to seem some heniously draconian legislation to address this problem. Legislation that would cut off countries with "banking privacy laws" (here after refered to as "theif friendly, or TF") from the flow of US capital. Banks doing business in and with the US would be inelligable from dealing with banks in those countries, or banks that delt with banks in those countries directly or through proxy. Companies operating in the US could not have any financial dealings with such banks, even in those countries, without publishing prohibitively complete and transparent financial statments, not only for the company as a whole, but between all organizational units of the company, at the companies expense, and force them to maintain all this information on a high availability public website. Economic crimes would garner stiff manditory long decade+ manditory sentances, along with forfiture of assets, and a denial of bankruptcy protections. TF countries would also be denied MFN status, as would any country who fails to abide by new American standards for transparent financial transactions. Prevent the US from recognizing such countries in any trade treaties. And prevent the US from providing any assistance economic or otherwise to that country, or any institution based there.

Fuck those pump and dump bitches. Fuck them in their stupid asses. Those guys are fucking clown shoes(I don't actually know what this last part means).

Time to go, my tin-foil hat is oxidizing.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he wants the benefits of sharing some portion of the code, but not all. And he is making a contribution; it's not the case, as you try to pretend, that it's a matter of leeching. Hell, it's his code to start with.

One of the faults of the GPL is that it incorporates some rather arbitrary and inconsistent definition of a derivative work based on the concept of linkage.

Static linking, bad; OS running app, good. Dynamic linking, bad. But then, there's no real techical distinction between an OS running an app, and dynamic linking. The line just gets blurrier from there. And unless you like spending lots of time with SCOish lawyers, the only safe things to do are (1) GPL absolutely everything, just to be sure, or (2) GPL absolutely nothing.

In thise case, this group of developers doesn't want (1), so they're stuck with (2), to the detriment of the open source community.

The FSF, of course, doesn't see this as a problem, because they're grinding a philosophical axe. They don't care so much about "open source" as their particular variety of open source, and if you ain't with 'em, you're agin' 'em, as far as the GPL is concerned.

Of course, there's another solution to the original poster's problem, and a fairly simple one. Write your own license without the "viral" component based on linkage. The big drawback here is that given the massive misunderstanding of the GPL, a profileration of variant licenses is just going to confuse the issues more.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

> McBride is *truly* delusional, IMHO.

McBride isn't the guy calling the shots. He's basically a talking head with a fancy title for the Canopy group.

So, I don't think you can make any assessment about his mental state. His job is to spread FUD, he does it, cashes his checks, and that's it.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

Get with the program!

War is Peace. Ignorance is Knowledge. Love is Hate. GPL Restrictions Are More Free.

Next up on Slashdot, the Two-Minute Hate, starring SCO. (Or Microsoft. Or the RIAA. Whatever.)

Today, Big Brother raised the chocolate ration from 7 to 4 grams.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

Not quite. I want to give people the choice to let us use their contributions in proprietary applications. The GPL alone does not let them choose. Some, benefitting from what we have freed might see this as a fair trade, if the alternative is for us to not free anything at all.

The type of code of which I'm thinking would be something like a library, or embeddable utility, quite useful without our proprietary layers around it, so the "lock in" risk with proprietary code isn't there.

Traditionally, one would LGPL this sort of thing, but that is not always appropriate or desirable.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[swv3752]

Yeah it means you have to create a new license. Netscape did it for Mozilla. The other option is to only allow patches that assign copyright to you. Of course someone could always say screw you and fork the code.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mmurphy000]

"We'd like to release the generic part and encourage it's enhancement, and incorporate those enhancements with our specific part, but keep the latter proprietary (or at least keep it from benefitting our commercial copmpetition). "

There is no reason you can't. Remember that GPL is a license and does not change your ownership of your own code. You are welcome to use your own code however you wish, including linking things you released under GPL to things you didn't.

There are, however, some limitations on this:

• If you accept contributions from others to the GPL'd piece, you'll want to do copyright assignment or something to ensure you continue to have the right to use that code under non-GPL licenses. OpenOffice.org is a fine example of this approach.
• If you yourself are using other GPL'd code in your GPL'd stuff, then you need to abide by the GPL across the board.

So, from my standpoint, the GPL makes it easy for firms to release GPL'd code, but makes it more difficult for firms to use GPL'd code.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

Write your own license without the "viral" component based on linkage. The big drawback here is that given the massive misunderstanding of the GPL, a profileration of variant licenses is just going to confuse the issues more.

Yeah, what he said. Actually, he said it better than I did in my followup. And, a plethora of "kind of free" licenses is the last thing the world needs.

Still, I can envision a class of licenses that benefit the free software community with more useful code, but are more relaxed than the GPL with respect to restricted integration with non-free code. Such restricted integrations can take the form of time-limits (everything eventually gets GPLd), or use limits (only the original author can release proprietary derivatives).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[kalidasa]

SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.

Won't this argument have the side effect of pointing out that the EULA creates limitations on use under rules other than those established by law? IANAL, but it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[milo_Gwalthny]

Leave Martha out of this you sexist! Especially with Thanksgiving coming up... who will help me get my table set correctly?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Zimm]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

Nothing is freerer then public domain, since anyone is free to do with it whatever they want. Also public domain software can never be taken proprietary. Unless some one some how manages to be the only one holding the source code. I don't think you actaully know what public domain means. Look it up, nothing is freeer.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

There are, however, some limitations on this:

If you accept contributions from others to the GPL'd piece, you'll want to do copyright assignment or something to ensure you continue to have the right to use that code under non-GPL licenses. OpenOffice.org is a fine example of this approach.

If you yourself are using other GPL'd code in your GPL'd stuff, then you need to abide by the GPL across the board.

Yes, of course. The idea is to pick a license that is (a) acceptable, and (b) makes such assignment/permission the default, while still being fair to the contributing community.

The initial draft of the Mozilla license was unfair because all improvements became Netscape's, IIRC. The present state of affairs with regard to the GPL, is "opt in" in that contributors have to "opt in" to our using their code in non-GPL ways. I'm looking for a fair "opt out" counterpart that basically says, "Look, we freed this bunch of code so you can use it. Since we share with you, we think your changes should be free for us to use, even in a proprietary fashion, but all others have to use them openly. We shared when we didn't have to, so we think we're entitled to that perk. Of course, we can't prevent you from disagreeing, and keeping your enhancements completely open, but, in that case, we ask that you say so."

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[EvilTwinSkippy]

(Cough) BSD license (Cough).

GPL is not the only game in town.

One hole in your argument. You still own the copyright, and while your competition is free to finagle it, they really don't dictate the standards. The developers use the generic toolkit do, and you are always free to release your own version regardless of what anyone else puts out.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mhesseltine]

Consider, we'd have a body of code, some rather generic, and some quite specific to our edge in the market. The two parts are quite tightly bound together. We'd like to release the generic part and encourage it's enhancement, and incorporate those enhancements with our specific part, but keep the latter proprietary (or at least keep it from benefitting our commercial copmpetition).

To me, and I am not a full-time programmer, this sounds more like a case of bad factoring. You have designed software where information about your process is embeded within the code.

The solution would be to develop an engine (which you could GPL and get improvements on) and a data format (which you could create a standard for [like a DTD] but keep your data closed).

This would allow others to use and improve on your engine, while keeping the details that give you an edge hidden. The case seems similar to SQL systems, where there's a common language (SQL), but proprietary backends that give companies an edge (Oracle, IBM DB2, etc.)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[GreyPoopon]

If one defines freedom by lack of restrictions, GPLed code is less free than public domain code by virtue of the GPL's specific copying conditions.

The GPL attempts to enhance freedom by creating a balance that ensures the liberties it provides are available to a wider group of people. It does so by explicitly eliminating the freedoms that would allow an entity to completely remove any freedom from others who might otherwise benefit. In other words, while the freedoms of a single individual or entity might be somewhat restricted, you at least get in return guarantee that every person or entity is entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else.

Thus the only thing seperating GPLed code from other proprietary code is those cost and conditions.

I don't see this as the case. In essence, you trade costs and conditions. You must pay to purchase proprietary code (even more so if you want the source). You need special permission to modify the code and distribute your changes. With GPL you pay nothing for the code and need no special permission to modify it and distribute the changes, but in return you are under the condition that you will provide the source code of the modified version and grant the same freedom to modify and distribute to others. These are two completely different sets of restrictions and are useful in completely different circumstances.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

To me, and I am not a full-time programmer, this sounds more like a case of bad factoring. You have designed software where information about your process is embeded within the code.

Oh, it may very well be poor code factoring. But, hindsight is 20/20, and there are a lot of systems that have evolved useful subcomponents within them over time.

But, I can also imagine situations where performance demands a tight linkage at run time.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[zurab]

I followed your (well, Darl's) logic that you outlined here. But even if I do follow and blindly believe its assumptions, I still see a big hole:

SCO says it contributed to GPLed code but didn't know and mean to. OK, SCO gets their copyrights back (without GPL restrictions) since they didn't mean to GPL their copyrighted code (and eventually public domain as they argue).

Other GPLed software contributors also contributed to the GPLed programs while still retaining copyrights; but, again, they didn't mean for their contributions to become public domain. So, then, they copyrights should go back to individual contributors just like SCO's code would.

The point being that - you cannot accidentally (re)assign or otherwise get rid of the copyright protections of your own work. i.e., if you didn't mean to contribute your own copyrighted works willfully, but it happenned by accident without your knowledge (like SCO claims), then the copyrights go back to their original owners (also like SCO claims). So, developers who contributed to GPL knowingly, would accidentally be putting their copyrighted works in public domain, which they never meant to do.

Re: The Madness of King Darl

[Black Parrot]

> I think that they have simply painted themselves into a corner.

You know the drill; you tell one little white lie, and find yourself iteratively telling bigger and bigger lies to try to keep your story consistent.

IMO SCO's puppetmasters tried one little white lie in order to extract some un-earned cash out of IBM, and now they're having to make grander and grander claims every week in order to shore up what they've said before.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is not an EULA. It's a distribution license.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[odin53]

Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL. Public domain software has no restrictions whatsoever. Public domain software HAS to be more free.

You seem to think that because someone can take a copy of public domain software and make THE COPY restricted, the software is less free. But that applies only to the copy. For example, take the original work _The Wind in the Willows_, by Kenneth Grahame. The copyright on the original book has expired, and the book is now in the public domain. You decide to make the 95th Anniversary Special Edition of TWITW, based on the original work, and sell it. Because it's in the public domain, you may do this, and you may claim a copyright -- NOT on the Grahame's original TWITW, but on your particular derivative version of it. The original book -- and, more importantly, the text -- though, is and always will be public domain. Your buddy can sell "the Real 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book; your mother can sell "the Unauthorized Complete 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book; Darl McBride can sell "the Poorman's Library 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book -- and each can claim a copyright on each of their versions, but none, not even Darl, can claim a copyright on the original book, ever. How is this not as free as GPL, which forces you to do something in exchange for being able to redistribute the subject code?

Another way to look at it is this. When a copyright on a work expires, the work becomes more free, right? I don't think anyone would argue against that. So when the copyright expires on a GPL'd work, what happens to that work? Does it become less free? If I take, then, a copy of a public domain work, and redistribute it but with the GPL, is my redistributed copy more free than the public domain work I copied?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[alext]

it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa

Yeuuchh. Let's not go there.

EULAs attempt to constrain expectations generated by having purchased a product: it's yours but you can't disassemble it etc.

The GPL, on the other hand, represents the sole means by which this source code came into your possession. It's therefore not a modification or extension of any more fundamental entitlement - if there was no GPL then you wouldn't have the code, period, whereas plenty of software has been sold and used without EULAs.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[enjo13]

That's the BEAUTY of this case for them. There is just enough of a legal foothold here (as there usually is in copyright law) that disbarment is almost completely out of the question. You rarely get disbarred for fighting a losing legal battle, even if it's completely illogical. In this case they have a kind of demented logical thread that allows them to rake in the cash and actually create a lot of goodwill among other old-economy copyright holders that might want to pursue similiar cases on similiarly thin logic in the future (RIAA/MPAA spring to mind).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[weave]

GPL can not supersede a nation's laws. If a law says you can't export software to a certain country, then anyone who tries to do so is breaking the law. Not the software author or the author of the license.

It is not possible for a license to cover ever law and restriction put down by every nation and locale on this planet. To think it should is just plain madness.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Feztaa]

If one defines freedom by lack of restrictions, GPLed code is less free than public domain code by virtue of the GPL's specific copying conditions. Thus the only thing seperating GPLed code from other proprietary code is those cost and conditions.

You're right, of course, but your mistake is that you've defined "freedom" incorrectly :)

Saying that the public domain is more free than the GPL is sort of like saying that people living in a state of anarchy are more free than people living in a constitutional democracy. In a literal sense it might be true, but the people in the democracy generally regard it as a Good Thing that they don't have the freedom to kill each other. So, you might be less free in a democracy than in anarchy, but you'll be alive longer to enjoy your freedom.

It's the same thing, just think of software projects as the people in my analogy, and killing is taking code and putting it under a proprietary license.

To me, it's more important to be assured that I'll still have my freedom tomorrow (GPL), than it is to have pure, unadulterated freedom (public domain).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[the_quark]

Regardless of anything else, the US law governs the export of things from the US. Where they were created is of no consequence.

Imagine a piece of software written entirely in, say, Russia. While I'm no expert in Russian law, it's quite conceivable to me that this piece of software could be perfectly legal under Russian law to export to Syria. However, if an American had it, it could be illegal to export it to Syria from America.

So, if this piece of software was brought to the US from Russia, then exported to Syria, it would be in violation of US laws, even though it's perfectly legal to export that software to Syria from Russia, and the software wasn't created in the US.

The US can't say "No one anywhere can export Linux to Syria," because they don't have jurisdiction. The US can say "No one in America can export Linux to Syria," regardless of where it was written or any other facts, because they do have jurisdiction (leaving aside any questions of the constitutionality of these laws).

As a practical matter, as sphealey points out, many of the distributors of Linux (Linus, Red Hat, etc) reside in the US, and are subject to US law. Thus, Linux will generally conform to US export-control law because Linus doesn't want to go to jail and Red Hat doesn't want to go out of business. Certainly the US government couldn't keep some enterprising Russians from rexporting Linux, and they also couldn't prevent them from forking it and providing a product which violates US laws (such as, for example, the DMCA). But, as a practical matter, today, so many of the authors and distributors of Linux reside in the US that conformity with US law is an unofficial goal of Linux.

There is a similar (reverse) situation going on with the GIF patent. While the US patent behind the GIF image format expired in 2003, the European and Canadian ones won't expire until June, 2004. So, much open-source software, developed in the US, doesn't yet include GIF support because of the European patents. It's not because Europe suddenly has some extra US jurisdiction, but because the authors of these products do not consider it worth it to exclude European developers, or to have different distributions for different regions, etc.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[critter_hunter]

The madness of King Darl

While King Darl is pretty good, a more interesting name would be "The Princess McBride" ;)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

No no, they could *not* care less.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Nucleon500]

I'm replying to SCO's argument, not you personally:

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

To quote the GPL:

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

Depending on how strictly this is interpreted, SCO may or may not have a point - is this limited to "patents and copyrighted interfaces" limitations? It would be better if they left out that clause, or added export laws to it.

While I'm at it, the GPL ought to include something affirming that contributors, and specifically not end users, are responsible for verifying the code they contribute is theirs. Also, how about a clause that specifically states that an author can limit what he believes is a derivative work. I once knew someone who thought that Linus's comment at the top of linux/COPYING had no legal force, and that proprietary userland programs are at risk, which is of course crazy.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[crossconnects]

it seems that if the EULA is valid, the GPL is valid; and vice-versa.

The difference between EULA's and the GPL.

An End User License Agreement is a restriction on use. When case law catches up with it, the overridding factor is going to be contract law. Since it is a unilateral change after the fact in the implicit contract made by purchasing the software, it might not be legal. (IANAL)

The GPL, however, is dependent on copyright law. NO restrictions are placed on use. Redistribution is an exclusive right of the copyright holder and anyone else he chooses to designate. The GPL sets terms for the general public to be designated to redistribute the software.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[buffer-overflowed]

Here's a better example, and a situation I've been in.

Open source GPLed product. I extend parts of it and tack in some modules. However, by necessity for compatibility purposes(in order to plug in), certain pieces of my modules have to share code with the GPLed product in some way, apart from that the entire codebase is from scratch clean.

I would like to release this code, with one caveat, I don't want people who compete in my line of business from being able to use it, at least without compensation. My concern here isn't really improvements to my code, although they would be welcome, but rather providing functionality to an existing GPLed product that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Now, the screwed point comes in that I now can't release this code. If I release it, I have to GPL my modules and my proprietary extensions(which I can't do), or I lose the right to use the underlying code at all due to breech of the GPL. Hence my only option is to not distribute the code except under some other agreement so that I can retain ownership(and thus control) of it.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Theatetus]

I want to give people the choice to let us use their contributions in proprietary applications.

I'm confused. That's exactly what the GPL gives you. Anyone who contributes to your hypothetical GPL'd version section has the choice of additionally licensing you their contributions for use in your proprietary version.

I doubt many people would unless you paid them, though. But, if all you want is to give people the choice to license their improvements for your proprietary stuff, then use the GPL. What am I missing here?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Theatetus]

Now, the screwed point comes in that I now can't release this code. If I release it, I have to GPL my modules and my proprietary extensions(which I can't do), or I lose the right to use the underlying code at all due to breech of the GPL.

What are you talking about? Assuming you own the copyright to all the code in question, you can GPL any part of it you wish (distributing your modules with the GPL'd version of the open part might be tricky, but A: there's ways around that and B: you could just as easily only distribute the binary parts with a non-GPL license covering the rest).

Assuming you own all the code in question, you can license any part of it any way you please. The GPL would only start to "infect" your modules if you use someone else's GPL'd contributions and don't seek an alternative license arrangement with that author. Since you are presumably the author of the entire program now, GPL'ing any part of the program doesn't affect the rest of it.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[uberdave]

The US can't say "No one anywhere can export Linux to Syria," because they don't have jurisdiction. The US can say "No one in America can export Linux to Syria,"

We had some of the FreeSwan people at our Linux users group a while ago. According to them, the US can say "No American, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to Syria"

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

What am I missing here?

An "opt-out" instead of an "opt-in" structure to defacto licensing of improvements to the original author.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[martin-boundary]

Unfortunately, as soon as you mention that the GPL restricts licensees, you're off. There simply are no restriction to anybody's rights in the GPL.

Every licensee has exactly one of the following choices: 1) All the common rights everyone else has. 2) Limited distribution rights so long as various guidelines are followed.

Most people choose 2), but can at any time choose 1) and have exactly the same rights as with every other copyrighted work.

All these endless discussions about how there are restrictions in the GPL are nonsensical. Anybody can refuse to abide by the GPL, in which case they end up in case 1).

I realize you're just explaining your version of the SCO strategy, but it cannot be stated enough that the GPL doesn't restrict anything whatsoever.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mOdQuArK!]

Public domain software HAS to be more free.

Gah...why does everyone assume that THEIR meaning for "free" is better than anyone else's?

GPL is "free" as in free beer - its use encourages the distribution of free software. Public domain is "free" as in free speech - no restrictions on how individuals can distribute it. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do people get into arguments about this?!

Maybe there should be a requirement that no debate about which license is more "free" can be allowed to go ahead until the participants have agreed on which definition of "free" they are using. OTOH, maybe that would make things too boring.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[shamino0]

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls

SCO will say a lot of things. Doesn't make them right about any of them.

The GPL doesn't say you must distribute software to anybody who wants it. The GPL says that if you distribute binaries to someone, then you must also make the source code available.

If I use and modify GPL code and keep the resulting product to myself, I am not violating anything. If I use and modify GPL code and distribute (with full sources, of course) only to people living in Idaho, and refuse to distribute it elsewhere, I am not violating anything.

I can even choose to charge a billion dollars for the product and I'm not in violation, as long as every paying customer gets a copy of the source code with it. (And those customers still have the right to give it away for free if they so desire.)

Unless national security laws prohibit distribution of sources to places where binary distributions are permitted, there is no conflict with the GPL.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[You're All Wrong]

As a contributor to several GPL'ed projects (and thus one of the Open Source crowd) I can honestly say that _most_ GPL software is rubbish.

But hey, a million people are all permitted to write and release their own buggy KDE CD player plug in. Noone's forcing anyone to download or use any of them.

YAW.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[dbIII]

McBride is *truly* delusional, IMHO.

No he isn't - he really is James Bond.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[timeOday]

Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government? I wouldn't. Stallman would say that the only freedom taken away by the GPL is the "freedom" to restrict others, kind of like the law against slavery. Does that law create more freedom, or less?

BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[NickFortune]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software

And given the artificially inflated prices charged by various software vendors, MS in particular, those prices could stand a little reduction.

If the software companies want to sell product, all they haveto do is write better software than a bunch of amateurs and hobbyists. I mean how hard can that be?

And if they can't manage that then arguably their software wasn't worth much in the first place

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Brandybuck]

Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?

As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead. These are all qualities that the GPL possesses in one form or another. It also possesses the quality of "freedom", but owned, copyrighted and licensed software will never be as free (in the FSF sense) that unowned, uncopyrighted and unlicensed (public domain) software is.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[dido]

As you've explained it, the public domain grants you every possible freedom, including the freedom to restrict the freedom of others from using your derivative works, as your example of TWITW eloquently illustrates. The GPL on the other hand, grants almost all these possible freedoms, with the sole exception of that ability to restrict others from use of derivative works. Saying that the public domain is more free than the GPL is like saying that a society that permits slavery is more free than one that does not because the former gives some members of its society the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, which is of course absolutely ridiculous.

The "framers" of the GPL, Richard M. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, believe that the freedom to share and change software is an inalienable right, as they like to say, and the GPL is designed to guarantee that right. They believe that proprietary software is a form of slavery, and in one sense they are absolutely correct, as anyone forced to use Microsoft software knows all too well.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[odin53]

Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?

Very interesting question. I'm definitely not an anarchist. ;) But I'm only talking about copyright and the public domain/GPL debate, and it's really not analogous. Once a work is public domain, it stays in the public domain. I would imagine in a truly anarchic situation, somebody could commandeer the work and actually take it out of the public domain; there would be nothing and no one to prevent it. In our copyright system, no one could do that, which is my key point about being free. Anyone can do anything they want with the public domain work (i.e., anyone can use it or make copies or derivative works with it), but it must and will remain free for anyone TO do anything they want with the work.

BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.

This is an interesting point. I admit I'm not a programmer by trade, and not all that familiar with the history of the BSD variants (although I once tried to install FreeBSD 2.0 on a spare computer years ago), so I'm not sure what the deal is with the BSDs. At any rate, I wonder: why would many incompatible versions of BSDs be less free than it could be? What is it about the license (or lack thereof) that changes the availability of compatible systems (i.e., promotes or discourages such availability)?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[spitzak]

I think you swapped "beer" and "speech" there.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[John Marter]

SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.
If Congress cared about the commons established by law then they never would have passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[odin53]

Ah, I see what you're saying -- the GPL guarantees that the *copy* (or derivative work) of the subject work is free. Good point. I was only looking at how free the *subject work* is.

The point about slavery (and anarchy, like one of the comments below) is really about whether the system as a whole promotes freedom more or less, not whether each individual component of the system does that.

Our conflict (which I don't think actually exists) is like this: one can't argue that a person who is restricted from holding slaves is more free than a person who is able to; however, one also can't argue that a society that lets persons hold slaves is more free than a society that restricts them from doing so.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[SillySlashdotName]

EXACTLY!!!

GPL is based on exercising the legal rights PROVIDED by copyright law.

All software created is copyrighted - the act of creating it grants copyright under the law. The creator can release it into the public domain, but it can not be copyrighted by anyone else - it already has the restriction of not being able to be copyrighted again. It is hard to envision how something could be copyrighted and also more free than public domain - it seems to me that the only thing freer than public domain would be "not yet created/copyrighted."

The minimum of restrictions allowed by copyright is public domain - but there are still restrictions in place even at that level. ANY restriction - including the restriction that you must provide source code if you distribute the software - is more than that afforded by public domain.

Forcing the software into public domain would be forcing the software to have LESS restriction than it now does, doing away with the argument that GPLed software is "to free" - it has 'to much freedom' so REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS?

As for the export restrictions: The lawyers will have to prove the laws state you can export the compiled program but can't export the source code - which I can't see anywhere I have looked - to have the GPL trying to circumvent the export controls.

More SCO FUD and lies.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[An Anonymous Hero]

Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL. Public domain software has no restrictions whatsoever. Public domain software HAS to be more free.

You're saying that the user of public domain code is more free (which is obvious). The parent is saying that the code itself is more free under GPL (which is equally obvious: nobody can capture and restrict it).

Thus, I don't think you actually disagree at all.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[jbolden]

The argument is as stupid as the rest of SCO's arguments. GPL address copyright laws. Security related export control laws don't differentiate between legally copied and illegally copied works.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

Pending a possible SEC investigation, you might just get your wish. :)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[p3d0]

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

Well that would be bogus. The GPL says if you distribute binary, then you must distribute source. It doesn't say you must distribute the binary. Any individual always has the option not to distribute anything, thereby obeying export laws.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[timeOday]

Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?

As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead.

Nope, I was definitely thinking of "freedom." The ONLY way to posess complete freedom is to be a dictator. Otherwise you lose freedoms, like the freedom to kill people, or enslave them, or rape them. Anarchy preserves all these freedoms, but only for the strong, and the dictator is simply the strongest man in an anarchy.

Unfortunately some freedoms contradict each other. It's sad but true. Good laws take away less important freedoms from some to preserve more important freedoms for others - the law against slavery is a good example of this.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[swillden]

We can't release the generic part under the GPL and leverage improvements made to it with our proprietary code.

Huh? Of course you can. Simply ask contributors to grant you permission to use their code with your proprietary software. You can even make the agreement part of the patch-submission process. Those who don't want you to use their code will still be able to create and host their own fork of your code, so their freedom is not constrained (as long as they comply with the GPL requirements). You, of course, would be free to take ideas from such forks and implement them yourselves.

There is a risk that your dual-license tree will languish while the purely-GPL fork takes off, but that's unlikely as long as you are contributing substantially and treating the community well.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[p3d0]

GPL is "free" as in free beer - its use encourages the distribution of free software. Public domain is "free" as in free speech - no restrictions on how individuals can distribute it. Why is this so hard to understand?

You tell me. You're the one who has it completely ass-backward.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[jbolden]

One of the faults of the GPL is that it incorporates some rather arbitrary and inconsistent definition of a derivative work based on the concept of linkage.

Static linking, bad; OS running app, good.

Your example here is false. The Linux license actually includes a clause specifically permitting non GPLed programs to run on the kernel. Linus pretty much agrees with RMS that dynamic linking and static linking both create derived works. His particular license however explicitly permits dynamic linking without restriction.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Brandybuck]

Nope, I was definitely thinking of "freedom." The ONLY way to posess complete freedom is to be a dictator.

You're thinking "license", in the older sense of the word. It is still a synonym for "freedom" though, but has a different connotation. It implies a lack of constraint.

Under a genuine anarchist society, the murderers, slavers and rapists would have a constraint, and that constraint is that the public won't tolerate it. They'll shoot back! I'm serious. Even in today's statist society, if someone murdered my mom, I would hunt them down and kill them. The job of the police in this situation is to protect the murderer from me!

Bringing this back to software licenses. The BSD license give no one the permission to murder, enslave or rape. No one. It boggles the mind that people have to compare the freedom of the BSD license to anarchy, because the two exist in completely different domains. Even if it is firm in your mind that an anarchy can only exist in a split second before it degrades into savage warlord feudalism, it doesn't matter, because the BSD license doesn't apply to that situation. Duh!

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[iamwahoo2]

the vast majority of ALL software is rubbish. GPL or not. Much GPL software is mistakenly assumed to be bad simply because it is obtainable before it is even close to being finished. I do know one thing. I have never seen ANY software grow and mature at a rate like KDE has. They have really improved their package when you really stop to consider what all is included in it.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Ian Bicking]

This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL. Public domain software has no restrictions whatsoever. Public domain software HAS to be more free.

You confuse literal freedom with political and social freedom. Political and social freedom exist in a context, not in an isolated situation. Your reductionism does not do justice to the societal impact of the GPL.

Many freedoms -- the most essential freedoms -- cannot be taken away, or given away. The rights in the bill of rights are rights that cannot be given away, they are freedoms that do not include the freedom of self-exclusion. The GPL is meant to be the same -- it is a freedom for societies (not just individuals) that cannot be revoked.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Malcontent]

"Under a genuine anarchist society, the murderers, slavers and rapists would have a constraint, and that constraint is that the public won't tolerate it. They'll shoot back! I'm serious. Even in today's statist society, if someone murdered my mom, I would hunt them down and kill them. The job of the police in this situation is to protect the murderer from me!"

You are presuming that both parties have equal weaponry. Under anarchy the weak would be quickly enslaved by the powerful. They might struggle some and maybe even occationally cause some damage but overall they would be servile to the powerful and destitute. In fact it would be kind of like what is happening in the occupied terratories in Israel. The rich and powerful israeli army is able to occupy more then 3 million people in abject poverty. Sure occationally a few israelis die but they are able not only kill many more palestenians but are also able to subjugate hundreds of thousands to curfews and house arrest.

If your mom died it would be because a tank shelled her house. Your firing back with a pistol would accomlish nothing except getting yourself killed when the soldiers open up on you with autmatic weapons.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[roman_mir]

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed. - I disagree on two counts. First, any reduction in value of any proprietary software is purely coincidential and is not a goal of GPL. Secondly, I just reread GPL v.2. definition, and it is clear that even the original author of the Program cannot make it proprietary:

last paragraph of the Preamble: Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Paragraph 6 of the GPL v.2.: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Znork]

"Unless national security laws prohibit distribution of sources to places where binary distributions are permitted, there is no conflict with the GPL."

There still is no conflict with the GPL; the resolution to any such conflict is built into it.

The GPL clearly states that if you are unable to fulfil the terms of the license for any other legal reason, then you may not perform any distribution at all.

That means if security laws prohibit distribution of sources somewhere then the GPL prohibits distribution of binaries there as well. No conflict occurs.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

About slavery and freedom..

"one person can't argue that a society that lets persons hold slaves is more free than a society that restricts them from doing so."

That's why we have Rights. We have a right for freedom, taking away that right is restricting us from that right.

We have the right to use the Free sourcecode but if we take away the right for the code to be free we are restricting our own right to use it. It is a right to use to code as long as the code itself is free. It is a right to use FREE code, it is not a right to use unfree code.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

Public domain software are open source thingies of usually little importance. GPL software are immediately refered to as being part of Free Software. This s what the GPL does : it descriminates between Free Sofware and non-Free software, and prevents exchanges between the two, so that eventually, Free Software become a huge independant computing world.

And eventually, people recognise that this Free world is a good alternative to the non-Free world (to say the least).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[renehollan]

That applies to the Linux kernel only. And, even I question whether Linus was too liberal here -- I don't necessarily like closed code running in kernel space.

The solution of the "tainted kernel" bit was a clever idea to try to manage this sort of thing, though. It would be nice if binaries could indicate in a fashion that could be automatically checked, what they could and could not be bound with. Of course, that doesn't cover everything, but if major license attributes could be codified, it would be useful.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[SillySlashdotName]

Unfortunately, as soon as you mention that the GPL restricts licensees, you're off. There simply are no restriction to anybody's rights in the GPL.

Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what the GPL does. It is a redistribution license with restrictions and requirements.

If you want to redistribute (modified or not) copyrighted software (all software created after 1987? 1988? is copyrighted when created) you must obtain permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is that license to redistribute - with conditions that must be meet, or you may not redistribute the copyrighted work.

There are restrictions on the copyright holder as far as licensing their work - the law requires that the user must be allowed to make at least one copy for backup purposes if they chose, and the copyright holder can not restrict that in a licensing agreement, for example.

By obtaining copyrighted software material legally, you have certain USAGE rights, but NO redistribution rights. If you want redistribution rights you can either negotiate directly with the copyright holder, or if the software is GPLed you have already been granted the right to redistribute - with restrictions. One of the restrictions is that you must make available the source code when you distribute the software. Another is that if you can not abide by the restrictions then you are not licensed to redistribute under the GPL, therefore you can not redistribute the software.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[SillySlashdotName]

it is clear that even the original author of the Program cannot make it proprietary.

Yes, the original author of the program can not release it under one license, then retract it and release it under another. That is part of COPYRIGHT, not of GPL. In exactly the same way, the original author can not release under public domain and then retract it back. Give up rights under copyright and you can not re-aquire them by saying 'Do over!'

However, the original author CAN release under several licenses if they chose to do so. They can charge varying amounts to different people (free to schools, $1,000,000 to BillG). They can put varying restrictions on the licensure of the software (can not be used on weapons research, for example).

In addition, the paragraphs you site do not support your statement that "even the original author of the program cannot make it proprietary." - each specifies that it addresses redistributors:

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will ... (emphasis added)

Each time you redistribute the Program ...the recipient automatically receives a license ... (emphasis added)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mOdQuArK!]

I stand by my statements, and disagree with the GNU statement. That might be what they _intended_, but I don't think that's what happened.

I say what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mOdQuArK!]

No, I said exactly what I wanted to say. I said what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).

I know the GNU folks have a propaganda page saying the reverse, but I don't think they are correct - free speech may have been what they _intended_, but it's not what ended up happening.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[spitzak]

TrollTech does pretty well selling Qt. If they did not GPL the version they give away they would not be able to do that. In my opinion the GPL actually encourages selling software, at least compared to public domain.

Putting something out as public domain completely gives up any advantages you have for having the copyright. If the GPL restricts freedom in any way, it makes the "more free" version valuable and thus allows it to be sold. If you put code out under the public domain you completely lose any possible ability to sell a version.

I do agree that it is impossible to sell either GPL code itself or public domain code, and arguments about selling support or any other service apply equally to both of them. But the GPL actually allows the owner to do a few other things with the code for profit, and in fact I see it as a very capitalistic and greedy way to let people see the source code.

Personally I LGPL all my stuff, with an added statement that you are free to use it static-linked with a closed-source program provided you don't modify the LGPL code itself, and if you do modify it you only need to release the modifications, and then use it in your closed-source program anyway. I do agree that RMS's plan is to force everything to be open source, while I would like to make "embrace and extend" illegal but I don't mind somebody using my code to help make their own clever idea work and sell it. Unfortunately I see nobody else in my position, people are either RMS-like or they want to grab and extend code in any way they want.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mOdQuArK!]

I don't see anything in your response that indicates we are disagreeing; I just don't agree with the GNU foundation's stance that the GPL is about free speech, since the GPL _does_ prevent you from redistributing the software if you do not meet its requirements.

The overall effect of the GPL is to encourage free software (not free service, as you noted, but free software - as in "beer").

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Brandybuck]

Gee, what you're talking about sounds an awful lot like government. Armies, tanks, soldiers... And last I checked, Israel was not an anarchy, but a government.

I'm not arguing that anarchy would be a stable situation. That's why I originally called myself a "part-time" anarcho-capitalist. The rest of the time I'm a minarchist.

But be that as it may, I still don't see how the BSD license applies to the occupied territories in Israel. You're really stretching here, aren't you?

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mpe]

This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL.

Hence the need to understand the mindset of a madman.
N.B. The restrictions and obligations in the GPL always exist. To some people they are of such little consequence that they can almost ignore them. To others (notably those in the proprietary software business) exactly the same restrictions and obligations come across as major "show stoppers".

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[WNight]

I think the GPL promotes speech-type freedoms, by preventing it from being taken away. By inflating the commons (making revisions free as well) it enables people to make their own revisions.

It's much like freedom to innovate is dependent on tool access. When I started computing in the early 80s, computers shipped with schematics and the complete development library used to write the system code. (An assembler, and a basic interpretter, but it's still what they used.) Now, if it wasn't for free-software languages, you'd have to spend $500+ to even begin to really program (not just script something for another program, like VB is pretty much limited to). This reduction in the ability of the average person to participate would really limit the diversity of opinions and would lead to the only forums being tightly-controlled ones where the owners censored everyone, yet users didn't have a valid alternative.

Or, there's an interesting article here that talks about Carl Orff who wrote his opera Carmina Burana "based mostly on modern interpretations of Hungarian folk music and nursery rhymes that had fascinated Orff since he was a child." He borrowed the culture that surrounded him and he wrote powerful music. Later, in the 80s, comes Techno band Apotheosis and they do something similar, they write a song call O Fortuna, based largely on Orff's work, but in a very different way. The way that an adventure I wrote involving wizards and rangers wouldn't be like LotR, but could been seen to have derived much in the way of ideas from it.

Of course, Orff's estate sued. he was allowed to borrow his culture to create new music, but Apotheosis isn't allowed to do the same.

There's a reason why people are referred to a consumers these days. It's all we're supposed to be. The laws have changed (essentially perpetual copyright, the DMCA removing the ability to copy for quotation or parody, etc) so that unless we invent a new work totally out of vacuum, not based on anything even slightly identifiable, we don't have the right to claim that it's ours.

The GPL prevents this by saying that while you can use something, it has to be available to enrich future generation in the same way. And it's not enough that the original is available, the work is seen as a living entity, always changing to remain relevant. Orff based his work on what he was surrounded by, Hungarian Folk Music, and Apotheosis based their music on what they were surrounded by, Carl Orff's music among other things, and I'll base my music on what I was surrounded by as I grew up, god help me, 80s rock. :)

If copyright was reasonable, so that it lasted a generation or less and I could learn from and build upon what I grew up with, legally, we wouldn't need the GPL. It's a response to copyright that may never expire, to people claiming ownership of derivative works based on a single guitar riff, or to people embrace-and-extending the tools of the commons in order to lock people into a proprietary protocol which of course, you're not allowed to embrace (except at $300 per seat), or extend.

The GPL very much protects freedoms, the free aspect is a side effect that just happens to be kinda cool. I think if you read Stallman's essay's it'll be clear that (right or wrong) this is what was going through his mind as he conceived of it - it wasn't that he didn't want to pay $20 for printer drivers, it was that he couldn't get them, for love or money, and wasn't allowed to make his own. (Without reinventing a very large, copyright-protected wheel.)

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

You are presuming that both parties have equal weaponry. Under anarchy the weak would be quickly enslaved by the powerful. They might struggle some and maybe even occationally cause some damage but overall they would be servile to the powerful and destitute. In fact it would be kind of like what is happening in the occupied terratories in Israel. The rich and powerful israeli army is able to occupy more then 3 million people in abject poverty. Sure occationally a few israelis die but they are able not only kill many more palestenians but are also able to subjugate hundreds of thousands to curfews and house arrest.

Note that this example is not "closed". The reason the Israeli army is well armed is that a much larger country is acting as "patron". As well as managing to hoodwink most of the rest of the planet into believing that the Israelis are somehow "victims" and the Palestinians are all barely human "terrorists".

If your mom died it would be because a tank shelled her house. Your firing back with a pistol would accomlish nothing except getting yourself killed when the soldiers open up on you with autmatic weapons.

If you happen to have an anti-tank weapon then that just proves you are a "terrorist". Since the soldiers were just out hunting "terrorists" (so they claim) it's your fault that your mom got killed for having a "terrorist" child...
SCO's claims actually look sane when compared with some of the things Zionists come up with.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mpe]

the vast majority of ALL software is rubbish. GPL or not.

Including lots of software which people want money for, not just shareware either.

Much GPL software is mistakenly assumed to be bad simply because it is obtainable before it is even close to being finished.

If people ignore that it's marked as not finished that's their look out.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[WNight]

Technically, this might mean that people in the USA can't use GPLed code because they aren't allowed to distribute the code to people in export-restricted nations, if they were asked to do so. But, they could get around this by distributing (within the USA) the application with source and binary attached, and letting people who are allowed to distribute the source, distribute both to people in restriction countries.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mpe]

We had some of the FreeSwan people at our Linux users group a while ago. According to them, the US can say "No American, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to Syria"

Since most of the worlds population are not Americans this isn't really a big problem for Syria. Wonder what countries are on Syria's export restricted list. Possibly "No Syrian, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to the US."

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Anonymous Coward]

"GPL software is freer than public domain"

Ok, I'll bite :)

the OED defines freedom as, unrestricted use. Without getting into pedantics about your use of GPL'd software being unrestricted I will simply say I can not use GPL code in commercial closed source code, ergo there is a restriction on my use. There is no such thing as freer than the public domain it is unrestricted use, it belongs to everyone to do with as they please, it is also therefore as free as you can get.

QED

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[catfood]

As you've explained it, the public domain grants you every possible freedom...

Actually, it's not even that. In the absence of IP laws, there would be no restrictions on copying anything. Copyright is an exception--a useful and important one--to First Amendment free speech guarantees. Put another way, if you took away Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, copyright would be unconstitutional because it restricts speaking and writing.

So "public domain" grants you nothing. The First Amendment guarantees your right to copy anything you like, but then the copyright clause takes that right away in certain cases specified by law.

It's a nitpick, I know.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[mOdQuArK!]

The GPL prevents this by saying that while you can use something, it has to be available to enrich future generation in the same way. And it's not enough that the original is available, the work is seen as a living entity, always changing to remain relevant.

OK, this is a better argument for GPL-as-free-speech than I was able to extract from the GNU editorials. I will concede that I can see how extensive use of the GPL would help provide a large base of source code which people could work from. I'm not entirely sure you can call this supporting "free speech" - while not having extensive free source code available does make it harder to implement large projects, it doesn't necessarily prevent such projects from being implemented. So the GPL only makes it easier to do such projects, it doesn't make it possible where it was impossible.

In the interests of fairness, I will however point out a situation where the GPL _does_ make the impossible possible: extensive use of the GPL would make it a lot easier to find prior art to kill some of the really stupid software patents being granted by the USPTO (the more GPLed software there is, the more likely it is that you will find some GPLed project which implements the function which someone attempted to patent). So, in the situation where some company tries to shut down a free software project using patents, having a large body of source code under GPL would provide a source of easily-searchable prior art which could protect those projects. I will concede that this is a "free speech" use.

At this point in time, however, I haven't really heard much use of the GPL in this instance. I've heard a lot about how the GPL forces software to be cheap/free. So, I am still inclined to think of the GPL as primarily a free-as-in-beer license, rather than primarily as a free-as-in-speech license.

Re:The Madness of King Darl

[Malcontent]

"Israel was not an anarchy, but a government."

In a very real sense there is global anarchy right now. You can think of nations as individuals, international law as some sort of a legal system, and the UN as some sort of aminimalist govt.
Right now international law does not mean anything. The strong countries and invade and occupy weaker ones despite the law or the wishes of the govt. Why? Because a law that is not enforcable is not really a law.

In an anarchist society the exact same thing would happen.

"BSD license applies to the occupied territories in Israel. You're really stretching here, aren't you?"

I was not commenting on the license just your vision of what an anachist society would look like.

Here is another artical

[SirJaxalot]

SCO Attempts to Have GPL Declared Void here

Re:Here is another artical

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent karma whoring, Jax, linking to articles that we've seen only a short while ago on Slashdot. Hope it helps you mod up the spam you post using your other aliases.

Re:Here is another artical

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to karma whore with old news, at the very least you should try to spell your subject heading correctly, you F|_|CK1NG tard.

Re:Here is another artical

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot rule number 2:

If you get shite karma on one account, you'll get double-shite karma on 2 accounts, Sir Haxalot.

You're such a waste of oxygen. Go ask someone to help you commit suicide, please, you don't seem to be clever enough even for that...

Nerd on a rampage...

[YanceyAI]

With all the draconian BS developers and tech industry have to deal with in their professional lives, I am genuinely surprised SCO hasn't pushed some overtaxed coder who is a Linux guy on the side way over the edge. I'd be nervous if I were that Darl McBride guy. Seriously, what a jack ass.

Oh, I see.

[utlemming]

The tactic is to get everything thrown in the public domain. I guess we figured out the new strategy---

1. File law suits

2. Get the licensing declared illegal

3. Profits

The only thing is getting everything released under the GPL in the last three years turned over to public domain would trampel the very concept of a copyright. It is a nice idea for SCO, but in reality they have to be smoking crack to think that this one will work. I honestly can not see it happening.

Re:Oh, I see.

[gl4ss]

+ it still doesn't count out that sco itself has released&distributed stuff under gpl(which would turn magically pd if the judge was into sex with mcbride).. including the things they say they're worried about.

it's just too weeeeeeird.

Re:Oh, I see.

[piobair]

You're all forgetting the "Collect Underpants" phase of this evil scheme.

This is the key that lead to the .com bubble bursting. Nobody was collecting underpants, and thus no profits.

Are we all so destined to repeat history?

Old and busted, but still applicable.

[mikeophile]

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

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 software 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.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohfercrissake....

A "You owe SCO $699!" post would be fresher and funnier than this. Hell, an "In Soviet Russia..." post would be fresher and funnier than this.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[CrackedButter]

Interesting, i've never heard of this, where does this joke come from. It was good by the way.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[Rinikusu]

It comes from a Southpark episode. I can't remember the episode, though, but it's a big spoof on Johnny Cochran.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Raaaaawwwwwwaarrrr. Hnaawwwrrr. Hnnnrrrf?

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[sharkey]

Episode 214: Chef Aid

Chef winds up in court with a record company.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable.

[CrackedButter]

I'll check it out, thanks.

I writ my own SCO article, here it is...

[Pingular]

In defence to IBM's counterclaims to it's lawsuit, SCO have made public a 21 page document, including 156 'answers'.
In the document the lawyers admit some facts submitted by Big Blue when it counterclaimed, but the important things are what it doesn't admit, of course.
It alleges that Linux is an "unathorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable" from it.
I wonder how much the SCO lawyers are being paid.

Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is...

[dacarr]

This is an interesting point, but I think on the grounds that, as a for instance, Target's ready-to-drink Weight Loss Shake is otherwise indistinguishable on the surface (or in the glass) from Slim-Fast(TM)'s RTD diet shake, they are probably two different things when broken down.

In short, I think it was decided a while back that "look and feel" alone (which, AFAICT, is the argument presented here) is not grounds for dispute.

Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is...

[jonbryce]

If I was SCO, I'd be demanding a refund from the lawyers.

Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is...

[dasmegabyte]

Listen. If I, and six thousand of my closest friends, make a movie that is scene for scene identical to "Superman 2," we are infringing on copyright. Even if we've never SEEN "Superman 2." That's what copyright law does -- it protects the rights of the original creator from imitations.

In this respect, SCO is right. Linus IS structured, assembled, and designed to be like UNIX. To quote the Dead Milkmen, why the hell do you think they call it a UNIX-like system, anyway?

The question here is whether or not Linux users have the right, in the eyes of copyright law, to distribute the system. And that depends. Even if all the infringing code was legally obtained, that does not necessarily give you the right to reproduce the entire system. If I get the rights to distribute a Stephen King story, I can't reproduce his whole catalogue and give it away for free.

As for how much the lawyers are being paid, it's plenty. All those billable hours, mmm...

Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

In defense of the Dead Milkmen, you paraphrased them, you did not quote them.

SCO Who?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories.....

Well I would have followed the stories but I read /. and they NEVER post anything.....

Who the hell am I kidding. I've changed my /. bookmark to read "Slashdot, News for Nerds. SCO Matters!"

Re:SCO Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine says:
Spews from Nerds: Stuff that Splatters!

Everything that is there to be said has been said

[Brahmastra]

Why would there be anymore original or insightful comments on this topic? Everyone has already commented a million times about SCO and all the comments usually follow the same pattern. Yes I agree that SCO is a useless gold-digging, thieving corporation. But, all SCO stories need to be modded redundant. Or, post a story and link it to the comments in the old story.

Who will come up....

[Uzull]

...with enough money to buy out SCO, Ray Noorda'S investement company and smash the whole thing so that we can start to do serious work ???? Maybe we should setup a paypal account, accumulate 1 or 2 billion (euros, dollars) and buy SCO.

Re:Who will come up....

[jonbryce]

No we should not. That is exactly what SCO is hoping will happen, and it would just encourage others to do the same.

The fact of the matter is that SCO is completely finished. Their OS is totally obsolete, and inferior to the free alternatives available.

Re:Who will come up....

[rkhalloran]

C'mon folks, Darl & Co EXPECTED to be bought out to shut them up. The problem with them being bought out now by some other deeper-pocketed company is that it would let them drag this farce out even longer.
What needs to happen to this particular corporate blood-sucker is a stake through the heart, beheading with a silver dagger, stuffing the mouth with garlic & sewing it shut, burning the corpse at a crossroads and scattering the ashes at sea to make sure it doesn't rise again...

Re:Who will come up....

[Zopilote]

Maybe that's just what the management at SCO has been hoping for-- that someone would buy the company.

OMG

[a_nimble_bahai]

This is rediculous, but could you imagine what would happen if this actually succeded? SCO wants GLP code placed in the public domain, this must mean they realize that they're in volation of the GPL and will have the last shreds of thier business destroyed if a large organization sues them over it.

I repeat again - and i called it in advance...

[gsfprez]

i used to say...

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.

now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...

SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. 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, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.

it sucks being right.

I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.

There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".

Re:I repeat again - and i called it in advance...

[earthforce_1]

> I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for
> there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed
> everyone else of doing.

What do you suggest? A BSA type raid on their headquarters for a GPL licence compliance audit, perhaps using ESR's shredder SW on their source code?

Re:I repeat again - and i called it in advance...

[gsfprez]

yes.

I think that the FSF should consult with wherever you register your copyright here in the US. If we give them probable cause - such as the software "they wrote" to allow you to run Linux software under their SCO Unix crap.

If i had an apple orchard, and you had one next to me - and you accused me of stealign your apples.... and when i said "hell no i didn't, here's all my apples - which ones are from your farm? And why is there a trail of fertilizer from my farm to your farm?" -

and then you said, "well, hey, you know, lets make all the apples are free to everyone"..

there has to be some mechanism to protect copywrited materials - the FSF should use whatever mechanism that is and pull a BSA raid on SCO Unix and their Linux compatibility software.

Re:I repeat again - and i called it in advance...

[silicon not in the v]

Whoa, I totally hadn't thought of this angle. I do see a problem with this logic though. Your argument seems to say they would be doing this to avoid getting sued from their wrongdoing. That only makes sense if they are making money from the wrongdoing and need to avoid consequences. Before they started this mess, not many people paid attention to them or used their products, so they were pretty much safe from being sued before they brought it up themselves.

Interesting idea, but I do think there must be a profit seeking side of this. I tend to stick with the pump-n-dump view of it, or maybe just the slim hope that they could actually get some suckers to give them a lot of licensing money for Linux before the court shoots it down. That seems to me to be the reason they are starting seeling the Linux licenses with the Fortune 1000 companies first. They want to try to get a decent amount of money before the legal thing crashes on them.

Esquire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding the suffix Esquire on your title is unbelievably pathetic. Lawyers just got irritated that doctors ran around making sure everyone knew just who they were.

Here's the difference though - A doctor can save your life (yeah there as some assmonkey mathematics phds who call themselves doctor, but realize that everyone mocks them for it - The only one socially allowed to preface their name with doctor and not be proclaimed a jackass is a MD). A lawyer can fight a small claims case for you. W00t!

Re:Esquire?

[Ultra Magnus]

So, what would you call those people who defend inmates on death row, and get them acquitted of the charges?

Here's a thought...

[GearheadX]

Why is SCO trying to get GPL code into the public domain? Could they perhaps be trying to cover their tails in case someone were to uncover GPL code in software THEY have been releasing closed source?

Re:Here's a thought...

[FatRatBastard]

Maybe, but the more pressing issue is they have/still are distributing GPL software (Samba for example) and if they succeed in invalidating the GPL then they're in a huge f**king bind for distributing other people's work without the concent the GPL gives. You can bet they'll be the first company anyone who holds copyright to code in Samba sues would be SCO.

Now, the reason they want to invalidate the GPL is that IBM's countersuit says they're in violation of the GPL, therefore illegally distributing IBM copyrighted code.

Re:Here's a thought...

[kfg]

All that, plus the fact that they themselves distributed the very code they claim as their intellectual property under the GPL in their own Linux distribution.

This was the very fist affirmative defense IBM brought up, lo these many months ago.

If the GPL holds then the entire SCO case can be simply dismissed prima facie and we can all go home.

The GPL screws SCO thirtynine ways from Sunday. If it holds they have no case to begin with, but then they become the bait fish instead of the shark and they're going to get torn to bits by possibly hundreds of suits.

By putting forth their claims they made themselves a treed 'coon surrounded by a pack of hounds. They can't simply climb down out of the tree and walk away.

It's a done deal. Life or death. The GPL or SCO. There will be only one survivor.

And if SCO is the survivor it may still get taken out in the parking lot and beaten to death with tire irons.

KFG

Re:Here's a thought...

[dmaxwell]

And if SCO is the survivor it may still get taken out in the parking lot and beaten to death with tire irons.

It sounds like Gowachin Law. Sounds good to me. Boies and pals can get the iron supplements too.

Re:Here's a thought...

[SillySlashdotName]

Boies and pals can get the iron supplements too.

You spelled 'suppositories' wrong...

I'm thinking we'll see this resolved by New Years

[Trillan]

I'm going away for a month starting at the end of November. I think when I get back, I'll find this has been resolved.

SCO is just reaching too far now. How much longer can it go on? The pyramid of FUD has to collapse soon.

Of course, that's just my opinion. After all, this whole case was pretty obvious from day one, and it's still moving forward... reality seems to mean nothing to SCO.

Madness

[panxerox]

Step right up watch as our maddly dancing company self destructs right before your eyes ! Please keep your hands inside the car please...

GPL == General Public License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they calling it this?

Stallman must be chewing his beard -- not only is it being called Linux (not GNU/Linux), but GNU is being dropped entirely, even from their license!

Re:GPL == General Public License?

[Trillan]

Did I interpret that wrong, or are you asking why is it being called the General Public License?

If I interpreted it right, it's probably because it's what GNU calls it. If it was the GGPL, GNU General Public License might make sense.

Of course, it's possible I've totally misunderstood you...

Re:GPL == General Public License?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not technically "General Public License".

It is the "GNU General Public License".

Throughout the text of the license it refers to "this General Public License".

"General Public License" is incomplete, as the GPL is specifically GNU's GPL.

The point was that GNU was up in arms about having it called GNU/Linux -- so they cannot be too happy about GNU being left out of references to the GPL.

Re:GPL == General Public License?

[Trillan]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. If you're doing anything other than just expanding the acronym, it makes sense to include the GNU part. :)

Re:GPL == General Public License?

[The FooMiester]

I thought it was the GPL Public License

Re:GPL == General Public License?

[Trillan]

That would be keeping with GNU's naming convention, wouldn't it? :)

Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[debaere]

Does anyone else get the feeling that SCO is trying to get the Linux Kernel into the public domain so Microsoft can use it as a base for Longhorn? Robert X Cringley had an article about this a few months back.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[MsGeek]

They don't have to. There is a perfectly good kernel that Microsoft can grab, lock, stock and barrel, and assimilate into Longhorn. It's called the BSD kernel. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD...it's all fair game because of the BSD license. Microsoft has assimilated BSD code in the past...run Strings on ftp.exe and see the "Regents of the University of California" copyright notice for yourself.

Fearless prediction: we will see WinBSD in our lifetimes. Only it will be referred to as just another iteration of NT.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[pavon]

nah, the NT kernal really isn't that bad, its everything surrounding it that is very insecure, and a little unstable.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

No. By all accounts, the Windows kernel isn't a bad bit of kit. It's just used in a really crap way. Besides, they could just use a BSD kernel, like Apple did.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[jonbryce]

I would take issue with a few things in that article. Firstly, Windows XP is not built on DOS, it is built on the NT Kernel. The display manager or whatever you like to call it is much more closely tied to the kernel than X11. That's why you generally get better graphics performance in NT. It's also one of the reasons it crashes more often and is less secure.

In any case, if MS wanted to build their system on top of a unix like kernel, they could choose one of the BSD kernels. That could potentially be a better solution technically than linux as well.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I must agree. Kernels are rather boring; there is nothing in the Linux kernel that would give Microsoft a particular competitive advantage.

Moreover, at its heart it's Unix (well, Unix-like). Microsoft is rabidly against Unix in terms of overall design ethics. They had their "own" Unix -Xenix - and decided against further development of it. Why go back to Unix when you've spent so much time and money on VMS?

Besides, "I agree with this post", it's userspace that needs work. The kernel is fine. Fix the userspace - or to be specific, get things currently in kernelspace into userspace.

Contrary to the opinion of the average slashbot, people care about applications.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Phil John]

Apple didn't use a BSD kernel, their userland is BSD but the kernel is a Mach kernel.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[grasshoppa]

Does anyone else get the feeling that SCO is trying to get the Linux Kernel into the public domain so Microsoft can use it as a base for Longhorn? Robert X Cringley had an article about this a few months back.

Christ, did you read that article?

He lost absolutely all credibility with this line:

Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.

He is operating under the impression that all versions of windows are running on top of dos.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[argent]

As I wrote to Cringely at the time, there is no advantage to Microsoft in using the Linux kernel: it would be more expensive to run Win32 on top of Linux than on top of NT, and Win32 is the part they're trying to supersede in Longhorn.

And there's no advantage to us, either... Win32 on top of Linux would be the same security nightmare it is now.

And in any case, they already have a better code base than Linux they can use... in fact they have... OpenBSD code is all through Interix.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, this is a stupid idea. Microsoft already HAS a capable kernel: the NT kernel. I'm not referring to the bloated mess that has the kitchen sink running in kernel space, I'm referring to the NT 3.51 kernel that was small, slick and fast.

If Microsoft wants a better base, they have it sitting in their archives. Why the hell would they want the Linux kernel?

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently some delusions are less valid than others around here..

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Skweetis]

I find this to be unlikely (but then, I find most of Cringely's stuff to be unlikely). A couple of reasons:

1. Microsoft, more than most companies, suffers from "Not invented here" syndrome. The various BSD kernels are, for all practical purposes, public domain. Any one of these kernels is surely of higher quality than the NT kernel, and fairly similar to the Linux kernel, so if they wanted a Unix kernel, they would very likely use one of them. If they really badly needed Linux binary compatibility, they could just use something like the old iBCS stuff.
2. There is nothing preventing them from using the GPL'd Linux kernel in a proprietary OS. Any kernel patches would have to be released, but the vast majority of the OS distribution could remain proprietary, as system calls are considered normal use of the kernel.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.

yea, sounds pretty credible..

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators... this is supposed to be a "+5, Funny", NOT "Interesting"...

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Please fill in the blanks.

You've made quite a few off the cuff remarks with no supporting evidence at all. You don't even state in what ways the *BSD systems are lacking.

Fud?

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Eiki]

Nah, I don't think so. MS can never go down that road out of sheer arrogance - adopting a unix kernel would only prove that unix had it right all along, and everybody else has been wanking for 30 years. We could then ask why MS didn't build on top of unix from the very beginning and spare us all these past decades of pain? Probably their OS's will just keep evolving slowly in the unix direction, but this will be accompanied with plenty of misdirection and trivial differences, as with the "Single Instance Store", MS's invention of symbolic links in the late date of 2000! No, Microsoft has to keep doing its own thing, no matter how inferior it might be, just for the sake of being different than unix.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Nawww, through their own arrogance and a desire to own (and charge for) everything that goes into their software, I don't think they would even consider this.

I know it is shit but, damnit, it is my shit!

Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[mikeophile]

Getting the GPL declared public domain might provide just enough precedent to get all intellectual property declared public domain.

Free the meme! Viva la revolution!

Or not.

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, we can re-release the GPL under the GPL and then it will be free. lmao

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[Empiric]

My concern there would be that then there'd be no way to enforce the GPL's derivative works provisions, and we'd see a bunch of companies throwing a wrapper around GPL code and selling it, and the general public would say "Wow, look how great Linciscsys' products are! Nice that these responsible companies are finally putting those hacker anarchists in their place..."

*cough* Current Cisco ad *cough*

Besides, after all the work put into it, the original authors deserve at least recognition.

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[The Wicked Priest]

Do you have a link to the ad you're choking on?

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[Empiric]

No link, try that thing they call a "TV"... :)
TechTV channel for one, I think. Heavy rotation.

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[silicon not in the v]

I see very little chance of all GPL'ed software getting declared public domain because it is still IP that was created by the authors. There are still records of who wrote the software, and if the decision comes out as, "These authors released their code under a license that is not valid.", then I think it would revert back to them owning the code again, and they would have to choose another license under which to publish it.

SCO themselves is the one saying that "Congress, not the FSF or anyone else, regulates copyright."(attempted quote from memory) So, what does congressional copyright law say? I forget what it has been extended to by now, but it's something like 100+ years after the authors death plus however much time it takes to turn a dinosaur into oil. So nobody's code is going into public domain any time soon.

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea....

[Tim C]

I think it would revert back to them owning the code again

It's not a case of reverting back to the original authors - just because a work has been GPLed (or similar), doesn't mean that it's not copyrighted. Quite the opposite, in fact - it most assuredly is still copyrighted. The author still owns it (unless they transferred their copyright to someone else); releasing it under the GPL doesn't change that.

Re:fark.com down??

[Anonymous Coward]

The server for forums.fark.com is having an operating system upgrade.

New theory

[lurker412]

SCO is obviously out to destroy the open source community, but their method is more subtle than previously thought. They just make an outrageous claim and then watch all the open source developers spend their time flaming on ./ rather than doing real work. Pretty sneaky...

Re:New theory

[OscarGunther]

...spend their time flaming on ./ rather than doing real work...

Are you dyslexic?

Re:New theory

[lurker412]

Workers of the world untie!

Re:New theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep waiting for someone to actually die laughing from this stuff, too.

To Timothy *confused*

[FrankoBoy]

If you think the last submission is the most interesting one ( I agree, btw ), why the fuck did you put it at the end of the post and didn't mention it in the first paragraph ?!

Re:To Timothy *confused*

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that tools like you and me submit the text for each story on slashdot, and the fools like timothy just post them and sometimes add their own editorial blabs on the end?

Re:To Timothy *confused*

[FrankoBoy]

Of course I do. It's just that he is so blatantly contradicting himself by arranging the stories the way he did here, from whatever pespective one might use, it's not even funny.

If people won't RTFA...

[Dachannien]

...then what makes anyone think that people will click on the "n bytes in body" link?

For reasons I don't understand, this "silver bullet" defense has not been widely reported in the press.

Sorry, Mark, but it didn't quite make front-page on /. either.

Who the...

[glenebob]

Who is SCO?

Re:Who the...

[akeyes]

SCO = Sour Cream & Onion (I am a student/cashier, and while scanning groceries, "SCO" appeared on the screen, so I looked down to see what it was, and it was Sour Cream & Onion potato chips.)

I had a GPL'd comment on this...

[bcolflesh]

...keeping it to myself until the case is sorted out!

Bright spot amid all the lunacy.

[Distan]

If it is all going to boil down to the GPL being tried in a court of law, there is one big thing that we should all be thankful for. That is the fact that IBM is on the side of the GPL. IBM has some of the best and sharpest attorneys in the corporate world, and short of having Disney come aboard as well, I can't think of any corporation I'd prefer to have as my proxy warrior.

SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

so SCO is some kind of technology company right?

Re:SCO?

[The Wicked Priest]

so SCO is some kind of technology company right?

Silly answer: No, they're a law firm.

Serious answer: No, by now I'd have to call them an intellectual property holding company. They produce nothing, just try to collect money on other people's ideas.

There are actually a lot of companies like this, unfortunately. SCO is just the most notorious of the moment.

The enemy of my enemy

[dmaxwell]

is not necessarily my friend. Noorda dislikes MS to point of calling Ballmer "Emballmer" and Bill "Pearly" Gates. He was fond of saying something like "Emballmer gets you ready for the grave and Pearly drops you in it."

I have no doubt he would like to score a win of some kind against MS. But it wouldn't surprise me if Free Software offends him as badly as it does MS. A victory for the GPL isn't necessarily a victory for him. He isn't going to go out of his way for a little schadenfreude.

The other possibility is that he doesn't care what SCO does as long as they're scoring some change from SUN and MS.

Where's your cave?

[Trillan]

I want to borrow it for a while... ;)

Re:Where's your cave?

[glenebob]

Well, it's either my ass, or a hole in the ground. I still can't decide which.

Re:Where's your cave?

[Compact Dick]

Or a jelly donut...

Re:Where's your cave?

[glenebob]

Good point. These are complicated times we live in eh? Whatever it is, I think you (CompactDick), in particular, should keep out of my cave/ass/jelly donut. Do you work for SCO, by any chance? Is that you, Darl?

for the sake of arguement...

[3seas]

If the GPL is invalid, what other licensings would also be in question?

How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?

Might such a thing also extend to employment contracts?

Re:for the sake of arguement...

[Anonymous Coward]

A license is a contract, and under US law, contracts are void (no court will here a "breach of contract" case) if the contract stipulates that the promisee or promisor violates any law or statute. It's contract law 101. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but in the case of employment contracts, the law is heavily weighted towards the employee not the employer.

Re:for the sake of arguement...

[Anonymous Coward]

An agreement between two private parties is not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution is only an agreement between the government and the governed - thus you can be fired for violating a NDA without being able to use a Free Speech defense.

The Constitution only provides the power for the lesgislature to create copyrights, not the method of that creation, or what it can or cannot do. So you could have a license that isn't legal based upon laws on the books, but not one that violates the Constitution.

Re:for the sake of arguement...

[The Wicked Priest]

For the sake of argument, if the GPL is invalid, it does SCO no good. The code reverts to a proprietary status, not the public domain.

But even if, in some insane parallel universe, it COULD become public domain, then that wouldn't help SCO either -- since they've released their own "stolen" code in the Linux kernel under the GPL.

Re:for the sake of arguement...

[zurab]

If the GPL is invalid, what other licensings would also be in question?

How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?

I was thinking like that too. Hey, look, if this holds we'll have:

- sharing source code is unconstitutional (under GPL);
- DMCA is constitutional (outlawing public activities that are not copyrightable);
- next, I'll be wondering if laughing at all this is constitutional or not.

Val Kilmer says....

[Anonymous Coward]

Madman? No. A sophist who believe that which is true is that which he can convince a court of, certainly. In some respects he may actually be right. Which is the problem with lawyers. They aren't about or bound to either the truth or ethical behavior. They exist as storytellers and crafters of emotional arguments. Their industry is built on image as truth, and content as unimportant. Ask yourself what's the shocking thing about this fiasco? That SCO is lying, or that they expect people to believe them?

Obligatory South Park Quote ...

[obsidianpreacher]

The sexual harassment case of Everyone vs. Everyone begins tomorrow. No matter what the outcome, the public schools are sure to lose at least a whopping $30 million. Representing the side of Everyone is Gerald Broflovski, the lawyer from South Park who plans to make quite a commission. Representing the side of Everyone Else is Gerald Broflovski. So whatever the outcome, things look very bright for Kyle's dad. Personally, I think Kyle's dad is just a whore, taking advantage of everyone in town and... [a note is handed to him] This just in! Newscaster Kevin McCarty is being sued by Kyle's dad for slander. The newscaster has yet to be reached for comment. Wait...

Of course, this applies equally well to the "copyright/IP/patent/your_mom infringement" case of SCO vs Everyone ...

Re:Obligatory South Park Quote ...

[flashbang]

Yeah - this SCO mess even makes arguments like the Chewbacca Defense sound reasonable.

Liabilities

[cgenman]

Once again I ask: What liabilities are SCO's board members opening themselves up for with these ludicrous litigations and how can I get in on this class-action?

Re:Liabilities

[milo_Gwalthny]

You can get in on the class-action by buying their stock at the current price.

However, your damages would be the amount lost, the company will probably be insolvent if you have the evidence to prove your case, and the directors are almost certainly not personally liable.

SCO's nefarious plan...

[studerby]

SCO's nefarious plan is to get IBM's lawyer's to laugh themselves to death, and thereby win by default.

Sheer genius!

Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO

[47PHA60]

"Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site."

Doesn't matter; it is OK under the GPL to make code available only to those people who received binaries from you. You must, however, grant the same rights to those recipients so that they can further modify or distribute what they got from you.

In other words, if the GPL is enforceable, this move by SCO does not mitigate their responsibility to honor the terms of the license which they accepted by distributing the software.

If the GPL is enforceable, SCO has lost their rights by attempting to add further restrictions (in the form of their "SCO IP License"). If the GPL is not enforceable, then the whole software industry is in for a shake-up, because a license is the only way that software copyright holders extend any rights to you beyond what copyright allows.

Re:Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO

[midav]

because a license is the only way that software copyright holders extend any rights to you beyond what copyright allows.

That's why all GPLed works have to go to Public Domain.

Re:Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO

[47PHA60]

That's why all GPLed works have to go to Public Domain.

Since you did not post anonymously, I will not dismiss this as drivel right out. Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.

You're saying that in one fell swoop, we wrest copyright from thousands of rightful owners and put this material in the public domain. Why? And how does my post lead you to this conclusion?

Re:Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO

[midav]

Sorry, for not responding promptly, I should have been more clear with my statement. What I wanted to say is that This is why SCO argues, that all GPLed works have to go to Public Domain

PS Hope, you look up your old posts and are reading this.

Well then.

[mcc]

That solves everything neatly.

1. November 1 comes.
2. IBM buys one (1) SCO UNIX license.
3. IBM downloads the full linux kernel from SCO's website.
4. By giving IBM said kernel, SCO has just licensed Linux to IBM under the GPL. This can no longer be argued to be mistake, or something accidentally left around on the website. IBM is now not only someone who has grabbed a file off SCO's website-- which is all that you need for the GPL license to be extended-- they are now a paying customer.
5. All the code IBM ever put into linux now falls into two categories.
   1. Code which IBM had the right to put into linux because they own it.
   2. Code which IBM has the right to put into linux because SCO has granted them an unfettered license to do so by distributing said code to IBM under the GPL in step 3.
6. Thus, SCO's lawsuit against IBM-- in which they allege IBM put code into linux which by right of contract is the property of SCO-- is no longer valid, since whether said code is IBM's or SCO's property, IBM now has the right to distribute it under the GPL anyway. The suit can be thrown out.

Yes, I realize the above is utterly rediculous. I'm pointing this out just to elaborate how rediculous SCO's position is. As if it weren't already obvious to all.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I realize the above is utterly rediculous. I'm pointing this out just to elaborate how rediculous SCO's position is.

About as ridiculous as your goddamned spelling of "ridiculous." Sheesh. Pick up a dictionary, bonehead.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can skip steps 1 and 2.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look who you're talking to. He's from Purdue. He knows how to speell.

Who gets the most from the death of the GPL?

[billn]

'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.'

There were early rumours about Microsoft having a puppeteer-like hand up SCO's collective ass when this whole mess started.

Everything released under the GPL over the last three years, ostensibly some pretty solid code and products, would suddenly be up for grabs without the viral GPL attachment, including the Linux Kernel.

(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = ?

Re:Who gets the most from the death of the GPL?

[cavac]

That may work in the States. Maybe.

Europe is another story. You always stay the copyright owner and have the rights to say what happens with the code.

The point is: Copyright is always enforced in the country of the copyright owner. So if the GPL gets declared illegal in the states, they STILL have to pay up the original authors when they are non-US...

Re:Who gets the most from the death of the GPL?

[gabe]

(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = Longhorn of course!

Why else would it be taking one of the largest software companies in the world two and a half years to pretty up Windows XP, bolt in IE and slap the file system in a database? They have to wait until Linux, GNOME, etc. is all declared public domain before they ravage it!

Re:Who gets the most from the death of the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst. I'll give you a little hint. Microsoft isn't behind this one.

It's Sun Microsystems.

If you're not sure why, take a look at their last quarter earnings. Who do you think has the most to lose in the server arena right now? Servers are their bread and butter right now, and they're losing out to IBM and Linux in a big way. So big that Sun may not even be around in a few years unless they can take back marketshare.

Also, a little birdie let the secret slip on the Sun message board.

Re:Who gets the most from the death of the GPL?

[spectecjr]

(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = Longhorn of course!

Why else would it be taking one of the largest software companies in the world two and a half years to pretty up Windows XP, bolt in IE and slap the file system in a database? They have to wait until Linux, GNOME, etc. is all declared public domain before they ravage it!

Believe me, you may think that GPL'd software is the shit, but frankly it's not all that and a bag of chips. Why anyone would want to copy or use GPL'd software in their own work is beyond me. It's really not that good, is badly documented... frankly, it'd be easier and give better results to roll your own.

Re:I'm thinking we'll see this resolved by New Yea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going away for a month starting at the end of November.

Wait... wait...

Oh, I almost gave a shit.

I am confused

[Irishman]

The argument that SCO has outlined states that the GPL contravenes the copyright law by making software very free. I won't try and figure out how something can be too free in a nation that purports to be the most free nation on Earth.

As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply. If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed restrictions on the use of my work (or lack of restrictions). You as a consumer must comply with those restrictions. I am not forcing you to do so. If you cannot comply, you cannot use it, pure and simple.

Can someone explain to me how this is not constitutional?

Re:I am confused

[4of12]

restrictions on the use

What's interesting here is that many EULA's impose a great many ridiculous restrictions on how some uses the software. And, of course, the special "use" of redistribution copies of the software is rather restricted; they usually spell out quite carefully when a user should not even make a copy, even if the user is not redistributing the work.

The GPL imposes no restrictions on use (you can back it up, use it on as many machines, give CD's to friends, etc.).

It would seem very reasonable for the GPL to place conditions on redistribution of modified work, inasmuch as it places no restrictions on redistribution of unmodified work.

The requirement that source accompany modified distributions of GPL'd work seems quite consistent with the overall objectives of copyright, which was to grant a temporary monopoly to further the greater interest of getting the "IP" into the public domain where it can be freely used.

Re:I am confused

[d34thm0nk3y]

Can someone explain to me how this is not constitutional?

Haven't you heard, copyright law only applies when the *AA's want it to.

Re:I am confused

[fcw]

As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. [...] If you cannot comply, you cannot use it, pure and simple.

Your understanding is flawed.

Copyright provides you with certain exclusive rights to make copies of the work, and you can relinquish, sell or license those rights as you see fit. But it does not give you the ability to dictate how a work can be used.

Hence the wording in the GPL that it is manifestly not a licence to use, since copyright law, on which is it based, does not control that.

Re:I am confused

[bnenning]

As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work.

Nope. You can't remove first sale and fair use rights, for example. (At least in theory; various cartels are doing their best to get rid of those rights). You may be able to restrict use if you don't "sell" copies but only "license" them; this is what EULAs attempt to do.

However, this doesn't affect the GPL at all, because it only grants rights to users that they otherwise wouldn't have; it doesn't remove any.

Re:I am confused

[WNight]

I don't think you meant it, but there's a small technical error in your post.

You said "restrictions on it's use". You can't actually restrict the use (unless I agree to that beforehand) but you can restrict the duplication of it.

This is how GPLed software works. Once I get a copy I can do anything I want with it, except for duplication. The GPL only applies if you wish to duplicate the work, something you can't normally do.

Re:I am confused

[mpe]

As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply.

Actually it's more a case of granting permissions than imposing restrictions. By default someone with a copy of your work cannot make copies and distribute them to third parties. This has been made less clear by the attempts of media and software companies to mutate "copyright" into "useright".

If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed restrictions on the use of my work (or lack of restrictions).

Imposing restrictions in a copyright distribution licence would be rather redundent. Anyone distributing copies of your work needs your explicit permission to do so in the first place.

Re:I am confused

[mpe]

The GPL imposes no restrictions on use (you can back it up, use it on as many machines, give CD's to friends, etc.)

The GPL does apply in the last case. Since that is distribution to third parties. Note that the GPL does not care if the "you" is an individual or a corporation.

It would seem very reasonable for the GPL to place conditions on redistribution of modified work, inasmuch as it places no restrictions on redistribution of unmodified work.

Actually there are restrictions on unmodified works. If you supply someone with a binary you must make the source available as described also tell whoever you distribute it to that it is a GPL covered work. You couldn't, for example, lead them to believe that you were supplying them with a proprietary binary.

Blah

[unorthod0x]

The newsforge article can hardly be taken seriously when it says:

You non-Americans who read NewsForge can move on to the next story right now. We know you don't hold our Constitution dear and don't understand the ideals that make the United of States of America the greatest nation on earth, so there is no reason for you to read this.

Makes me sick..

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Edit to:

You who read NewsForge can move on to the next story right now. We know that either you're American or not; if you are not, then our constitution doesn't affect you (much), and if you are, then you probably don't know or understand the ideals that make the United of [sic] States of America the greatest nation on earth, so there is no reason for you to read this.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

You did realize that the entire article was a parody...did you?

Re:Blah

[lumpenprole]

You did actually see that it was posted under a humour header, right? Right?

The GPL is *not* freer than public domain software

[gengee]

Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use. The point of the GPL is that it restricts certain individual freedoms, while protecting common freedom. But make no mistake: public domain software is freer.

It's an issue of sematics, yes. But an important distinction.

Re:FUCKING TEABAGGER

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, Thanks a lot buddeh!

huh?

[gyratedotorg]

'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.'

correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt this put sco's linux distro into the public domain, and thus, invalidate all of their stolen-ip claims? sco did release their distro under the gpl, correct?

Re:huh?

[Rasta Prefect]

correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt this put sco's linux distro into the public domain, and thus, invalidate all of their stolen-ip claims? sco did release their distro under the gpl, correct?

Argh, who moded this Insighttful? No, it wouldn't. Assuming there intellectual property is in the Linux kernel, if they had knowningly released it as GPL, it would GPL'd and the whole damn thing would be moot anyway.

SCO's claims are that IBM and SGI put System V code, along with other code they developed, but that according to SCO still belongs to SCO by the terms of the Unix license agreement, were put in the Linux Kernel and the SCO Relased it under the GPL _without know it was there_. And that therefore it was IBM and SGI who released SCO's proprietry IP under the GPL. So it wouldn't be any more legitimately Public Domain that it is GPL'd now. At least if you buy what SCO is saying.

Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity."

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[rhizome]

Sure, we all love Hanlon, but his razor is not all-encompassing. I don't believe that explaining SCO's actions as "stupidity" is *sufficient* at all. This isn't a personal attitude, it's just that with all the complications, details and seemingly malpracticed legal maneuvers that there is just too much going on for stupid people to be responsible, and furthermore that there are smart people doing stupid things. Don't think for a minute that they don't have a plan, and that SCO execs aren't just flying off the handle randomly because their legal staff thinks that whatever they want to do is just fine. While we may not be able to accurately speculate what that plan is, it doesn't mean that there isn't one that we'll find out about later.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[sulli]

Sure, we all love Hanlon, but his razor is not all-encompassing.

Is that why Unix geeks don't shave?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of Razors, how come the *nix gurus never seem to be able to find theirs?

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

The beard keeps us warm in the machine room where we sleep.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Tony]

Is that why Unix geeks don't shave?

We don't shave so that when the revolution comes, we can easilly distinguish the bearded freedom-fighters from the clean-shaven Microsoft Terrorists.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we had Athlons for that.

Re:Hanlon's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you seen the latest MS ads? "I set up a DFS and our new SAN, it'll save us... hundreds of thousands of dollars."

This MS Terrorist looks like he doesn't shave, and it's hard to tell because of his fair-hair. Be warned.

Huh?

[siskbc]

How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?

Any contract whose terms are not legal is null. So I think that's already the case.

Note that there is a difference between someone waiving their rights and inalienable rights being violated. In any contract there is give and take - for example, in exchange for payment I give up some specific rights (like working for my employer's competition on the side, for instance). However, I couldn't sign a contract making me a slave. That's not legal.

Finding the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

I guess they want people to register so they can track down who the customer is, would you buy a SCO product ?

Honestly, SCO must have a customer .. somewhere ..

Re:Finding the customer

[frkiii]

Well, I guess, in a round about way, you could call a victim of SCO's extortion a "customer".

From SCO's point of view, anyway.

Regards,

Fredrick

Re:Everything that is there to be said has been sa

[XenoBrain]

Yes, but the question is, does anybody really have a different opinion?

Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just mad cuz you don't gets no karma, but you'd have to post something interesting for that to happen.

GPL is unconstitutional?

[dacarr]

SCO says GPL is unconstitutional. Many public school students feel that school dress codes violate the first amendment. Some people feel that corporate restrictions on the distribution of pornography violate *their* first amemdment rights. Invariably, these people are corrected and accordingly embarrassed when the authorities say "Um, no it's *not*."

Re:GPL is unconstitutional?

[The Wicked Priest]

I don't think the people viewing porn at work, in your example, have a case; but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the dress code issue. First, they are public schools, which means they're run by the government. Second, attendance is compulsory (unless you want and can afford a private school or home schooling), which means that no one can opt out of the rules. Third, clothing can most definitely be expressive -- maybe not in the case of a high hemline, but what about a t-shirt with a political slogan? Those have been banned in some cases, in the interest of "order"; yet they seem to me to be clearly protected speech.

However, none of this has anything to do with the GPL.

Re:GPL is unconstitutional?

[dacarr]

Point noted there in the case of dress code and porn; had I mod points (or not posted here) you would go up. =)

To clarify, I'm talking the more banal complaints (the high hemline argument you present) and selling of pornography in public venues where it shouldn't be (IE, you won't find playboy at Disneyland).

So where does this enter it? To get to the point, often I've seen people play the "Unconstitutional" card during disputes as a shallow means of defending their own arguments - they rarely have a leg to stand on. It's almost like Godwin's Law, except unlike Godwin (where traditionally the violator just loses by default by the mere mention of Hitler &c), it might be used as more of a last gasp of sorts.

How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[roystgnr]

SCO's book value will be either billions of dollars or zero dollars after this case is over, and now we've got law professors calling their case "bizarre and ridiculous" - isn't that the sort of thing SCOX shareholders might find interesting? Yet unless you go into the discussion forums there's not a peep about it on finance.yahoo.com, fool.com... marketwatch.com is the only site I can find that's actually linking to any of these stories.

So I'm throwing out two questions:

Is there anything we can do to make the financial folks more aware of this? Every time a deceitful SCO executive makes another $100,000 stock sale to ignorant traders, Adam Smith does another 360 in his grave.

Is there some better news source I should be using for the stocks I buy? I may sound like I'm mocking the "ignorant traders", but how can I be sure I'm not inadvertently funding some con artist myself?

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[LWATCDR]

I do have to wonder about this as well. I guess the finance people figure that the tech people don't know anything since they totaly blew the .com thing.
Or they must figure that SCO has to have something or else they would not be trying to sue IBM. Or they figure that IBM will just settle. Or they are all drunk. Some people have made some good money day trading SCO.
My guess is that the finance people think that since SCO is still pretty cheap that it is worth the long shot that they will win. Sort of a lottry ticket. They pay off is worth the risk and if they do not win you have not lost all that much.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Some of the smart money is getting out. Integral Capital Partners just filed an amended S-13G showing that they no longer own any SCOX. They were one of the largest holders prior to the lawsuits.

ICP is one of the smartest private investors in California. My advice on news... watch what they do, not what they say. On news sources: best source is EDGAR.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter how bizzare or untruthful their arguments are. If you saw what they were planning and bought in at the right time, and sold recently, you could be as rich.

How ignorant does it seem now?

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[greed]

I guess the finance people figure that the tech people don't know anything since they totaly blew the .com thing.

Maybe I'm misreading that, but I thought the .com thing was a finance-people thing; all the tech people I know of just stood back and shook their heads at it all.

Well, the few who got in on some juicy IPOs of valueless companies giggled all the way to the stock broker, but after that they just laughed at everyone else.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[Anonymous Coward]

For every seller, there's a buyer. The ignorant are the people who are buying now.

If you saw what they were planning and bought at the right time, you'd probably be guilty of insider trading.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[LWATCDR]

"Maybe I'm misreading that, but I thought the .com thing was a finance-people thing; all the tech people I know of just stood back and shook their heads at it all."
Well the finance people can not be wrong :)
Truth is I have to wonder if a lot of the tech people actually belived the finance people too much.
The sad thing is that lots of cool ideas died and now we are left with what is left of the internet. It is sad but 99.9% of it is now crap or porn. It looks as if the Internet did for information what TV did for culture.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[Artifakt]

Most /.ers are not catching this implication. If the case eventually comes out as it looks to us to be coming out, then the SEC has fallen down on the job again, and private organizations such as the Motley Fool have been months behind the times, at best. You ask, how can you be sure you're not funding some con artist? The evidence tends more and more twards you must be. It's too easy for more crooks not to be taking advantage of it. The longer this SCO mess goes on without 'responsible' parties doing their jobs, and the more obvious the problem seems to use without those 'responsible' parties even noticing it, the more it implies there are huge 'corrections' still waiting in the stock market, huge numbers of people whose pension funds have been looted without them yet knowing, and equally huge numbers of people who need fired for not doing their jobs.

Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires?

[Eminor]

Is there some better news source I should be using for the stocks I buy? I may sound like I'm mocking the "ignorant traders", but how can I be sure I'm not inadvertently funding some con artist myself?

That 's a valid point. Maybe someone should pose that question to the major stock sites. "How can I trust your information if this case is so blatantly omitted?"

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[whig]

That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use. The point of the GPL is that it restricts certain individual freedoms, while protecting common freedom. But make no mistake: public domain software is freer.

This is the endless debate between Free Software and Open Source advocates. GPL is freer in the sense that it protects the *code* from being captured by proprietary distributors. BSD and PD is freer in that it protects the *redistributor* to do what he likes with the code.

FWIW, GPL does not restrict your rights to *use* anything, it only applies to redistribution.

America's loss if they ban the GPL

[adrianbaugh]

America is not the world. (Reminded about my earlier gaffe about Canadians, perhaps I should say "the USA is not the world.)
If the GPL is ruled unconstitutional in the USA then the rest of the world simply goes for a dual license. With apologies to all the sane people in the USA, I go for something along the lines of: "GPL applicable outside the USA. No licensing terms available within the USA." We move repositories of GPL stuff out of the USA and the rest of the world gets on with business as usual, apart from possibly a few years setback having to replace key developers. The USA, meanwhile, carries on smoking its crack pipe.

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

and all gpl'd software becomes public domain for americans and Richard Stallman kills himself. How's that not great?

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I can understand why the parent was modded Flamebait, but I think that I could add little something to it, that would clear it a little (with my own spin naturaly)

We move repositories of GPL stuff out of the USA and the rest of the world gets on with business as usual, apart from possibly a few years setback having to replace key developers.

I think that there will be no more GPL development in the USA, but all those USA companies developing software based on this newly accesible source code (if it really goes to public domain) will have a lot of problems selling it outside USA & USA controlled areas, where the judgement has any legal value.

Think of it like there's couple of thousand developers in USA alone that could block selling some software (Windows perhaps) outside of USA, just based on presumption that it could use GPL licensed source code. Still uncontested validity of the licence in EU, India, Japan, ... would prabably allow for that. I think that one can sell ony so much in USA, but for real growth the company has to go abroad as well (Germany, Japan, France, UK are not small markets.

Judging in favour of SCO theory would put every USA based compay in jeopard when trying to sell the products abroad. While they can sell & develop in USA without problems, they have no way of selling outside USA without threat of copyright litigation. This could mean that even more business would either wither, specialize for USA only, or move (HQ and jobs) outside USA.

Pretty sad prospect, I think.

On the funnier side, can you image Stallman learning French, FSF renaming to some German acronym, and IBM moving HQ to Taiwan, with SCO reigning supreme in the USA. Oh sorry, that was not funny.

Thank you for your time

Anonymous Cowards Unite

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[at_kernel_99]

Without getting into the argument of what is or is not America, is Linux not an import, in part, if not in whole? My knowledge of Linux history is certainly not comprehensive, but as I recall, Linus is a Finn and, while now residing and working in the USA, did much of his work while residing and working in his homeland. Much like many other Linux contributors are residents of other countries.

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[fishbowl]

Yes. Even if SCO can influence a judge to revoke a domestic copyright, I think they are going to need to make a much bigger case if they want to move to an international jurisdiction.

No judge is gonna take this pill though. They know the score. He won't actually have the authority to revoke your copyrights, my copyrights, or Linus' copyrights, period. Even if I licensed my stuff under plainly illegal and unenforceable terms. EVEN IF THE GPL is COMPLETELY INVALID, the copyrights are safe from any sweeping court order.

How would that be worded, anyway? How could it possibly not be discriminatory?

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

> FSF renaming to some German acronym

Frei Suftvar Fundazhen?

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

On the funnier side, can you image Stallman learning French, ...

He already can! From this web page: "Dr. Stallman speaks English and French fluently, and can deliver speeches in either language. He can also speak in Spanish if he has sufficient time in a hispanic milieu to remember forgotten words before the speech."

Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL

[chooks]

>The USA, meanwhile, carries on smoking its crack pipe

That's not crack. That's Patriot Powder(TM). Using it funds things such as the CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, Major League Baseball, and your NEIGHBORHOOD LIBRARY!

By God, won't somebody think of the children???!??!

As long as we're getting redundant...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'd like to point out (as has been pointed out at least once on every SCO story so far) that you can filter out stories about caldera. You could do that, and mod *every* SCO story redundant, all by yourself.

Quote of the day applies

[CrackedButter]

The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it.

Anyway, i seem to have lost something here, the GPL ISN'T in the public domain? I thought it was because anybody could pick it up and use it. I seem to be missing something here.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[mark-t]

the GPL ISN'T in the public domain?

That's right. GPL'd code is still copyrighted, and protected by copyright law. It just so happens that all you need to do in the case of GPL'd code to get the permission to copy/redistribute that you might otherwise need written permission from the copyright holder or publisher to do is agree to abide by the terms of the license. Of course, if your actions do not actually demonstrate a willingness to comply to those terms, then regardless of what you may claim, you are assumed to have failed to agree to the terms of the license.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[yourmom16]

No, its copyrighted. The copyright owners have agreed to let you distribute it, view the source, and modify it, as long as you give the source to those it is distributed to if they ask.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Publicly accessible doesn't mean it's in Public Domain. Public Domain has a very specific meaning in copyright.

GPL is copyright (err, copyleft) which puts constraints on how you can use the code. Public Domain means no copyright at all, do anything you want to it whatsover.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[toriver]

the GPL ISN'T in the public domain?

No. "Public domain" is a legal term in compyright law that roughly seems to mean "do whatever you want with it". When copyrights expire, that's where a work ends up (with the usual lobbyist-induced limitations if it's a "work for hire" and all that of course).

The GPL is a license on stuff not in the public domain (ie. that someone holds a copyright to) which lists a whole crapload of restrictions on what you can do with the licensed stuff when you get it.

But even if the GPL is invalid the authors still retain their copyright. It's unclear what SCO's vultures have been smoking if they believe that authors lose copyright if there is an error in a license document regarding the work.

It would be as if there was an unenforcable clause in the legal warning on a DVD, the entire contents became freely distributable...

IANAL and all that.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[RdsArts]

Public domain does not imply use, it refers to ownership.

If a thing is public domain, it is in the ownership of the public commons, or without any owner in effect. Because of that, anyone can use it. The GPL retains ownership for the author/authors, but allows anyone to use it.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[The Wicked Priest]

What you're missing is the definition of "public domain". I guess I shouldn't be surprised; it's widely misunderstood. Back in the BBS shareware era, I used to see code that was simultaneously labelled as "public domain" and "copyright", which is contradictory; or as public domain, but with restrictions, which is also contradictory.

"Public domain" describes work that is not copyrighted. This includes work whose copyright has expired, work that is uncopyrightable, and work the authors chose not to copyright. (To my great surprise, I recently discovered that this last category is slightly controversial. But let's skip that for the moment.)

Copyright is a limited grant of exclusive control over a work, provided by the goverment to authors as an incentive to creativity -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," as the Founders put it. (Here, as elsewhere, I'm giving the U.S. version. Internationally it's quite different in some respects.) It is NOT a natural right, as the MPAA and RIAA would like you to believe. However, under current law, copyright is given automatically when a copyrightable work is created, unless the copyright owner actively disclaims it. (Whether the copyright owner even CAN disclaim it is the surprisingly controversial part.)

Apart from being of limited duration, copyright is limited in other ways. EULAs notwithstanding, copyright doesn't give the creator the right to tell you how to use the work. Like the name says, it just gives them the exclusive RIGHT to COPY the work -- or to delegate that right to others, such as a publisher.

GPL'd work is copyrighted. What the GPL does is merely to delegate the right to copy (and alter) the work to ANYONE who agrees to the terms of the license. This is radically different from traditional publishing, but still well within the framework of copyright law.

Material in the public domain can ALSO, of course, be copied and altered by anyone. Only, they don't have to agree to the terms of any license; they are free, for example, to take public domain software, alter it, and sell the altered program without releasing source code.

That's why the GPL exists -- it was undoubtedly inspired by experience with the public domain, but the GPL is an attempt to extend the benefits of free and open code, paradoxically, by restricting it. Public domain code (as well as BSD-licensed code) can become incorporated into closed-source code; GPL'd code cannot. Thus, anyone who wants to use GPL'd code must in turn GPL it; thus, in theory (and indeed in practice), the world gets more and more free code, as the new is built upon the old.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[fishbowl]

"It would be as if there was an unenforcable clause in the legal warning on a DVD, the entire contents became freely distributable..."

It would be *exactly* like that. And you're thinking small if you only considered the entertainment industry...

But everyone is getting excited over nothing, because as you realize, NO JUDGE will even consider this question, at least not past reading it and instructing his secretary to put the "Motion Denied" stamp on it.
Too much more bullshit like this will get the case dismissed before the first hearing is scheduled.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[An Onerous Coward]

Wait. Are you asking if GPL'ed code is public domain? Or if the GPL itself is in the public domain? Everyone so far seems to have assumed the former.

I thought the text of the GPL itself was public domain, but the GPL is preceded with:

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Which makes sense, since you don't want other versions floating about.

Re:Quote of the day applies

[Maserati]

See the copyright notice ? It's not public domain if its copyrighted. See the terms and conditions at the end ? You can't even change it to the old 5-digit zip code. "Not allowed" is clear and to the point, especially when backup up with "verbatim".

Um

[mcc]

I think Mr. Limo was being facetious. The article seems to be written all the way through as if it were not *meant* to be taken seriously, but rather to be interpreted as anti-american satire.

In other words:
YHBT.

The FSF has a fallback position...

[argent]

Apart from the fact that public domain code can't be restricted by export controls either, as the DoD discovered...

The FSF has the LGPL, which protects the same rights without "creating a commons"... but which still leaves SCO in the lurch.

Re:The FSF has a fallback position...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont forget it leaves all the Java folks in the lurch as well.. It never ceases to astound me the number of java libraries you'll find that are LGPL..

Anyone know how this affects c$

Class action lawsuit?

[narfbot]

If SCO succeeds in getting the GPL voided and all it's code put into public domain (last 3 years??), can I please be the first to sign onto a class action lawsuit, because it affects me. Surely this damages the work of thousands of people, probably in the trillions of dollars, and I would sure enjoy being part of a coalition to bankrupt and crush SCO. SCO execs will never be able to work in business again.

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

probably in the trillions of dollars

Hahahah, don't get your panties all in a bunch my boy. You and your open sores pals probably don't amount to anything north of a few million bucks - Canadian.

crush SCO

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

SCO execs will never be able to work in business again.

Oh fear, fear!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[sosorrytoseethishapp]

SCO execs won't have to work again. That's not how corporate america work.

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[fishbowl]

>I please be the first to sign onto a class
>action lawsuit

No judge will do this. Revoking your copyright would require an action by you, a court order where you were entitled to a hearing to defend your property *individually*, and act of Congress amending US Copyright law, or a Constitutional Amendment.

Any decision that renders your copyrights to be void, sets a legal precedent that could bring down the whole house of cards.

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[narfbot]

No judge will do this.
Maybe no judge in their right mind will do it. A hearing where I would be present is probably impossible. So the judge would make his decision based on his own reasoning? Hopefully there aren't any other "factors".

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[fishbowl]

"A hearing where I would be present is probably impossible. So the judge would make his decision based on his own reasoning?"

Actually, if it comes to that, and you don't take the appropriate action to defend your rights, then yeah, you would risk having a summary judgement for not appearing at the appointed time and place to state your evidence. So yes. But no, it won't come to that, because there isn't any doctrine of civil law that leads to a judge directly attaching YOUR property as part of a settlement between two parties completely unrelated to you.

The hype around SCO v. IBM is fueled by reckless speculation and discussion of people who have limited understanding of civil law in the US. (Myself included, IANAL, but I have studied law, including civil procedure and rules of evidence)

You have rights to your property that cannot be taken away without due process.

Re:Class action lawsuit?

[narfbot]

Thanks for your sane reasoning.

If anything I fear a judge that makes decisions without regard to law and the Constitution. And it has happened. I studied Gore vs Bush, for a paper I wrote in Eng 101 during the time it happened. IMO, I found that the Florida Supreme Court grossly ignored Florida law and set their own election rules.

But you see, I'd love to fight SCO anyway I could =)

SCO versus the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. You mean SCO versus lunix fanboys.

implicitly denying things

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how not having sufficient information, and admitting that this is the case allows one the ability to deny something. Sounds like SCO is saying 'we can't determine whether or not these allegations are true, so we're therefore denying that they are.' Where's the sense in that?

Re:implicitly denying things

[Xojo]

Whew! I thought I was the only one to notice. SCO: "We categorically deny this on the grounds of our own stupidity and ignorance!" A variation of the Twinkie defense?

What about the FSF?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do the FSF think about this? Since they own the GPL i'm sure they know a lot about the GPL and laws surrounding it than $C0 does.

Re:fark.com down??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they had some OS upgrade that's not going so well for them.

Doesn't matter much, they banned my account the other day for asking why it's not prejudice for them to post headlines constantly stereo-typing germans as dookie-porn-mongers, though it is for people to make fun of certain ethnic and religous groups considered sensitive in the States.

I guess it's selective hate-mongering.

First.. Anonymous.. Post.. Ever!

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[tuffy]

This is the endless debate between Free Software and Open Source advocates. GPL is freer in the sense that it protects the *code* from being captured by proprietary distributors. BSD and PD is freer in that it protects the *redistributor* to do what he likes with the code.

GPLed code is proprietary. The copyright holders own it and distribute it with redistribution conditions (but not usage restrictions). It is less "free" than public domain code because one cannot do whatever they like with it, like distribute binaries without source and so forth.

we're not buying it

[Anonymous Coward]

get back to work George Bush!

I think this one statment says it all.

[LWATCDR]

IBM reacted too, in the same Stephen Shankland article, and you can almost hear them chuckling:

"'IBM strongly believes in its counterclaims and looks forward to trying its case in the court of law,' where IBM will address SCO's specific claims, such as the GPL issue, spokesman Mike Darcy said."

No one looks forward to going to Court unless they are sure they are going to win HUGE. It is odd that IBM has turned into Tux's 10,000 pound pet pit bull.

Makes me wish my company was in Utah. We need a new building.

Re:I think this one statment says it all.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

No one looks forward to going to Court unless they are sure they are going to win HUGE.
But most folks say they look forward to it, need the poker face whether or not you think you'll win.

Going to court is a PITA, no matter how strong you think your case is. Lawyers cost. Getting info together costs. Pulling your developer off a project so he can answer some bullshit about JFS when it wasn't even first developed for AIX or Linux costs.

Oh quit whining

[eericson]

It still funny, and frankly if you're tired of seeing it go somewhere else.

Re:Oh quit whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a threat that you will continue to crapflood unfunny garbage? Perhaps the BSD section is for you.

Be careful what you wish for...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia SCO will, as part of phase 2, charge you $699 for distributing stale South Park quotes.

Doh!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.'

Wouldn't this make the SCO code that they are sueing for in Linux public domain since the Kernel is GPL?

Re:Doh!!!!!!

[fishbowl]

Any judge will reject that motion immediately.
There is no way to make a ruling that revokes copyright, a Constitutional right, against an vague class. There is no way such a ruling could be tailored narrowly enough to affect ONLY GPL code, without the risk of being discriminatory and violating equal protection doctrine and law.

There is no legal entity to represent the class, as a whole, of all people who hold copyrights under the GPL. How can such a class be created? No one will EVER represent me, as I give such authority to no one. The GPL does nothing like that. You cannot revoke my copyrights without some basis in law to do so (which would require a Constitutional amendment!)

Each and every clause in the GPL could be found invalid, but not without specific reasons given. What is the evidence against the GPL, exactly?

It's hard to imagine a legal situation that renders the GPL invalid, that would not also cause wholesale destruction across several industries on the collateral damage. The GPL is as clearly worded as contracts get. There is nothing illegal about it, not one word of it. It's going to be very hard to get a case law past judicial review if there are no specific problems, and it's a big, HUGE stretch from contract limitations to revocation of copyright.

I hate PDFs

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when articles are posted with PDF links. Damnit, I hate it. It takes them 5 minutes to load through the plugin and that friggin sucks. Cut it out people, link to the google cache with 'view as html' please.

A discussion of Copryright Preemption

[criquet]

Copyright Preemption

Hearkening back to OJ

[UrgleHoth]

I thought it was, "If the code don't fit, you must acquit."

But what really happens is

[billstewart]

1. Notice you're doomed and have almost nothing to lose... Decide on risky strategy with small chance of winning big.
   
2. File Lawsuits
   
3. Alienate most current and potential customers
   
4. Get ass kicked in court, or alternatively...
   Partial win but not able to collect much money from anyone, and none from IBM.
   
5. ....
   
6. Lose big! Go Down In Flames! Eat Hot Flaming Death

It seems to be a matter of deciding that if the world's going to end, might as well go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

Whether the GPL applies or not...

[mark-t]

Copyrighted code is STILL copyrighted...

A person publishing source code does not relenquish the author's legal rights over that source code any more than a book author, by having a book published, relenquishes copyright control over the content of *HIS* work.

Without the GPL, no code that is currently GPL'd can ever be legally distributed by anyone (except those expressly permitted by the copyright holder), until such time that the copyright expires (which given the inane extensions given to copyright recently, could be an *AWFULLY* long time).

As for getting permission from the copyright holder... well if a person had wanted to use the GPL in the first place, they'd just come up with their own licensing system which still maintains the copyright holder's ownership and control on the work, and has simple enough requirements for getting permission that absolutely *ZERO* paperwork is necessary (ie... a GPL-ish license).

Re:Whether the GPL applies or not...

[RdsArts]

Or, to put it another way, as long as there is a Disney, no GPL code will ever fall out of copyright protection.

Re:Whether the GPL applies or not...

[drudd]

... and as long as they have copyright protection, there will be a Disney... wonderfully circular, don't you think?

Doug

Re:Whether the GPL applies or not...

[marnanel]

Exactly. People often get confused about what the GPL actually says, and assume it's about ownership of the code, but if you actually read the text, it's about distribution. Here's the text of Section 7 of v2 of the licence:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. (My emphasis added.)

If the GPL is invalid, then GPLd programs can't be distributed at all without relicensing them somehow.

SCO feedback form

[bleakcabal]

It seems that SCO is asking for feedback on SCO. I have sent them a short polite and respectful message which none the less express my views on the SCO. http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

SCOpollo 13, The Movie

[frkiii]

"Redmond, we have a problem." reported Darl McBride.

Regards,

Fredrick

Re:SCOpollo 13, The Movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ you're unfunny.

Isn't it ironic...

[argent]

Ironic, isn't it, that it's Windows that's doing more to remove OS software from the realm of competition than the GPL... by making it unprofitable to create a new OS from scratch because of the cost of reverse-engineering deliberately buggy APIs.

Ironic, isn't it, that it's GCC that's being used by all these operating systems, proprietary or otherwise.

Ironic, isn't it, that embedded system makers are picking BSD over Linux (or wishing they had in the case of Linksys) because they don't want to be in the business of developing operating systems... but the GPL is too onerous?

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[larkost]

I would be careful about making the assumption that many commercial OS's are compiled with GCC. MacOS X includes CGG as their developer complier, but much of the OS is still compiled on Metroworks compilers (they are faster... and much of the Finder was built with PowerPlant... this is what I have been hearing all along). And there is IBM's compilers that are significantly faster, but cost a few thousand dollars. Since they are mostly swappable with GCC I expect to see them as a second compiler for Apples XCode, with bigger houses choosing between Metroworks and the XCode/IBM combinations, and the small fries like me going with GCC.

GCC is a wonderful project, but don't mistake it for a performance competitor to the commercial compilers like IBM's, Intel's, or Metrowork's.

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[placeclicker]

It's ironic that its supposed to create extremly good code, while removing all competiton. It's like socialism that works..

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[jbolden]

I'm in the business of making an embedded system and we picked Linux over BSD.

1 - Greater availability of software
2 - Greater availability of documentation
3 - Much broader knowledge
4 - Must stronger commercial support
5 - Better hardware support -- choice

We've had to GPL one major improvement so far. Not bad.

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[argent]

I would be careful about making the assumption that I was claiming that many commercial OSes were "compiled with GCC". Just that they used it, without at the same time diving into bed with the FSF, that is they benefitted in whatever small way from the tool that was supposed to destroy them.

I mean, even FSF's Public Enemy #1... Microsoft... ships GCC now, with Windows Services for UNIX in the Interix package.

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[argent]

Cool, what's the system and where do I download the code?

Re:Isn't it ironic...

[mpe]

It's ironic that its supposed to create extremly good code, while removing all competiton. It's like socialism that works..

Actually the GPL allows plenty of copetition. In terms of packaging software to meet a specific need, modifying existing software, etc.

I Had a Feeling That it Would Lead to This

[ThisIsFred]

A simple "pump and dump" scheme didn't seem likely to me, although it would probably be a perk for the officers of SCO. This is about destroying a potential competitor by shaking loose it's foundation, the foundation being the GPL. The end result, to cripple a whole gaggle of competitors at once.

Unix will be damaged for years ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if SCO is full of it, this will be in court for years and damage Linux & Unix greatly... which I hope. I still want revenge for Unix forcing VM/SP (best OS ever) out of where I worked.

Punk'd?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just waiting for Ashton Kutcher to send out the next SCO press release, informing us that we have all been punk'd.

Why reinvent the GPL?

[argent]

"well if a person had wanted to use the GPL in the first place, they'd just come up with their own licensing system..."

Like BSD, or the LGPL, or the Artistic License, or...

If there were no GPL, SCO's position would be no better. In fact it was a contract with the CSRG containing terms similar to the BSD license that tripped AT&T up the first time this played out... not the GPL.

The *REALLY AMAZING* thing is...

[DaveAtFraud]

The article in the Salt Lake Tribune was actually ballanced and, if anything, a little anti-SCO. Darl must not have renewed his subscription.

Re:The *REALLY AMAZING* thing is...

[An Onerous Coward]

I've been watching local coverage for quite a while. The Trib is usually the more anti-establishment of our two major newspapers. The Deseret News has generally covered SCO's claims in a very positive way.

metaphor time

[pyrrho]

I think this is like saying that if I live in the woods I'm freer then if I live in a house with a fenced yard. I can go in any direction I want... I am not 'forced' to go to the door or unlock my gate. I'm free!!!

But then, life is complicated, and the result of having no house and no fence is that, for example, I have no place to put my stuff. I'm not really very free to have stuff, and if I do have a VCR in the woods it's easily stolen. You can think that you are more free. There is a semantic argument and a definition of free where you will be "correct", but in the real world, safety measure do INCREASE freedom if they are the right measure (like have a lockable shelter).

The GPL is a lockable shelter. And yet unlockable. Beautiful.

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[HTH NE1]

It is less "free" than public domain code because one cannot do whatever they like with it, like distribute binaries without source and so forth.

I think you meant "cannot not do", as not distributing source is an inactivity.

GPL is more free because you cannot not distribute source. You can't keep your modifications proprietary. If you distribute, you must make your code equally as free as what you took. It expands the base of free code. It self-perpetuates, enriching that which is free. Public domain code doesn't do that.

Interesting side benefit..

[Maltese Falcon]

If the GPL code is made Public Domain, then SCO has no lawsuits to have to defend if it's found that a considerable amount of GPL code is used in various SCO source without the required of due credit to the original developers and modified source distribution.

Re:Interesting side benefit..

[cybergrue]

SCO believes their 'licence' to the 'technology' in Unix will override this. This argument is even more bizzare then the GPL is invalid one, but I will try to spell it out. SCO believes the clause in the contract that SCO has with IBM et all about not distributing dervived works gives them the right to control the distribution of anything added to Unix (Technology) in any way or form. SCO believes that this obligation passes beyond the signitaries of the original contract in a viral manner. Now IINAL but I don't think contract law works this way, and I doubt it overrides copyright law. Also, SCO appears to be trying to use a statue of limitations to prevent people from suing them.
Now, I find this all very strange, and I cannot see SCO winning this case, which makes me think that the whole thing is a pump and dump scheme, so watch out for the next stage, which will result in some fancy footwork by even more lawers in keeping SCO execs out of jail.

Why is IBM so quiet?

[WhiteWolf666]

I know it is probably because they are so certain of their case, and because they don't really want to join the current shit slinging freak-show that is SCO, but. . .

I almost get the impression that IBM is not making a sound for fear that too much pressure on SCO will simply cause them to fold.

When you have a million to one advantage against your enemies, there really isn't any reason to jockey for position.

It is hard enough to keep them in the game, and IBM legal knows as well as anyone else that splattering Boise & Co. in the court room will be some seriously positive publicity.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[Rimbo]

Have you ever heard a representative of one company or another say, "I'm sorry, but we cannot comment on legal matters?"

There is a very good reason why you should keep your trap shut when you're involved in a lawsuit: "Everything you say can and will be used against you in court." Now I KNOW you've heard that one.

You do not discuss legal action until the case is over with. Time and time again, SCO's refusal to keep their lips zipped has fed IBM more fuel for their own counter-suits and defense. Everything they have said can and will be used against them by IBM.

IBM is not making the same mistake.

I also feel that their brevity and silence makes the cloud forming over SCO only seem darker, but that's just my own bias talking there. The reality is that what you don't say won't come back to haunt you later.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[Unfallen]

Or MAYBE it's because they're BEHIND all of this. Yeahhh, think about it - Unix sales falling, investment in a free OS.. If I were IBM, I'd be wanting to back a winner that I could make MORE money from, not some COMMIE SOFTWARE FREE LOVE MUSH. So maybe a quiet little word with Darl, a sly nod, the rest is about to become history - viva l'IBM!

[this post is purely conjecture and should not be taken as any kind of legal aggression or rumour spreading oh please don't kill me ibm please don't send the lawyers round.]

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[Black Hitler]

You left out the bit about the Bilderberg Group and the Knights Templar.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[Corgha]

SCO's refusal to keep their lips zipped has fed IBM more fuel for their own counter-suits and defense. [...] IBM is not making the same mistake.

It's only a "mistake" if the goal of the people whose lips are in question is for SCO to win the lawsuit.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to pump up stock prices to make some personal profit before the company's demise, it would make sense both to make all sorts of wild claims to boost investor confidence, and to put off the day of reckoning in court as long as possible. So far, with that in mind, their statements and actions seem to have been pretty sensible and successful.

Why should the SCO executives care about the success of the lawsuit or their company when there's money to be made on the stock market?

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[WhiteWolf666]

I know about that---

But it seems to me that they are much quieter than most companies would be about such a lawsuit.

The only thing they have said, over and over again, is "we have a strong case, we are looking forward to court".

Not "we tried to work out some sort of deal and failed", not "we were open to negotiation but they shot us down", not "legal action is occuring as a last resort.

They keep saying, "lets see them in court".

Sound very, very confident to me. Remember--->IBM has the SCO System V source code----They probably have a better archive of it than SCO. They have a better, and better funded legal team. A much more extensive management staff with a great deal more experience.

Copious records with oversight beyond belief.

IBM doesn't just do bigger/more business than SCO.

They run a 'tighter' ship.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[WWWWolf]

IBM sits quietly for quite a while.

Then, they'll finally speak.

BEWARE, I LIVE.

And then, there will be quite a few comments SCO needs to respond to, such as:

I AM I-B-M.

RUN, COWARD!

At this point, SCO will probably realize challenging IBM was a mistake.

I HUNGER.

RUN, RUN, RUN!

For once upon time there was a time when horror had a face, and that face was - paradoxically enough - the facelessness of IBM's legal department.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[Oloryn]

I almost get the impression that IBM is not making a sound for fear that too much pressure on SCO will simply cause them to fold.

Exactly. IBM's sitting there with a royal flush. SCO's holding a 2, a 4, a yellow 14, a Rook card, and a Green Dragon, and is blabbering to all and sundry about how good his hand is. Let him blabber on and he'll just keep adding to the pot.

Re:Why is IBM so quiet?

[WhiteWolf666]

Actually, I think SCO's got 2 2s, and a big silly grin.

SCO wants to be a big threat

[Anonymous Coward]

They still want to be bought by someone. If they are a threat to the GPL itself, there may be more buyers.

On the other hand, a threat to the GPL is a threat to all GPL users. Couldn't this be the final blow that gives us Linux users enough of a motive to open a class-action lawsuit against SCO?

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[Anonymous Coward]

public domain software is freer

Quite true.

Note also that you can't "take public domain back proprietary" any more than you can GPL. A company could create a proprietary derivative work, but that doesn't make the original public domain source disappear.

The intent of the GPL here is to thumb the nose at for-profit development, saying "I didn't make any money from this code, therefore you can't either". The GPL restricts the sorts of benefits the author is willing to allow those that use his work, granting only limited exception to the general prohibition against creating derivative works.

Otherwise, the source would just be public domain.

The sound and the fury

[ajs]

Something to understand here is that SCO's lawyers are not behaving eratically or in an unusual way, given their position.

That is, wen you enter a legal dispute, your first tactic is usually going to be to attack the very foundation of your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if your claims are reasonable (though they should be as reasonable as possible), you just want to take the shot.

Then, idealy, you prepare several fallback positions of increasing weight. There's an emotional trick here and a logical reason for this. The emotional trick is that you set the bar by making the hyperbolic claim. When you claim that the GPL is unconstitutional, you're not attacking the GPL directly so much as you're attempting to start the conversation with a debate over the validity of the GPL so that your next points: the enforcability of the GPL will be recieved better.

The logical reason to do this, however, is obvious to anyone who worries about network security. The first thing you do is always the easiest, no matter how likely it is to stop an attacker, to NOT do the easy things, you would be remiss. After you block all incoming IPX traffic, you still have to deal with the TCP threats, and while it's unlikely that you'll be getting IPX-based attacks from your T1 provider, you should still block it.

That's what SCO has done here. They're not really taking the position that the GPL is obviously unconstitutional, so much as they are making that claim because it's where you start... then you can move on to the arguments that are more likely to work for you.

Whenever I hear someone talk about how "insane" SCO is acting, I have to shake my head. It's not insane for a dying company to make grandious copyright claims against the rest of the industry. It is in fact, a very wise, if desperate, tactic. Get used to it, now that Linux is seen as an ecconmic reality, SCO's wild pot-shots will only be the first of many. The open source community's headache here will be the fact that most businesses don't handle all of those pot-shots in the public eye....

Re:The sound and the fury

[ansible]

Get used to it, now that Linux is seen as an ecconmic reality, SCO's wild pot-shots will only be the first of many.

The hope here is that if SCO gets slapped down hard enough, that will cause anyone else to think twice about trying such a stunt again.

The open source community's headache here will be the fact that most businesses don't handle all of those pot-shots in the public eye....

Well, the most dangerous avenue of attack is patents. We as a community need to think more about forming groups who can help anyone faced with patent infringement claims find prior art. Fighting patents is so expensive, even if you've already got all the evidence you need to overturn a one.

That's what worries me more than the next fiaSCO.

I see a pattern emerging here...

[Java Pimp]

1. IBM, we sue you for leaking a few lines of our code into Linux.
2. IBM, we sue you because you leaked thousands of lines of our code into Linux.
3. IBM, we sue you because we own Unix and you developed software for Linux.
4. Linux was based on Unix and Unix has 2,000,000+ lines of code. Linux contains all our code!
4. IBM, we sue you... not quite sure why now... We own Linux. Everyone give use $699 or else.
5. All software written under the GPL in the last 3 years is free because the GPL is stupid and it just should be ours anyway.
6. All software ever written is ours.
7. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

Re:I see a pattern emerging here...

[jpatters]

You forgot:

8. This is Chewbacca....

Re:I see a pattern emerging here...

[mikewolf]

you forgot #8.
8. Profit!

Re:I see a pattern emerging here...

[VirtualWolf]

You forgot:

8. ??
9. PROFIT! ;)

Re:I see a pattern emerging here...

[sharkey]

You left out:

"IBM, we sue you for reporting our resume as spam."

Or am I getting mixed up here?

Re:I see a pattern emerging here...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot 8. Unfunny running joke that only a total fucking retard would still consider amusing.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it

[LostCluster]

In the unlikely event that all GPL released works become public domain per SCO's request... wouldn't that include SCO's own Linux release, therefore killing whatever ownership of any fragement code they might have had?

Enough already

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in the hell modded this a 5? What, you haven't heard this lame joke repeated 1000x already?

Give it a fucking rest.

Re:Enough already

[Anonymous Coward]

A-fucking-men

I second your hypothesis....

[lysium]

....due to the simple fact of human nature. Whenever someone claims the rest of the world is doing something ("Everyone steals from their employer" "All guys treat women like trash" "Everyone is lazy and incompetent" "Money money money, that's all anybody cares about these days") it is because they themselves do it. Or at least think about it compulsively.

So since this handy piece of pop psychology validates your claim, you are probably dead on.

==========

Re:I second your hypothesis....

[ergo98]

Whenever someone claims the rest of the world is...it is because they themselves do it.

Interesting, and amazingly common (among armchair psychologists), hypothesis, though I would say it best falls under the "head in the sand" category.

Dual Licensing

[whig]

Dual Licensing is *always* an option for the original software author.

There is no reason you cannot say, "this software is offered under the GPL, and also under our firm's proprietary license." You may then accept any contributions or enhancements from others you want, as long as *those* submissions are made subject to both licenses.

This might result in a code fork, if someone takes your code and makes improvements *exclusively* under GPL. But so what? You always have the right to accept or reject changes to your version of the code.

Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

Seriously where is the hairy dirty bastard?

He tried to convince the world that his precious invention, the General Public License could stand up to crap like this. Well looky here, it isn't standing up too well!

So I ask you, all of you, where is RMS!? Why is he so silent on the SCO issue? Why can he rant and rave for endless hours about most subjects but on this most precious subject of them all is he silent?

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[ctid]

So I ask you, all of you, where is RMS!? Why is he so silent on the SCO issue? Why can he rant and rave for endless hours about most subjects but on this most precious subject of them all is he silent?

I think Stallman is being quiet because this offers the best possible contrast with SCO's approach to this farrago. Eben Moglen makes regular, measured, authoritative statements concerning SCO's claims. He is the appropriate conduit for the FSF's position in this case, IMHO.

You know, maybe there's a lesson for us all here. On second thoughts, maybe it's just a lesson for you.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[Edmund Blackadder]

What do you mean "it isnt standing up too well"? You understand these are mere allegations in a lawsuit, right? Anyone can make any allegations in a lawsuit (as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences of course).

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

Unacceptable. Richard Stallman is the point man for the GPL. I know RMS also founded the FSF and therefore Eben Moglen could be thought of as his spokesman.

However this is RMS we're talking about here. He didn't just market the GPL, he rammed it down our throats. So I think its more than appropriate to expect him to be more forth-coming in his defense of his PRECIOUS! license.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[ctid]

Unacceptable. Richard Stallman is the point man for the GPL. I know RMS also founded the FSF and therefore Eben Moglen could be thought of as his spokesman.

More importantly (and more accurately), Eben Moglen "could be thought of" as the FSF's Legal Counsel. Why do you think that anyone cares whether you think RMS's actions are acceptable?

However this is RMS we're talking about here. He didn't just market the GPL, he rammed it down our throats.

Nobody rammed the GPL down my throat. Some people offered some software under a licence they selected. I chose to use the software. Occasionally I have redistributed this software, under the rights and conditions granted to me by the GPL.

There is a certain art in trolling. You have to stay just the right side of acting like an obnoxious idiot, otherwise you'll just get patronised by people who are cleverer than you are.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[DeadTOm]

Cripes. Did the GPL steal your happy meal or something? Ya, the guy is pretty outspoken but I wouldn't say that he rammed the GPL down my throat. I've been using Linux for a while and until recently, was only vaguely aware of who Stallman was. You act as though your family and friends were herded into an arena by armed soldiers and forced to listen to him scream at you via a massive five story view screen and loud speakers. Really, what do expect him to say? Everything that needs to be said is being said by lots of other people. Evetually it gets to the point where saying more just makes you look scared and defensive. The only thing left to do now is wait for the GPL's day in court.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

No one should give a crap about what I think about RMS. But this website, Slashdot is full of people who are affected by Stallman's opinions either negatively or positively. His silence on this matter is disturbing. The free software community could use RMS's moral support right about now and it is not getting it.

Whether you wish to concede it or not the GPL was rammed down your throat if you use GPL software. Were it not for RMS's inhuman persistence in defending his license and the software that covers it the software you use would be issued under another license. Furthermore we would all have been spared such rambling literature such as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar".

Basically what I am saying is that folks like Eben Moglen represent the cold analytical side of Free Software while RMS represents the Lion Heart. This battle so far has no heart. Not a good thing in my personal opinion.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically what I am saying is that folks like Eben Moglen represent the cold analytical side of Free Software while RMS represents the Lion Heart. This battle so far has no heart. Not a good thing in my personal opinion.

Dude, this is law, not the fucking NFL, everyone knows lawers are heartless.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[dbIII]

Simple, any technology writers that have actually heard of him have already heard what he has to say, and that he is very difficult to interview. Mention free, open or linux (without a gnu prefix) and you'll just get the same long lecture. Ask any question on any topic and you get the same answer.

Re:Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

Thats actually the best answer I've gotten so far to my query.

Thanks.

"The World" is my ISP!

[xtermin8]

Be careful how you word this stuff! "The World" was the first public internet service provider, located in Brookline MA. They're a good company- but after following the SCO craziness, such harmless mispeak gives me some pause.

Why was this rubbish modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this childish rant get modded up to 5??
a madman. Which, undoubtedly, Darl McBride is.

He's made many times more money than 99.9% of /.'ers, in a society which values wealth above everything else. Clue: You don't achieve that by being irrational.

Another clue: A clever person can choose to say stupid things, and will often do so if it brings him advantage.

Re:Why was this rubbish modded up?

[mormop]

Clue: You don't achieve that by being irrational.

Joseph Stalin controlled more land mass than the US and possessed wealth that outstrips McBride's and napolean controlled much of Europe. Both recieved the adulation of millions.

Does your point deny any madness in the Stalins, Hitlers and napoleons of this world or do you consider the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and militaristic expansionist empires to be demonstrations of "rational" thought and behaviour. Just because he's a CEO and has lot's of money doesn't prove sanity in the same way that the above mentioned leader's success as presidents/emporors doesn't. On the contrary, it's a known fact that poor people are more likely to repay debts than the rich. A gratuitous excess of wealth has the power to turn the bearer into an arrogant, greedy, amoral shitwit and there's more than enough evidence in the world to prove that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[justsomebody]

I wonder how GPL licensed products could even be possible for SCO to use.

Section 5 and 7 clearly prohibit use of GPL-licensed products if somebody does not agree with it. And SCO proclaiming "GPL is invalid" is doing just that thing, they don't agree with the license provided with the products.
And even if SCO would get something from this stupidity, US couldn't proclaim GPL invalid worldwide, what would probably lead to GPL 3 which would restrict usage of GPL-ed products in US, just as security problems is now.

Second thing I wonder is when Samba in open spirit did nothing to prevent SCO from use. Why is there a need for free spirit in GPL when SCO clearly breaches two sections of GPL license, as in "You can use it if you agree".
I think that it will be better if Samba and other GPL teams act and prohibit use of their products otherwise they are clear example how GPL license is something for the taste but not to eat as in "You can read it, but we don't care if you agree or not".

To conclude, sections 5 and 7 prohibit use of anybody who disagree with license, and as license would be invalid (and that's a big IF:) authors restrictions wouldn't be.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[fishbowl]

>Section 5 and 7 clearly prohibit use of GPL-
>licensed products

I thought so too, but as someone recently pointed out, section 0 makes it clear that the GPL is silent regarding restrictions on use, only on distribution.

And sections 5 and 7 are quite explicitly about distribution. You already have the right to use the software regardless of the GPL, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal or accepted. This is a basic matter of copyright law.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[justsomebody]

I know that

Yeah, but SCO does not use them it redistributes them in their OS. God Damn. SCO is reselling their OS, and if that's not a distribution problem I don't know what it is

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[fishbowl]

"So once all GPL software becomes public domain, can't you just have everyone who made that software restrict it under a license with a different name but similar principles? (If nothing else it would waste a bunch of SCO's time.)"

There is NO credible chain of events that takes us from a civil suit involving SCO and IBM, all the way to arbitrary copyrights being forcibly surrendered. NONE.

And until someone gives REASONS why the GPL is an invalid agreement, or illegal in any way, there's no reason you couldn't simply relicense your software under the SAME terms WITHOUT changing the name. The only outcome that's even conceivable, is somehow IBM and SCO are unable to use the GPL for some legal reason. In that case, I wonder if IBM would start to enjoy licensing offers that SCO does not? :-)

I know a lot of people would, right now today, offer different terms to SCO than to IBM, if they could.

Many would be as simple as "IBM, you may have this for free. SCO, you may suck my motherfucking cock."

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[spitzak]

Thats "redistribute", not "use". The GPL says NOTHING about usage of the software, anybody can use it.

What the GPL does is grant you some exceptions to normal copyright so that you can redistribute the software without compensating the original authors.

Mach and BSD

[argent]

Mach is not a UNIX kernel, it's a (not very micro) microkernel that needs additional components. OS X is based on NeXTStep, which is a Mach "micro"kernel and a stripped down 4.3 BSD kernel providing UNIX services (the 'single server' design). There are several systems like this, Tru64 is another Mach/4.3 port, Lites is a Mach/4.4 port.

So, you're right, it's a Mach kernel. But it's also a BSD kernel. And it's getting more FreeBSD code in the BSD side with each new release.

Re:Why the #$%# . . .

[mar1boro]

You may be suffering from SCO news overload - I know in the context of Slashdot we get a great deal of it. But the bit about Novell is significant. It may not be a court ruling, but it is a huge legal ( as opposed to philosophical ) point to take note of.

In other words this development really matters.

I did not shoot them...

[sobeks_eye]

...they shot me.

Mr. Jones, tell me about the night on the subway when you shot me...

Unix Becomes Public Domain?

[FrankDrebin]

Now SCO is screwed no matter what:

1. SCO successfully strikes GPL
2. GPL'ed code becomes public domain
3. SCO has released Linux under GPL
4. SCO have themselves released any proprietary Unix code found in Linux to the public domain

All perfectly reasonable - look at stock price.

[walterbyrd]

This is brilliant plan, and it is working like a charm for msft/sunw/scox/canopy.

Obviously this whole scam is just a plan for Canopy to back out of a bad investment. Along the way, msft and sunw get to beat up the competition for a very cheap price.

Scox is not doing anything crazy at all. Scox was a doomed company before any this started: selling under $1 a share, gushing red ink, never a profitable quarter, no competitive products, in eminate danger of being delisted, etc.

Now scox have pumped the share price 1300%. Insiders are bailing at hugely inflated price. Before this started scox didn't have $5 million in assets, now scox just got $50 million in exchange for freshly minted shares of their worthless stock.

Scox insiders are raking in untold millions, and you think these guys are dumb?

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[fatboy]

That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use.

The GPL in no way restricts the USE of the software, it only has restrictions on the distribution of the software. This is why users love the GPL and *SOME* developers hate the GPL, because they don't get a free lunch.

GPL nullified? Go outside the US...

[Maxon]

It seems to me that SCO is arguing that the GPL is invalid because it is unconstitutional and violates copyright law. To be specific, the US consitition and US copyright law. Even if they somehow got the GPL nullified, which I don't see happening, it seems like they would only be nullifying the GPL in the US.

If the GPL got nullified in the US, I could just go to another country, and now my GPL license if valid again. It's just like all the crypto companies (RSA) and OpenBSD being in / having offices in Canada and Australia. They can't export strong crypto code from the US, but they can from other countries. So the FSF and others could just setup foreign offices, people transfer their copyrights to them, and the GPL is back in full effect, from foreign countries. And if the copyright holder is outside the US, then they're already clear.

Seems reasonable... Either I missed something, or SCO hasn't thought about this contingency.

Darl McBride looks like an asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

He really looks like a slimy, smarmy bastard doesn't he? I really wish there was some way to find him and just give him a good hard whack in his smug frat boy face with a claw hammer. Fucking prick.

This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[billstewart]

Look, just because Stupidity is clearly in effect here doesn't mean there isn't also Malice....

SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus. It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software. However, SCO does appear to be the first group that's sufficiently well-funded, aggressive, and boneheaded to attack it with a large crash-and-burn lawsuit.

They do have a partial case - the Unix source license terms were always unclear and dodgy in terms of exactly how closely derived something from Unix source had to be covered, and it's possible that IBM or Sequent or SGI slipped close enough to the edge to sue, but the BSD lawsuits pretty much established that reverse-engineered work-almost-alikes are ok, at least with sufficiently careful clean-room techniques, and IBM has more experienced software-issue lawyers than anybody except possibly Microsoft or remotely possibly the US Government (who also suffer from combinations of malice and incompetence.) However, SCO's distribution of Linux 2.4.x weakens their position substantially.

Me? I've probably still got my Usenix "Mentally Contaminated" pin from a few years ago, though Unix source has evolved a bit from the System V Release 2.0p days when I last looked at licensed kernel source, or from the early 90s when I was using licensed user-space code, and it's amazing how much bit-rot can set in...

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[Monkelectric]

GNU Public Virus. It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work,

You've got a good post here, but Id like to pick at this statement. Nobody is forcing ANYONE to use GPL Software, or GPL code in their projects. If you don't like the license you are free to write the code yourself. End of story. People who whine about the GPL piss me off, they want *free code* and no responsibility. The GPL is Candy and the GPL says "You can have any of our candy, but you have to give our candy and your candy to anyone that asks." If you dont like that, don't take their candy and you are no worse off. none at all.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[WalletBoy]

See that's one of the reasons why companies get confused and fear the GPL. They don't have to give up their candy if they made it themselves without any help from you. Companies have knee-jerk reactions to the GPL and think that just because they use it on one product it means all of the sudden everything they ever produced now falls under the GPL. Another analogy of GPL might be what's mine is yours, what's yours is yours what you do with my stuff is yours and mine and his and hers.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[tuxedo-steve]

Fry: You know how at first you like chocolate, but then you get tired of it 'cause it wants to hang out with you all the time?
Amy: What? You don't like chocolate?
Fry: Look, could chocolate just let me finish?

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[Bartmoss]

The problem of course is that people are starting to buy free software because it's (a) usually cheaper and (b) they do not lock themselves in with any single vendor.

This, of course, is hell come to earth for companies that thrived on their locked-in customers for 10-20 years.

I seriously doubt, though, that SCO is about this idealogical battle. They just wanted to be bought out by IBM. Didn't work out, so now they are stuck with a lawsuit they know they have very little chance of winning, but which works, kind of, in boosting stock prices. They can't really get out of it, because admitting they never had a case is suicide.

And so the idiocy continues.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[God! Awful 2]

You've got a good post here, but Id like to pick at this statement. Nobody is forcing ANYONE to use GPL Software, or GPL code in their projects. If you don't like the license you are free to write the code yourself. End of story.

Oh come on... you know exactly why many people dislike the GPL. BTW, I sense that you are the type of person who likes to see everything in black and white. *End of story*

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the GPL. But if you don't use the GPL, your competitors will, and you will be nickeled and dimed out of business. Of course if you do use the GPL, you will have sacrificed all your leverage and you will still be nickeled and dimed out of business. It's a Hobson's choice.

BTW, I have my own silly analogy: In a way, DRM is like candy and DRM says "You can eat our candy, but you can only eat it out of approved bowls." If you don't like that, don't take our candy and you are no worse off. none at all.

Now who wants some candy? (didn't think so.)

-a

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

ofcourse the recording/film industries candy is protected under copyright and youre not allowed to make your own candy that tastes anything like theirs otherwise youre liable for copyright violation. Meanwhile a reimplementation of opensource software is highly unlikely to come under such an attack as long as the code is clearly from a different candy factory...

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[God! Awful 2]

ofcourse the recording/film industries candy is protected under copyright and youre not allowed to make your own candy that tastes anything like theirs otherwise youre liable for copyright violation. Meanwhile a reimplementation of opensource software is highly unlikely to come under such an attack as long as the code is clearly from a different candy factory...

See that's exactly why I think analogies are dumb. Because people fixate on them and post relies that try to extend them in ridiculous ways. My analogy was only a parody of his analogy and yet your analogy actually tries to take it seriously.

-a

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[WNight]

Are you trolling, or honestly mistaken?

If you use GPLed code, you only have to GPL the code it's linked with. The rest of your products are not involved. (And, of course, if you don't distribute the modified GPLed work, you don't have to distribute your code, so if you're only using it internally, you don't have any obligiation to share.)

P.S. The 2-minute delay sucks, who can't type a reasonable comment in two minutes?

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[mpe]

SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus.

The GPL is not "viral". The way SCO is trying to claim ownership of IBM's software is an attempt at viral licencing. The way in which Microsoft claims ownership of any emails passing through it's "Hotmail" service is viral.

It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software.

The point of the GPL is to allow code to be distributed widely whilst retaining copyright. Proprietary software companies do not like the GPL because they cannot pirate the software and unless their proprietary software is substantially more functional than free software no-one in their right mind would buy their offerings.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[mpe]

The problem of course is that people are starting to buy free software because it's (a) usually cheaper and (b) they do not lock themselves in with any single vendor.

There is also (c) they are more likely to end up with something which suits them.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[ACPosterChild]

Yes, the GPL *is* a virus. The thing is, it's a virus that gives you super-human powers, and you get to choose whether to inject yourself or not. Ok, so after that, the analogy breaks down pretty quickly :) -Tim

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

In a way, DRM is like candy and DRM says "You can eat our candy, but you can only eat it out of approved bowls."

Not quite.

It's more like "you can BUY our candy, but once you've bought it, you really don't own it, and we can do anything we like - like saying 'you must eat it from our approved bowls'."

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[MrResistor]

This, of course, is hell come to earth for companies that thrived on their locked-in customers for 10-20 years.

Go tell it on the mountain, brother!

I discovered just the other day that I have a bunch of Visio documents which were created in 1999, and which I think would help me accomplish my job more efficiently, but which are not supported by the current version of Visio Viewer. IT's solution? "Try and talk your department into buying you the full version of Visio, it will support those files." Chances of that happening? Zilch, and I would agree with the beancounters on that one. After all, it's only about 30 files, which I would likely just print out and stick in a binder and never open again.

Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity

[Bartmoss]

No. Judging from my experience with large organizations, that is rarely - if ever - a serious consideration.

Re:In terms a 4th grader could understand...

[fatboy]

Can some kind person please do me (and others like me) a favor and explain this whole thing in a way that a 4th grader can understand? Ok, you asked for it.

The SEC needs some help from *you*

[anomaly]

I contacted the SEC about SCO, and they called me back!

I posted a comment with more information about this yesterday....

Re:The SEC needs some help from *you*

[infolib]

Have you considered contacting the Groklaw guys about this? They could probably do a pretty good presentation to the SEC. Your experience just might give them the motivation.

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plz die, thx.

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[Zimm]

GPL is more free because you cannot not distribute source.

Right, by restricting freedom you can create more. You should work for SCO they need a minster of information. The GPL restricts freedom, whether that is good or bad can be argued, but at least call a spade a spade.

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[harlows_monkeys]

GPL is freer in the sense that it protects the *code* from being captured by proprietary distributors

You can't protect against something that cannot happen. BSD code and PD code cannot be "captured", because making a proprietary product using BSD or PD code doesn't remove the rights everyone else has to the BSD or PD code.

You are free to go to the same place the proprietaty product got the BSD or PD code from and get it yourself.

Re:In terms a 4th grader could understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, SCO has claimed copyright over parts of the linux kernel. They say that someone else put it in (I think they claimed SGI put it in, but its been a while). And, last I checked, they wouldn't reveal exactly what parts are under their copyright (aside from a multiprocessing part, which had already been removed from the kernel, and many disputed whether it is actually owned by SCO). I don't remember exactly what the claim was against IBM (or hwo thing whole thing got started), but it had something to do with a UNIX license IBM acquired from a company (Novell?) (which became another company, which became SCO). Since the kernel supposedly contains code that SCO owns, SCO tries to charge for it. That's all relatively old news.

Now, SCO claims that the GPL (the license under which the linux kernel and a large amount of software is released) is unenforceable, and/or void. If so, then there are two possible outcomes: GPL'd software reverts back to unlicensed, but copywritten software (meaning no one except the author is allowed to use it, and it would have to be redistributed under a new license), or that GPL'd software is pushed into the public domain (where everyone is free to use it). Some law experts ("lawyers") have reviewed SCO's most recent claim, and don't see why the GPL is unenforceable. Others find it hard to believe that even if it is, that GPL'd software would be released into the public domain.

All outcomes seem bad for SCO. If the GPL is enforceable, then charging for linux-licenses breaks that contract, thereby forfeiting SCO's right to modify and redistribute linux. If its not enforceable, and reverts to copyright, then SCO, and much of the world, owe a lot of money to Linus Torvalds and the many linux contributors (also the many other GPL'd software writers). If its not enforceable, and goes under public domain, then everyone is allowed use of the code, and SCO can't charge for it. Of course, IANAL so my legal opinion is based mostly on crap.

Might as well just do it:

[Anonymous Coward]

"...declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain".

Might as well do it.
And throw in all proprietary software too.
Then your religion of "IP thievery is OK" will be total and complete.

Workers of the world, unite!

No, this is probably their strategy (seriously)

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Sue IBM to get a court to rule SCO's IP is in the kernel and can't be removed.

2. Get the GPL voided and all material in the kernel put into the public domain. This gets the other kernel developers off SCO's back for step three.

3. Release a new version of the kernel and make it completely closed source.

4. Announce that anyone wishing to use the non-SCO version of the kernel must pay SCO an outrageous amount to do it, making the SCO kernel the only viable choice.

At that point, SCO will have successfully hijacked Linux and set itself up as the only company that can distribute it.

Re:No, this is probably their strategy (seriously)

[Trejkaz]

I don't see how SCO locking down their own branch of the kernel would prevent anyone running a separate branch of the kernel. They certainly won't have a hold on any of the code over there.

And worst comes to worst, everyone switches to HURD. ;-)

Re:No, this is probably their strategy (seriously)

[Anonymous Coward]

The way they'll kill off other branches is by asserting that their "stolen" code, whatever they claim it is, can't be effectively cleansed from the kernel. Look, they're basically saying that right now. So that means that they'll assert that 2.4 and later is hopelessly tainted with their IP. They'll assert that if you want to use 2.4 or later, you'll have to pay their licensing fee...unless you buy their commercial kernel.

Up to now, this seemed absurd. After all, if they tried this, every kernel developer on the planet would sue them for stealing their work. And that would be a real possibility as long as the GPL is in effect. So SCO has to devise a way to get around this rather nasty problem. Enter the argument that the GPL is invalid. If that holds up, the kernel would, in SCO's view, contain two types of code:

1. GPL code, which SCO wants in the public domain, so they can use it.
2. Their code, which no one but SCO can use.

And since SCO claims that their code in now permanently entwined with the rest of the kernel code, they would interpret this to mean that only they would have rights to distribute the kernel.

Yeah, I know this is twisted, but would you expect something less devious from SCO?

Re:SCO is the chemical symbol

[public_class_name_ex]

For an agent known to cause massive headaches.

it's only madness if you believe it...

[rtv]

You're assuming that McBride and Co actually believe what they're saying. If they can see a strategy that leads through the courts to a pile of cash, even if it leaves SCO in a smoking ruin, it's fair game in the current corporate climate. The SCO board can decide whether to act ethically, i.e. stick to legal, decent, honest and truthful behavior, or just stick with the legal part. Do you really think that those tobacco company reps on the TV really believe that cigarettes aren't all that bad? No, they choose to lie because they can just about get away with it, and it lines their pockets.

Makes sense

[PenguinX]

Madmen always take the most simple and logical path to reason their madness. SCO wants money at the expense of everyone else, so naturally they must assert themselves as superior to everyone else.

It seems to me that they will build an ingeniously incorrect case, bring it in front of a court of law, play the justice system like a card table in Vegas, and if they win ... well that would be bad.

Misconception about GPL versus Copyright

[fishbowl]

>If the GPL code is made Public Domain

The same rules will Free The Mouse.

It would remove the keystone that's propping up the entertainment industry.

It just won't happen. You can't simply make a court order that removes the legal copyrights from this group of people, simply because you cannot group these people into a nondiscriminatory class.

You might be able to invalidate the GPL clause by clause, but the bottom line is copyright, and if you want to mess with that you need an act of Congress, literally.

There is simply no way a single action can both invalidate the GPL *AND* revoke all the individual copyrights. And any action that you can conceive of that would do this, would not pass the test of being nondiscriminatory. I wonder how many big players would come out of the woodwork claiming damages if they even try this?

Finding that the GPL is invalid, would not be the same thing as the Constitutional amendment that would be required to revoke my and your copyrights to works that were licensed under it. And anything that DOES do that, could certainly be used against Microsoft in the event that their EULA was found to be invalid. Each and every person with a copyright interest in a GPL product would be entitled to a hearing on the question.

Your copyrights do not enter the public domain without a court order, or without your express consent, or without the required time passing after your death, which might turn out to be perpetual anyway. It doesn't make a whit of difference who you licensed your work to, under what terms, or whether those terms were valid or invalid.

Flame takes the bait

[mar1boro]

Why is it that when people in "someplace far away" are involved in a bad situation, people like you come out and expose yourselves as the small-minded smug peices of shit that you are?

You may not like the US but what the fuck, pal? Have you not noticed the _world-wide_ attempts ( mostly successful ) to stifle the freedom of information, lately? Maybe you think you are safe from this kind of insanity where you live. If you do, you are wrong.

The governing power where you live, is just like the one here in the USA. The US just happens to have the biggest ugliest one at this moment in history. So how about a little less smug trash-talk from you? How about a little sympathy? How about a little moral support?

Otherwise you can take your "dual liscence" and shove it a foot up your ass - saving your legal system the trouble of doing it for you in a few years. Because, if you think the fall of the GPL in the US would be the end of it you deserve no better.

Re:Flame takes the bait

[Anonymous Coward]

mar1boro ,Whats the matter with you dammit ? A valid point was made an' you start swearing people , an you want moral support /sympathy ? nah , not gonna happen, burn ! I live in the European Union and Linux enjoys a large ammount of support in most of the EU countries by various governments, and According to the laws we have here , the GPL would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to annull. From your reply , you have no idea of how things are done in the EU. If the GPL ever is banned / annulled in the USA , it will be the to loss of your country. The ruling made in the US would not have any impact internationally. Infact the laws in the US are very differnt to the laws in the EU .When SCO posted the Allegations on their German and Polish Websites without proof , they got sued by various companies for damaging their business.That the companies won the court cases and more continue to do so was a no brainer . You see , Making allegations without evidence to back them up , just happens to be illegal here.Infact Sco did'nt even bother to send Lawyers.I think they'll be bankrupt soon at this rate....
Things are obviously very different in the USA. It's sad the SCO is trying declare the GPL invalid in the USA and I'm pretty sure justice will prevail , but there is no point in getting angry and swearing people when a valid point was made, the ruling will only affect the US and not the rest of the world. Definitly not the European Union.

Re:Flame takes the bait

[adrianbaugh]

Things might just be looking up in the EU anyway - hopefully the law will clarify the software patent situation soon, with all the limitations agreed a while back.
As it happens (mar1boro) I'm not particularly anti-USA (and I definitely have sympathy for all the normal folk who live there, as I said in my previous post), I just think it's funny the way your legislators and business interest groups often behave as if they are in a position to create laws that directly apply to the whole world. Of course, often the USA's laws do affect the whole world in trade terms but it isn't necessarily so and it's quite easy to foresee a situation where the USA misjudges things and completely hamstrings themselves in some area of international trade.

Re:Flame takes the bait

[mar1boro]

Calm, reasoned responses rarely precipitate an actual duscussion on Slashdot.
With that in mind, I'll give it a shot.

"As it happens (mar1boro) I'm not particularly anti-USA (and I definitely have sympathy for all the normal folk who live there, as I said in my previous post)" - quote from parent of this reply

"The USA, meanwhile, carries on smoking its crack pipe." - quote from parent of this thread

I note a certain disparity (adrianbaugh). Possibly an outright self-contradiction.
Could you please clarify. I am interested in ,what I perceive to be, your
feeling that while these developments may be bad
they aren't happening in your neighborhood - so oh, well.
I am wondering why you don't seem to see this as worthy of concern.
Would you want all the people of your country ( wherever that is ) stereotyped
as all being uncaring of people in other countries?

Why not? You are certainly implying that the "sane"
citizens of the USA are a minority.

Now, moving on from the part that made me angry, let us discuss that paradise
of intellectual freedom and haven from corporate abuse of power - The EU.
Now, I realize that a _huge_ victory against software patents has been won.
Maybe I am jaded, but how can you possibly believe the money interests
will give up? They won't. They never will. And when the EU Parliment has been
around long enough to be bought and corrupted completely by those interests
everything will change. Then, you and the rest of the people of the EU will have
my sympathy. I promise, even, to not say "I told you so."

P.S.
A quick google search for "DMCA" and "EU" might provide several hours of
fascinating insights about the future of the EU.

Re:Flame takes the bait

[adrianbaugh]

Let me clarify. I'm not anti- the USA [as a country]. By which I meant that by and large I think its citizens are decent people. I even think that in many cases[0] it has been a stabilising force in the world, which is probably a lot further than many /.ers would go. The foundation on which its laws are based is a good one. However I am anti- the [often bizarre behaviour of the legislature of the] USA. By which I mean, it seems to have some kind of weakness whereby its elected leaders take the solid foundation of the constitution and pile crap on it in the form of very silly laws. This is the fault of a very small fraction of the population[1], not the USA at large. You are being confused by my use of "the USA" to refer, on one hand, to the country at large, and on the other, to its government. I think I can be in favour of one but not the other without contradiction.
I'm not at all complacent about the situation in the EU (yes, I have written to my MP to make my views known), however there is a reasonable amount of precedent for the EU making sensible decisions that don't necessarily agree with the interests of big businesses (see the differences between the USA and EU Microsoft anti-trust cases and, more pertinently, the recent limitations on software patents which should come into force in November). Most of the governing structure of the EU (under one name or another) has been around since the sixties, which is plenty of time for it to have been bought, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.[2]

[0] Not all.
[1] If there had been a significant difference when the Democrats were in power I might say it was the fault of the populace for having voted them in. But there wasn't.
[2] I'm not saying we (the British) can take the credit here, we adhere pretty slavishly to EU legislation and have altogether too high a regard for it. Fortunately the French have a very healthy skepticism about legislation favouring large companies and have wangled a lot of influence in EU policy decisions.

SCO still shoots themselves in the foot

[Stephen Samuel]

IF everything GPL is declared PD then any SCO-owned software (Including UNIX code) in the Linux software that SCO is still distributing is also PD. This would include their own disputed code.

In other words the Linux licenses that SCO has been making a big thing of for the last 6 months would be entirely unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the GPL proves to be valid, then SCO is liable for statutory damages on the GPL software that they're still distributing. It gets a bit more interesting, though..

Because Linux is a potpourri of various people's programs, EACH copyright owner would be able to sue SCO for EACH copy of their program that SCO distributed. At the lower end of the statutory awards ($750) and presuming (let's be nice) 200 separate programs in each Linux compilation we're looking at statutory damages of $150,000 per download. At the upper end of the scale ($30K/violation) , we're looking at $6Million per ISO.

That'd eat into their $60M war chest like a school of piranha.

inth Amendment?

[jmorris42]

Only one problem, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been effectively removed from the US Constituition. When was the last time a major case turned on one of them? For if the Courts were t rediscover them they would be forced to strike down most of the Federal Government.

Example: I have the babble box on in the background right now, happen to be on CNNFN and was half listening to a discussion about a new proposed EPA rule requiring apartments to install water meters on each unit in the name of water conservation. The discussion covered a lot of issues, whether it would actually save water, how hard it would be to retrofit existing structures, blah blah. At no point was the most important question asked. What section of the US Constituition granted the Federal Government the power to regulate water supply to dwellings? Since there is no such section, the clear language of those same Amendments mean it HAS no such authority. Most of the EPA, FDA, HUD, etc. etc. are illegal according to the Constituition but violate their edicts and you will go directly to jail, not pass go and never find a lawyer willing to take your 200/hr to use the 9th or 10th Amendment in your defense.

The Constituition uses shockingly clear and direct language, but it still gets ignored.

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:inth Amendment?

[falsified]

Commerce clause. Article I, Section 8.

...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

It goes on:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

That's where.
Constitution of the USA

Re:inth Amendment?

[nullard]

As I was reading this I began to wonder ...
Who owns the water system? If it's governement owned, don't they have the right to regulare consumption? I understand complaining if they metered your cistern (sp?) but even a well would fall under government control unless you own the water rights to your land. In the case of a rental unit, the argument is between the owner and the government, the renter can complain to their landlord, but it is not their property that is being modified.

Re:inth Amendment?

[bnenning]

Commerce clause.

Ok, and how does the water supply to an apartment fall under "interstate commerce"? Sure, you can come up with contrived logic like "the pipes may have been manufactured outside the state". Once you do that, there is *nothing* that is off limits to government, because every single activity anybody performs anywhere can have some remote tangential connection to some act of interstate commerce. I have a hard time believing this is what the founding fathers intended.

Re:inth Amendment?

[cculianu]

...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Well, strictly sepeaking, the above sentence proves nothing. They are talking about commerce with foreign nations and among the several states (this means basically, any commerce not inside a state).

Constitutional scholars agree that originally, the United States was to occupy the federal space -- meaning issues between states and with foreign governments. Unfortantely this went the way of the Dodo long ago. Today the federal government is something else entirely. It's sad, but the parent to our posts is right. The 9th and 10th Amendments are ignored completely and there is no clear answer to this. Noone knows what to do about this, and often the argument that is used to justify it is the argument you have presented.

I really wish that the authors of the constitution were much much more explicit in their intentions to limit Federal power, but in the end perhaps incresed Federalism is a good thing for the prosperity of the nation as a whole.. I don't know.

Re:inth Amendment?

[Dirtside]

I hate to say this, but the Supreme Court some time ago interpreted the 10th Amendment to mean exactly what the federal government acts like it means. This link on FindLaw that explains it better (if a bit more verbosely). "Clear language" is not always so clear.

Re:inth Amendment?

[jmorris42]

> the Supreme Court some time ago interpreted the 10th Amendment

If by 'interpreted' you meant to say 'rewrote' I'd agree with you. And since an angry mob didn't hang the sons of bitches way back when they first legislated from the bench some would say it is legitimate now. I disagree.

Re:inth Amendment?

[Dasein]

The interstate commerce clause is how we got the civil rights legislation that we have. Here's some info on findlaw.

Re:inth Amendment?

[jbolden]

You'll probably get about 100 arguments. But one that doesn't get brought up is the binding nature of treaties. The US has signed multiple environmental treaties and these compel the government to take such actions to insure the Earth's water supply.

Re:inth Amendment?

[BridgeGarth]

Admission, I am not sure what particularly defines an "interstate commerce". But in the UK and many parts or Europe, the company or companies that supplies water, electricity, gas, etc. can be located anywhere. The pipes or cables that originally were laid are local, but the billing centre, employess, etc could be in France, Spain, or the US. This then, as far as I can tell, is a business that works across states. On a completely different point, possibly flamebait. Why do the intentions of the founding fathers mean so much to Americans. Those ideals were set down a long time ago and times have changed a lot. Surely what the people want now is more important.

Re:inth Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I have a hard time believing this is what the founding fathers intended.

Who gives a damn what the founding fathers intended? They were humans, not gods. They meant well, I'm sure, but they were not in fact the founts of all wisdom.

Re:inth Amendment?

[MikeTheYak]

For example, because water often comes from rivers, and rivers cross state boundaries. California's water consumption is of significant importance to those of us in Arizona.

Re:inth Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a damn what the founding fathers intended? They were humans, not gods. They meant well, I'm sure, but they were not in fact the founts of all wisdom.

Perhaps, but they're a hell of lot wiser than anyone I can think of today. They created the second oldest constitutional democracy in the world, I can't think of anyone in the last two-hundred odd years with better creds.

Re:inth Amendment?

[falsified]

Well, from the commerce clause alone you'd have a pretty good point, and there are definitely a lot of people on your side. But what the courts have used is the commerce clause tied in with the "necessary and proper" clause, which I also posted; it goes as follows:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

What the federal government would argue is that since water is often transported from one state to another, especially in the Plains states, (I had a hard time thinking of a good reason, actually, since I live in a Great Lakes state and somehow just assumed everyone had plenty of water in their own state) they have a right to regulate the amount of water used by certain buildings. If these buildings house companies that engage in interstate commerce, then their reasoning is reinforced.

Furthermore, the EPA is a division of the Department of the Interior, and as such the Constitution grants Congress the right to pass laws "necessary and proper" for administering the Department of the Interior. In this case, Congress passed a law several years ago creating the EPA, and each year passes a budget that gives the EPA money. If I recall, Congress can also pass a law stopping the EPA from doing certain things - but the President can veto these laws, and since the EPA is indirectly under control of the President, it's unlikely that the President would sign such things into law.

As for contrived logic, it's necessary. The Constitution is something like five pages of notebook paper long, yet it dictates what the world's richest country can and can't do. When you want nine people to decide what's gonna happen, it's basically a battle to see who can come up with the most cleverly irrelevant closing statement.

Re:inth Amendment?

[McFly777]

Why do the intentions of the founding fathers mean so much to Americans... Surely what the people want now is more important.

Because our constitution/system of government was supposed to be based on the principal of defending the individual against the "tyrrany of the majority." Therefore what "the people" want isn't supposed to destroy my individual decisions about how I run my life, business, etc. (within reason and the limits set in the constitution. QED)

The reason that the founding fathers intentions is important, is that they wrote, very simply, their intentions. When they wrote "congress shall pass no law" they meant NO LAW. But people today, and politicians in particular IMHO, have difficulty comprehending the concept of simple absolutes. Therefore, they try to say that what was written simply in one sentence doesn't mean what it says, but instead requires many pages of interpretations. So, it takes others of us to remind people that the intent of words like "no" is just "no", plain and simple.

Re:inth Amendment?

[BridgeGarth]

Because our constitution/system of government was supposed to be based on the principal of defending the individual against the "tyrrany of the majority." Therefore what "the people" want isn't supposed to destroy my individual decisions about how I run my life, business, etc. (within reason and the limits set in the constitution. QED) Ok, the principle of of defending the individual against the majority is a commendable one. And therefore the ability to have the freedom of way of life is fantastic. However, the limits on that freedom are the laws. I am not free to kill someone I don't like, etc. So freedoms are restricted by the legal system. But why does one need a constitution for that? Why can't laws just be passed and repealed? More particularly why do the intentions of the founding fathers matter more than the intentions of people alive now (individually or collectively)? Just because the founding fathers intentions were clear and simple should not make them the basis of government for ever. What if a citizen disagrees with the constitution in a small or large part? An indivudual does not have the power to make an amendment. Changes to law have to be made by the people's elected representatives, whether individuals agree or not. I see a constitution as merely a way of blocking progress. This may be its intention. People may also see this is as a good thing. But I think people change and so should the rules.

Re:inth Amendment?

[mpe]

Ok, and how does the water supply to an apartment fall under "interstate commerce"? Sure, you can come up with contrived logic like "the pipes may have been manufactured outside the state".

More to the point if you read the US Constitution the right way around the 10th ammendment trumps the "Commerce Clause", rather than the other way around.
The problem with a written constitution is that it's only much good if it's read and understood by the majority of the population and they are prepared to back it. Otherwise it's just a "nice piece of paper".

Re:inth Amendment?

[utlemming]

It is called the "nessasary and proper" clause stating that the Congress can pass any law that is nessasary and proper for the function of the United States. 95% of all laws are based on this.

Re:inth Amendment?

[inode_buddha]

Not flamebait at all, you ask a fairly insightful question.

"Why do the intentions of the Founding Fathers mean so much to Americans? Those ideals were set down a long time ago, and times have changed a lot."

I don't have an absolutely and unarguably true answer for you, even as an American. I will say this, however:

Perhaps the true genius of the Founders lay in being able to codify the true nature of humanity into an overall sustainable "rule of law" (my quotes). They recognized that people and their behavior haven't really changed a bit in milenia, so they sought to deal with human nature as such instead of as ideally.

To use your own statement: "Those Ideals were set down a long time ago and times have changed a lot" This is quite true. However, human nature hasn't changed a bit.

This is why assigning (c) to FSF is good

[ClarkEvans]

If parts of the GPL are found to be invalid or problematic, the FSF can publish a GPL2 and then license all code it has been assigned under this modified license.

Look a there...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know a cult...er...company could go insane...I thought that was only reserved for self-aware individuals.

I'm so tired of these guys...they're complete and utter idiots. We actually just finished removing all SCO products (mail and app servers) from our server farm specifically because of their actions. It will probably end up costing them several hunderd thousand dollars a year just from our unit (our unit is the only one that removed the servers...as far as I know our company still uses them).

Quick, somebody...

[ninejaguar]

...check the water at SCO HQ. The LSD levels appear to be peaking.

= 9J =

If sco was a top level domain ...

[Midnight Thunder]

If sco was a top level domain, then we will be talking about the bubble bursting of the .sco erra, in a couple of years ;)

My main concern

[jd]

...is that SCO may well claim in court that since the GPL is (according to them) invalid, and since the software developed under it is (according to them) developed on, for or with software containing SCO IP, then SCO is the logical successor in ownership of that software.

Re:My main concern

[dmaxwell]

...is that SCO may well claim in court that since the GPL is (according to them) invalid, and since the software developed under it is (according to them) developed on, for or with software containing SCO IP, then SCO is the logical successor in ownership of that software.

The corporate contributors to Linux can use the exact same reasoning....against SCO. RedHat for one has patented IP in the kernel. I'd be a little hacked off if SCO destroyed my business too.

Vanishing downloads?

[Trejkaz]

Isn't this the case for GPL too? If someone builds a proprietary product out of a GPL product, the original GPL product won't magically disappear from the original download site.

Re:Vanishing downloads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the case for GPL too? If someone builds a proprietary product out of a GPL product, the original GPL product won't magically disappear from the original download site.


The difference with the GPL is that when you try to distibute your propriatary product built out of a GPL product the FSF will get medieval on your ass. (assuming you aren't the copyright holder of the GPL product, blah blah blah...)

Selling Multics?

[miniver]

IBM can make money selling Linux, AIX, Unixware, Multics, Windows, whatever.

While most of your post is accurate and informative, I have to dispute one point: nobody could make money selling Multics, or they'd still be selling it today. GE tried and failed, Honeywell tried and failed, and no one else was stupid enough to buy it after that. (I am a former Multician.) Multics was very good at a bunch of things, but it was never designed to be ported to different hardware, and it just cost too damn much to run and maintain.

Re:Selling Multics?

[sphealey]

Well, I was just reaching for an extreme example and that one popped to mind. I thought that Honeywell killed Multics because it competed with BOS, not because it wasn't profitable? Perhaps that is an urban legend though.

sPh

Re:Selling Multics?

[miniver]

Imagine, if you can, a computer running in 1988 with its memory in one cabinet, its I/O buses in another cabinet, and with 5 CPUs, each in their own separate cabinet, all of it cross-connected with huge cables. There were only a couple of dozen Multics installations world-wide. tops -- not enough volume to justify the custom hardware. On a hardware basis it couldn't compete with top end Unix servers, much less IBM mainframes. The only thing that Multics had going for it was its Orange-book A-level security classification. Hell, the system programming language for Multics was PL/I, which meant a huge amount of the OS was written in assembly.

As I said, it's not that Multics was bad (it was very good at a lot of things); it just cost too damn much to operate, and would cost too damn much to port to modern hardware.

SCO is the champion of Intelectual Property Rights

[weave]

So, the self-declared champion of IP is basically trying to steal the IP of thousands of hard working software authors by declaring GPL void and putting it into the public domain so he can use it in his products without cost or obligations.

I'm just speechless. This gets better every day....

Not Linux, though

[marnanel]

That'll be a GPL3: we've been on GPL2 since 1991.

A whole lot of GPL software specifies that it's distributed under "version X or any later version", or doesn't specify a version (which means you can use any version, according to section 9). So your solution would work fine for those things. It wouldn't work for Linux, though, since Linux is explicitly distributed under version 2 only.

Can anyone recommend a good FTP program for Win XP

[herrvinny]

I want to download SCO's stuff.

Surely not every SCO employee is evil?

[Trejkaz]

If even just one programmer with access to SCO is not evil, then that programmer could leak their code. Would that sort out the problem?

Ethics and law

[jeffasselin]

Amid all the comments I've read among all the numerous SCO stories on Slashdot and articles elsewhere, I've never seen someone raise the point of what is RIGHT instead of what is LEGAL.

Regardless of the legality of SCO's claims, regardless of the contract claims, the copyright law, or whatever else, if SCO wins and has its way it's WRONG.

Wrong in the sense that it would destroy open-source. Wrong in the sense that it endangers society and its evolution.

Law are a tool human beings have used to build civilizations. A tool that should reflect the most important objective of any society: to survive and grow. When we start caring about that law more than about why those laws exist, more about the letter than about its spirit, it's wrong, and it can only degenerate into a society which will not grow, which is in decline.

Linux and the open-source movement is a step in the right way, to break the hold corporations have in these modern days on everyday people. They will of course fight against it, but should we just shrivel and die? If SCO wins, should we all send our checks to SCO or even stop using open-source software, only because they have the law behind them?

I say NO.

In addition to that, remember that any legal decision regarding this case will only hold within the US. It won't touch most other countries. Imagine how it would be if using Linux would be illegal in the US yet legal in other countries...

newsforge article trustworthy?

[zerocool^]

While I'd like to see SCO go down as much as everyone else (perhaps more, see sig), I think I may have found a reason that major news sources aren't picking this up.

You non-Americans who read NewsForge can move on to the next story right now. We know you don't hold our Constitution dear and don't understand the ideals that make the United of States of America the greatest nation on earth, so there is no reason for you to read this.

Ahh. The same reason people get turned off to Linux - stupid, stubborn eliteism, or mabey it's just an attempt at humor that doesn't work (at all). This is a quote from the Newsforge article. I mean, obviously, it's satire, but it's poorly done satire. And by the way, articles written in this manner hardly ever make news, because they're just too pretentious to be quoted on CNN.

Come on, people. Release real news, not "HAHAHA, SCO S|_|X0Rz!!!".

~Wx

One question...

[Dhalka226]

Legally speaking, if this were true --

At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf.

-- could IBM then turn around and sue SCO for harrasment, recover any loss of stock price and payment for wasted man-hours they could possibly attribute to the situation, and tack on huge punitive damages for good measure?

My understanding is that Novell waived any violations (whether they existed or not). That means SCO is taking IBM to court, wasting their time, money and resources to battle the suit, and have absolutely no further right to enforce the license under which they bring suit?

Sounds like we have a legal issue here. Any lawyers or legal-minded folks out there who can tell me if I'm right or wrong here (based completely on the assumption that the quote is accurate, of course)?

Jon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[Trejkaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the GPL, can't software in the 'public domain' have a license imposed on it at any point in time?

So once all GPL software becomes public domain, can't you just have everyone who made that software restrict it under a license with a different name but similar principles? (If nothing else it would waste a bunch of SCO's time.)

Maybe GPL programs should delete support for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest GCC even has a note about the.
Maybe is time to revisit the issue and delete
support for all SCO OSes from GCC/Binutils/etc, i.e.
all the basic tools. And then from the rest
of applications.
If SCO wants to still use them, they will have
to maintain their own versions, i.e. spend a lot of money...

Re:In terms a 4th grader could understand...

[fishbowl]

"If its not enforceable, and goes under public domain"

Then thousands of angry people all have a serious grievance regarding their right due process before a Constitutional Right can be abridged. Every one of them is entitled to an individual hearing on the matter, probably one for each piece of copyrighted work.

The judge in this lawsuit does not actually possess the authority to make such a judgement, except in the specific cases of the property of the parties to the suit. If your code isn't part of the disputed items in SCO v. IBM, it's completely beyond the scope of this trial. Even if the judge finds the GPL to be unenforceable, he can ONLY rule it to be unenforceable by one party to this suit against the other. He could also conceivably be able to order one party to release their property under other licenses, or even surrender their copyrights, as part of the disposition of the case.

This judge cannot hammer his gavel and magically make GPL code into PD, period. That's not even conceivable. And as for finding the GPL to be invalid, it might become invalid between SCO and IBM, but it's still going to be valid between ME and YOU until we get OUR day in court, unless you have some reason to anticipate a Supreme Court ruling on the thing. (This case isn't going there, certainly.)

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[MS_is_the_best]

IANAMOI (I am not a minister of information), but I am still convinced that you can regard the GPL as more free than public domain software.

Perhaps not for the end user, but for a developer this is certainly the case. The GPL gives me the freedom to see changes made to my software done by a (proprietary) company. Public domain software does not grant me this freedom.

So what OS should I use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, I am just sooo confused...

Windows - not on a bet! The mere thought of serving spammers and script kiddies around the globe is enough to kill that.

SCO Unix - what? after this? you have got to be kidding!

Linux - well, obviously after this fiasco is all over, SCO is gonna own Linux too! See above.

Apple - damn! It's nice, but runs on proprietary, expensive hardware with limited support compared to the stuff that's available for Intel boxes. It does have a Unix-like *BSD core. speaking of which...

*BSD - now, that's the ticket! After all, I am sure Apple looked long and hard at the proprietary IP issues and consulted with their legal department a loooong time before adopting it. Besides, MS stole so much code from BSD that they wouldn't dare start a war on BSD for fear of fscking their own propreitary code, also. Hmmm, and they just released a new version of FreeBSD, didn't they. I'm gonna download that and check it out, just in case!

And they said BSD was dying. This bullshit with SCO and MS may exactly what it needed: CLEAR! bzzzt!

Where are my MOD points when I need one?

[midav]

Mod the parent up

Never, Never- No, Not Ever

[Exousia]

SCO has *zero chance* of ever overthrowing the GPL. They have *no argument*. They only have a baseless claim. No judge is going to be that moronic because there is no argument. Claiming that the "U.S. Copyright trumps the GPL" is merely a vacuous claim that has no argument behind it. It doesn't even make sense. And if for some really *wild ass* chance the judge actual rules in SCO's favor on this issue, the appellate court will laugh it into oblivion. Keep telling yourself this over and over, because it's the reality of the situation. There is nothing to fear. The end of SCO is near.

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[Zimm]

Perhaps not for the end user, but for a developer this is certainly the case. The GPL gives me the freedom to see changes made to my software done by a (proprietary) company. Public domain software does not grant me this freedom.

But all you have done is made yourself better off by taking away someone elses freedom. If the same code that is released to the public domain is used and extended in a proprietary way, you are not made better off or worse off, and you have given everyone complete freedom.

Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[billstewart]

SCO seems to be trying to split the possible interpretations of GPL validity into three positions

• GPL is unenforceable and anything GPLed is public domain
• GPL is potentially enforceable but SCO's license to IBM prevents IBM from contributing anything useful to it
• GPL is unenforceable and everything with a GPL attached is still owned by the original authors and each and every one of them retains the right to collect statutory copyright damages against anybody who copies their software without their direct and explicit permission.

If they go for the "Public Domain" extreme, the fact that they've given out 2.4.13 means that all that material's public domain now, as well as any earlier Linux material IBM had access to when developing their versions, so there's not much covered by their alleged contracts except some of the multi-processor scheduling stuff in SVR4.2 and later versions, and there are other sources of multi-processor scheduler work that IBM may also have drawn on. They certainly can't nail anybody who's not using those post-2.4.13 modules.

But if they go for the "Invalid, and everybody who contributed anything can still sue" part, it may be arguable that they've still got no claim over anything in 2.4.13, since they gave that away for free, or to derived works from that, and if they want to mess around suing anybody other than IBM for material that was in other Linuxen, they'd better be willing to defend themselves against the Death of a Thousand Lawsuits from anybody who contributed to 2.4.13 or to other GPL material SCO is continuing to use or distribute along with their licensed Unix versions (though they're probably safe leaving the BSD stuff in.) They'd certainly better ditch any EMACS and GCC because of RMS's direct contributions.

The Middle Case leaves Linux off the hook except for a few IBM scheduler additions and perhaps a few other features they haven't named, and IBM may or may not be able to beat the rap for sharing their trade secret on the rest of it. The Evil DMCA Cases leave IBM's position a bit shakier, but unlike the DVDCCA's ability to judge-shop and harass random teenagers first, SCO is stuck with fighting the 800-pound gorilla first and then hitting any weaker players later if they win.

And at first glance, SCO's assertion that the GPL is unconstitutional suggests that they're consuming substances that were frowned upon by the majority religion in Utah but are quite popular in Santa Cruz, or alternatively that they've been overusing substances that even Santa Cruzers view as harsh and ill-advised. Their best bet is to file a motion of "Withdrawing because we wuz drunk at the time we filed it, Yer Honor" with the court and get out, or see if they can get the Governator to go back in time and stop Linux and RMS.

Re:Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[Exantrius]

that they've been overusing substances that even Santa Cruzers view as harsh and ill-advised.

As a former Santa Cruzer, I object to people thinking that we view any substances as harsh and ill-advised.

We do, however, frown upon gasoline, meat, and people that don't smell of pachouli, so take that as you may...

oh, and "Have a nice day sir"... /Ex

Re:Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[router]

Nice. Scent of dreads in the afternoon sun. How's West Cliff these days, now that the dom bomb armies have left?

andy

Re:Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never go there if you frown upon meat. Fine! You didn't want me anyway!

Re:Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[Exantrius]

I don't frown upon meat, unless it's rotten...

But someone came up to me in the dining halls at one point and said something to the effect of "Do you know what you're eating? You're eating *COW* (I was eating a cheeseburger)...

She pulled out some pictures of cows getting slaughtered...

I said "Yup" and started eating with my mouth open... She slapped me, and I still find the whole experience uproariously funny...

Damned dirty hippies!

Re:Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case

[Exantrius]

West cliff is where I kept getting run over by SUV Drivin' Soccer Moms... I tried to stay downtown where the police randomly set up barricades and beat on the hippies...

Which reminds me-- Apparently they tried to force the street performers on Pacific to register and get a permit. Unfortunately, I missed most of that battle, I left right before it started.

Ahhh, the memories... /ex

Re:In terms a 4th grader could understand...

[Evets]

Here's how I understand it.

You're pretty close, but the bad guy is SCO, not IBM.

SCO owns the unix license.
SCO licensed unix to IBM.
SCO analyzed linux and supposedly found their unix source code.
SCO traced the added code back to IBM.
IBM (allegedly) added the proprietary code to linux without telling anyone that it was SCO proprietary.
SCO is suing IBM for the leak.
SCO is threatening to demand payment from any enterprise running a linux server.
SCO will not disclose what code is theirs so that the open source community can get rid of it and replace it.

Now the flip side is that Sun has it's own problems.

The GPL states that any derivative works must also be published under the GPL. (i.e. free, but you can charge for support)
SCO released it's own software using a great deal of GPL code, selling it and selling support separately.

I think that all of this is correct, anyone care to add anything or correct me?

Can someone explain to me how it could be un...

[Evets]

Can someone explain to me how the GPL could be considered unconstitutional? What right could be interpereted as being violated?

Re:Can someone explain to me how it could be un...

[ddimas]

The Constitutional right of Wealthy and Influential people to steal everything a nobody like you has.

That is really fucking ridiculous.

[pr0ntab]

So you're saying they should just abandon:
HAL
DirectX
Object ACLs
NTFS 5
NDIS (well, okay, that's debatable) .NET Framework
and that bitching MMC snap-in architecutre?

All things that Microsoft has in NT that are arguably more sophisticated features than most other OSs, and yet they should abandon that for BSD? ::shakes head::
The groundwork for LongHorn is already laid out and it is quite sophisticated. BSD would be a step back.

No, LongHorn is about "trusted" code, DRM and mutlimedia enchancements, and a whizzy-tizzy UI that no one here really cares about. Plus figuring out how to pair down the Jet DB engine to work super-reliably as a filesystem component.

Maybe they'll throw in the stateful firewall from BSD (ipfw), instead of hording their in-house one as an expensive upgrade. That'd make me happy.

Re:That is really fucking ridiculous.

[MsGeek]

Well it makes as much sense as ditching the NT kernel for Linux, as the article cited in the parent of my original post suggests...

What the fuck?

[autopr0n]

Um, wouldn't that put their code into the public domain to? Their arguments are so asinine it doesn't even make sense.

Maybe it's all a pro-open source conspiracy to get the GPL proven and tested in court.

MOD PARENT UP!

[cculianu]

Yes, that's true. That is the real problem -- the federal government uses all sorts of excuses to impose itself upon the people (or the states). This trend shows no signs of reversing, either.

I don't think realistically anyone is ever going to be able to stop the federal government. It has grown in scope and power beyond what anyone has imagined. I honestly hope that the same thing doesn't happen to the EU, where their 'federal' government ends up crushing the sovereignty of member-states, as has happened here in the US.

I really wish people would stop spreading the myth

[pr0ntab]

that kernel-based GUI or DirectX in NT is somehow faster than X11 with XVfb or XRender extensions.

X11 is network aware, but that doesn't mean a local application has to use the TCP/IP stack.

Unix sockets (which are like glorified event dispatch queues/shm) , shared memory, it's all in there.

What makes X11 slow is the lack of video cards with proper acceleration support.

Conversely, give this a try: In Windows Server 2003, go into the display menu, select Advanced, then Acceleration, and turn that slider all the way to the left. Try using the "svga" driver only as well.

WELL GEE WHIZ! A little slow, huh? How do you like the plodding repaint when you scroll in IE? ... jesus.

And, guess what, NT uses something akin to the mach microkernel. So they need a macrokernel now?

RRRRR! Peanut-gallery system architects.

Re:New SCO Icon Required here on Slashdot..

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm... anti-SCO jokes rated down to -1...

What *IS* happening to Slashdot these days? Oh, I hear that disrespect "isn't professional", according to the all-high master suits upstairs in dying VA Software's posh office tower complex. "We must respect SCO for the fine upstanding entrepreneurs they are", the Agent Smith lookalike droned, "and that goes for Microsoft, our main ad banner sponsor, and Apple, who has been gracious enough to supply us with spiffy new laptops and beautiful proprietary OS X. Shame about that Free Software thing, but it's time to be realistic. 'There ought to be limits on Freedom', Georgie-Boy said, and he was right. Those damn ethical idealistic hippies had better get with the sell-out program or they'll miss their chance. I've never been happier than I am now, living in blissful ignorance, suckling the teat of glorious Apple and drowning on bluetooth, FireWire, USB2, and a glowy keyboard on this laptop. Hell if I know what any of that does, or why I'd want to sell my soul for it, but I did -- and I think I made the right choice. Give up trying kids. Buy into the hype, even if it's not true. You can't fight city hall. And if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Wise words from a Master of the Sellout.

Why not Public Domain?

[TheAncientHacker]

Seriously. I don't see the problem of implementing a true gift culture rather than replacing one restrictive license with another. I'd seriously like to hear some good reasons why the GPL offers anything to anybody besides certain people's ego trips.

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[Doppleganger]

Easy.. GPL causes anyone who wants to use the "free" code to become part of the culture and keep the code "free". Those who do not want to be part of the culture do not get to sit back and receive the benefits of that culture.

If it were all public domain, it would require extra effort for the people using the code to contribute more code to the public domain. With the GPL, contributing back comes naturally because you can't legally do anything else (unless SCO somehow manages to invalidate the GPL's many years of de facto legitimacy..). Knowing that people in general are lazy, and taking into account the current trend of laws that allow people to prevent works from ever reaching the public domain, which "culture" has a better chance of being sustainable?

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[iggymanz]

So what's wrong with knowing who gave you a gift? That there is less likelyhood it was stolen. What's wrong with credit & attribution & recognition? We know who wrote the various parts of GNU/Linux, and for that matter the *BSD (which is less restrictive in many senses, though you still have credit & attribution). Most poople like to have heroes & leaders who are *good*; heck, in the open source movement we have leaders & heroes who sacrified man-years of effort and give us the benefit of it. Most of those good people do have egos; the good kind of ego that likes well-deserved recognition.

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[argent]

You're welcome to release your software to the public domain. I've done that, for some software. For others I've used the BSD license, or the Really Free Software License, or the New BSD license (the one without the attribution clause), or a non-commercial use license, or shareware...

Setting aside the question of whether GPLed software *is* intended as a gift, which is NOT a given...

Look, just because I give *you* a gift, that doesn't mean I'm giving it to the guy down the street. If I give my son a car for a graduation present, that doesn't mean I'm giving it to the guy next door as well. The GPL license lets people who use it give the gift to the people who they want to, without giving it to the guy next door as well.

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[frkiii]

For this simple fact:

Releasing in the public domain means that others, like SCO, could take your code, incorporate it into their code and profit from it.

And, not contributing back to what they use AT ALL. No contribution, not even a "thank you, ma'am".

GPL has contribution built into it for the benefit of all that use the code.

Regards,

Fredrick

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[TheAncientHacker]

So, summarizing the responses, the reason that Public Domain is frowned upon comes down to control and ego. So much for the vaunted "Gift Culture" and "giving back" that are so often cited. It sure looks like GPL really comes down to an intentionally restrictive license for code that isn't commercially viable.

Re:Why not Public Domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't disagree more. I'm willing to give, but I don't want some greedy jerk like Darl to profit from it.

This isn't abstract, people

[theodicey]

And water is a great example of how the commerce clause should apply.

Where does the water that's going through the water meter come from? Typically, either an aquifer spanning multiple-state...or a river passing through multiple states.

At least in the Southwest, a lot of it's coming from the Colorado river, and if it weren't for the federal water board intervening to stop state greed, there wouldn't be a Colorado river past, say, Colorado. So the federal government has a clear and compelling interest in water conservation.

If you want to make wacky libertarian objections to the commerce clause, you need a much better example.

Re:Can anyone recommend a good FTP program for Win

[argent]

Windows XP comes with an FTP program, called "FTP" You run it from the command prompt.

It's ..

[LazyBoy]

the Chewbacca offense!

My new sig

[jonatha]

"The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company was in Utah. We need a new building."

Those Damn Alcoholics!!!!

[Ohreally_factor]

It's always, "One day at a time" and "Don't use Kazaa"!

SCO may get what more than they wish.

[pair-a-noyd]

If I wrote some code and GPL'ed it then some dick licking bunch of total losers like SCO comes along and takes my rights away from me for *MY* hard work, causing me to lose control over my works, SCO could be sure of getting a visit from Mr. L. Slugger.

I hope they are smart enough to not try this, because god forbid, they ever manage to pull this off *someone* out there is gonna be very unhappy, more so than they already are now.

This crap they are trying is very, very unwise.
Very unwise indeed...

So they want to declare GPL invalid?

[shamino0]

Great! Let them try. This is the perfect way to eliminate SCO from existance once and for all.

Once the GPL is invalidated, all of that GPL code reverts to a default copyright status, owned by the authors of the code. These authors have the right to charge whatever they want for the code, and anybody who doesn't pay up is in violation of the copyright.

Applied to Linux, just about everybody will be in violation. But the copyright holders don't have to sue them all.

The copyright holders can choose to sue some of the infringers. Like SCO. Let's see what happens to them when people like Richard Stallman decide to set the licensing terms for Emacs and GCC at a billion dollars per copy and conveniently choose to only sue SCO for copyright violation.

Some may claim that this is selective enforcement, but we're talking copyright, not criminal law. Record companies don't lose their copyrights if they only sue a small fraction of the millions who are in posession of pirated music. By that same token, owners of formerly-GPL'ed software won't lose their copyrights if they only sue one violator of their SCO-mandated copyright.

Public Domain? Really?

[Anthony Boyd]

Huh. Interesting. I suggested the same thing here on Slashdot about a month ago. I think that, with the Microsoft backing, they've fully intended to completely destroy the GPL and steal our IP from the start. Keep vigilant, SCO wants to blow the house down.

US Rights don't affect my code

[oo_waratah]

I am an Australian who has written GPL code in the time specified. The US govt has no rights over me and could never construe any rights. Therefore any declaration of GPL code as public domain is null and void.

The intent of the GPL is clear and even if the letter of the license is not legal the intent of GPL must be enforced or the more restrictive copyright (mine!) must be used. I have never and will never release my code as PD because I want amendments made on my code by other parties freely available to others. This is my freedom to choose, it is your freedom to write your own under PD or BSD or any one of the thousand licenses out there.

lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one that thinks this company is being run by people who realize the profit is not in the company but in the lawsuit. the lawsuit is a joke but i think you'll find the longer they can keep this going the longer they have to make a fortune on the shares of the company. i have no doubt in the near future sco will be history and several people will walk away with a grin and a huge amount of cash and linux will move along just as it has in the past.

try the MPAA approach

[glassesmonkey]

Why can't people see this is the same FUD as RIAA/MPAA is using against file-sharing. A few lawsuits that are largely irrelevant, some press (good and bad), and some political action and interest.

At the end of the day the majority walk away with this subliminal-message (maybe it's SUPER-liminal) that linux / GPL / free-software / file-sharing / mp3's / /etc/ is the realm of the thieves, pirates, copy-ers, teenage punks, hackers..

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[spitzak]

Read up on "embrace and extend". It is quite possible for a proprietary software maker to make the public domain version quite useless, thus "capturing" the software. The GPL prevents this.

GOT IT!

[Progman3K]

SCO has discovered that THEIR unpalatable, terrible, buggy, ancient and pathetic UNIX is FILLED with public domain code!!!

Instead of admitting that they are ripping off some public domain code, SCO believe they should be given not only the patents they've ripped off, but ALL the patents in the public domain AND the GPL!

Whatever crack they may or may not be smoking, it gives you pause...

GPL -- Public Domain (PD) implies SCO IP -- PD

[hknust]

SCO released their Linux code under the GPL. If SCO is so protective of their IP, they just self-prescribed a suicide pill.

(Probably mentioned before but I did not have time to read all comments)

Not quite

[freeweed]

Any contract whose terms are not legal is null.

Now, this depends on jurisdiction, etc, but for the most part contracts are not just void because of an illegal clause.

That PARTICULAR part cannot be enforced (it being illegal and all), but the rest of the contract is most certainly valid.

Please apply your insight to a RELEVANT example.

[merriam]

Releasing a work like The Wind in the Willows under the GPL is rare. You might be surprised to learn that in Kenneth Grahame's time (1859-1932) it was practically unheard-of.

You see, the GPL is largely about programs and source code.

Releasing programs -- not books -- under the GPL promotes freedom in the use and modification of software -- not including The Wind in the Willows, which is conventionally regarded as a book.

Question On Downloading - Please help

[herrvinny]

Sorry for this newbie type question, I'm fairly new to Linux, but I'm downloading the SCO stuff to mirror it, and I could use some help. Is it right that only the kernel matters, the .rpm's that begin with the filename kernel-source...? Because a lot of everything else just seems to be redundant stuff one could get anywhere, like the mod_perl and samba packages. If not, what else should I mirror from the sco ftp site, including the kernel files?

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[jbolden]

Read the history of X. Its not just possible it happened to very important software. The whole reason the XFree project needed to happen was that X had become completely propietery because of this.

LGPL

[jbolden]

We don't want to releae the generic part under the LGPL (which would get around this problem), because we don't want our competition to make proprietary enhancements to that and leverage them -- we're willing to share the generic part, but only equally.

I don't follow. If your competition makes enhancements to the LGPLed part they still have to distribute code to those enhancements when they distribute their versions.

Anyway you might want to check out licenses that give the original holder privledges, things like the original Apple public license.

Re:LGPL

[renehollan]

I don't follow. If your competition makes enhancements to the LGPLed part they still have to distribute code to those enhancements when they distribute their versions.

Those enhancements could take the form of a binary only object. Considerer LGPL code with a bug in the "Foo()" routine. Remove it, write your own, correct, version,. and distribute it as a binary only module. All you have to do is distribute the source to the modified LGPL code, without the incorrect "Foo()" routine. But, your bug fix is kept secret.

Now, one could arge whether the "Foo()" replacement is a rewrite or a derivative, but that becomes an uphill legal battle, particularly if more than one routine is involved.

Re:LGPL

[jbolden]

OK got you.

BTW I passed your resume on to a manager hiring for C++ with networking experience.

Re:LGPL

[renehollan]

BTW I passed your resume on to a manager hiring for C++ with networking experience.

I would have preferred that you asked first. Two reasons: (a) it's polite, and (b) I have an updated resume with recent digital video experience.

Did I give the impression that I was actively seeking employment with the implicit approval to pass my resume around?

Re:LGPL

[jbolden]

Did I give the impression that I was actively seeking employment with the implicit approval to pass my resume around?

I think you should look at your sig.

Re:LGPL

[renehollan]

"Did I give the impression that I was actively seeking employment with the implicit approval to pass my resume around?"

I think you should look at your sig.

Don't the words could have indicate that I am not actively looking at this point?

Sure, I like to advertise my background and experience, in case my skills are desired -- I'm always open to opportunity, even as I am currently employed. But, I think it's a bit of a stretch to presume that implies an active search.

So, if someone comes along and says, "Hey! We've been looking desperately for someone with your background, are you interested?", I'd be interested. But that's not the same as asking for my resume to be actively pushed without my knowledge by people I don't know.

Maybe I'm expecting a subtle distinction to be made where there isn't one, but then again, I've seen many people make their resume's public, on the odd chance serendepity will result in a positive employment or contract relationship happening that otherwise wouldn't. All this, without being actively involved in a job search.

In this case, while I was a bit surprised (usually I get inquiries from principles seeing my resume by chance), I guess "no harm, no foul" applies.

The GPL is special ...

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is missing an important point :

Almost every licence in existance has a statement in it that claims : "If any part of this licence is found to be unlawfull, the rest should prevail."

SCO seams to be hoping to get that clause, so that the "you must put all derived work under the GPL" part is invalidated, but the rest is left intact.

However, the GPL DOES NOT have the above statement.
Actually there's a somewhat incomprehensible part in lawspeak that basicly sais (if I understood it) : "if ever it is found unlawfull to enforce the licencing of derivated work, then the software falls back into standard Copyright (= no copying at all)".

So, unless they got a really stupid judge and/or Jury, SCO cannot put GLPed software into Public Domain. At worst, they can invalidate the GPL and we have to wait till the FSF releases version 3.

However, even IF they invalidate the GPL, they are shooting themself in the foot.
Their whole claim isnt about System V code, but IBMs work for System V (e.g. JFS).
So if the GPL cannot enforce a licence on derivated work, how can the SCO-licence enforce a licence on IBM's work that prevents IBM to publish it?

Guess how many jelly donuts...

[Compact Dick]

Oh, nevermind. And no, I'm not Darl nor do I have anything to do with SCO. Though sometimes my current job makes me wish I was...

linus' new license and some thoughts

[moojin]

wasn't their talk about linus torvalds and richard stallman coming up with a GPL alternative that they would release linux under if it came down to that?

i can't believe it would come down to that... i hope to God it does not. i would lose all faith that i have in this country's law system.

after the columbia disaster, i asked myself why the NASA space program has not taken us to Mars after a great start in the 60s and 70s... i came down to the realization that the people in the space program then were all working towards a common goal without financial rewards, working long hours away from their families, etc. in the same light, i see the open source movement. for it to be swept away by the greed of a few would be heart breaking. ...

andrew

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[GSloop]

You have not taken anyone's freedom.

Freedom doesn't include my *taking* what's not mine, but yours. (At least not in any world/society that works.)

So, you decide to give something you have to me. I can trade you for it. I can give you money, time, or your promise that if you decide to give it to others, you have to also include any changes you make to it that you are also giving away (or selling).

So, yes, it does force you to "trade" something for the right to "accept" it, but it doesn't make you any less free.

It's kind of like my saying - I'll pick you up, Mr. Hitch-hiker, but in exchange, I'd like you not to smoke in my car. You have not lost any freedom, unless you accept something you didn't have before. You can accept my gift - a ride, and not smoke. You can smoke, and not accept my gift. But you can't choose both.

That places no restrictions on your freedom - unless you accept something that wasn't yours, thus expanding your freedoms, and requiring a trade.

The "acceptees" need to determine for themselves if the bargain is worth it. If not, keep the freedom you already have and decline my gift.

Cheers,
Greg

SCO Exec's future quote?

[coldnight]

Now, I find this all very strange, and I cannot see SCO winning this case, which makes me think that the whole thing is a pump and dump scheme, so watch out for the next stage, which will result in some fancy footwork by even more lawers in keeping SCO execs out of jail.

SCO Exec's future quote?
But Officer! I swear we thought we had a case!!

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[qtp]

But all you have done is made yourself (and everyone else, except the person who has made changes to your code) better off (by ensuring that the access to the source code and the accompianing freedom to make changes to it remains) by taking away someone elses freedom (to restrict the freedoms of others including the community of developers who created the code that he has benefitted from without returing benefit to the community). If the same code that is released to the public domain is used and extended in a proprietary way, you are not made better off or worse off (but the community is, as there is less reason to act as a developer comunity if the product of your work can be relicensed away from the comunity), and you have given everyone complete freedom (except for the persons who recieve the derivative work and would like to make changes to it themselves).

The GPL is important to the community of users and developers who have grown around it. To invalidate this license would be to do irrepairable harm to that comunnity of immense monetary value that could only be calculated by estimating both the cost it would have entailed to develop this software in a "more traditional" licensing setting.

If companies and developers do not wish to use GPLed software, they should not use it. There are plenty of other Free Software licenses that encompass what you seem to view as ideal, such as the BSD license, or the MIT license.

I was just about to ridicule that one too!

[pr0ntab]

But then it was time to go home. ;-) Sorry if I picked on you. Did I misread sarcasm?

Re:I was just about to ridicule that one too!

[MsGeek]

"Sarcasm. It's a great way to deal." -- Aunt Amy, "Daria"

What worries me is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the hubris that everyone seems to have in regards to this issue. Dont get me wrong. Im with you guys. I love open source software. But really...what if were all wrong? What if SCO wins a major case against the GPL (even unjustly)?

Im just trying to point out that while we should be confident in our license, we should not be _over_ confident.

The GPL might be fair...but life aint.

Re:What worries me is...

[frkiii]

SCO is like a rabid animal, cornered and about to be caught by animal control personnel.

They are saying and doing anything to try to put off being "caught" for a little while longer.

Nerds and geeks will be dancing in the streets (ouch, sorry for the visual there) once SCO has been buried by Big Blue.

Nothing to really worry about in regards to the GPL. IBM is the copyright holder of the items they contributed to Linux. GPL or not, doesn't really matter. Of course, this is all my opinion. :)

Its almost like SCO is a giant train wreck that is still in the process of "wrecking", and a bunch of people are standing around watching until its over, and if any "friendly" casualties, get those fixed up.

As long as more and better free and open source software is being developed during this time and after, more people will benefit in the long run, no matter the outcome of SCO vs. IBM, IBM vs. SCO and Red Hat vs. SCO.

Call me optimistic, but I do not see real damage SCO could do to the GPM, free or open source software, etc.

Regards,

Fredrick

And then SCO said to IBM:

[Elfich47]

"Lets play Ro-Sham-Bo" and IBM said: "Fine, you can even go first" (IBM failed to mention that it was wearing a spiked cup for SCO's pleasure).
It looks to me like SCO has wasted its kick flailing around and whining alot. IBM has just begun its wind up: "IBM strongly believes in its counterclaims and looks forward to trying its case in the court of law" That means that IBM is going to follow through come hell or high water.

[If you don't know: Ro-Sham-Bo is a game where I kick you in the nuts and then you kick me in the nuts. Last one standing wins.)

Re:Please apply your insight to a RELEVANT example

[odin53]

Copyright deals with programs and source code in the exact same way it does with _The Wind in the Willows_, aside from the DMCA and the statutory right to make back-up copies of software. I used TWITW as an example only because I knew it was in the public domain. The legal analysis isn't any different.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[billstewart]

Of course you're not forced to use GPL software. But "if you don't like the license, you're free to write the code yourself" isn't the end of the story - there are alternative free software licenses, ranging from BSD-style "Leave our name on it and agree that we disclaim all responsibility if Bad Things happen" to the Artistic License to postcardware to public domain or whatever. I like the LGPL better than the GPL for most applications, and I still remember way back when it was the "Library GPL" rather than the Stallmanesque renaming as the "Lesser GPL".

RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be, and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL. How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable; once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces, and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.

There's Free like in Free Speech, and Free like in Free Beer, and then there's Free like in Free Kittens...

Bit late for commenting now...

[bobintetley]

But SCO have a CONTRACT DISPUTE with IBM. That is what the court case is to settle. How the fuck do we get from that to "GPL is invalid and everyones work is public domain"??????

The GPL isn't going to enter into the court case, as it has nothing to do with it. This is SCO making noise to keep the stock price up.

Incidentally, given the court dates and everything, does it seem more than a little coincidental that SCO could keep this up for another year (possibly more) - long enough for a certain software company to be nearly ready with their new OS and attempt to slow takeup of a certain other OS?

I agree!

[Anonymous Coward]

All this FUD and badmouthing really doesn't lift up appearances that's for sure.

But thenagain I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity. At least it hasn't hurt MS/RIAA/MPAA/IBM/others in the past, so why should it hurt Linux either. (Though Linux isn't a multibillion corporation, and never will be)
SCO on the other hand might get hurt. And furthermore I think, even if Linux got deemed illegal in the states it'd still not disappear from the face of earth. I doubt EU, China or whatever another countries would follow US if that were the case... Might be Linux hackers would get hunted in the states, might be they would start using Linux underground but the fact is, if US does this, US falls, and it falls hard.

Legal analysis?

[merriam]

What legal analysis? The assertion you took issue with -- whig's "GPL software is freer than public domain..." -- is not about law. Legal analysis doesn't answer it. Legal analysis might determine whether the GPL is enforceable, but that is assumed in whig's assertion.

It's also not about books. The effects of licensing, use, modification and redistribution are very different with books. How often is The Wind in the Willows patched? How many critical security holes does it have? Could the valuable manuscripts on my desk become corrupted if those holes in my copy of the book are not closed? How long is the wish list? How soon after development on the book stops do you expect it to become obsolete?

whig is using geeky shorthand here, and I think you have misunderstood. A single version of a program, dead and frozen for all time and released into the public domain, is less encumbered than it would have been if it had been released under the GPL. But software distributed under the GPL evolves while staying free. What popular public domain software do you know of that does the same? And what software do you know of that doesn't need to evolve?

Perhaps we're getting to why you started talking about a book. I don't think there are any good examples.

Re:Legal analysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a fucking toss monkey who is anally determined to clig onto his own world vew of what is a program and how he is so much smarter than the rest of the world - book writers and the like. Try expanding your horizons to encompass this guy's point of view, rather than making your shrill case for why a book is not a program.

DICKWAD.

Goal One: Wasting Linux programmer time

[voxelman]

Since SCO filed their suit millions of hours of Linux development time has been wasted reading about and commenting on the SCO suit.

You're right, it isn't abstract.

[benjamindees]

The water comes from *rain*, not rivers; and water typically flows *downhill*. It flows from mountainous states with high amounts of rainfall to lower-altitude states with little rainfall.

Those states without water don't have a *right* to the water that falls on other states. If I live in Colorado and want to bottle rainwater to use to feed to worms, screw someone who wants to live in the desert and expects me to give them my worm-water.

If the deal is going to be 'share-and-share-alike', then I expect Texans to pump saltwater to me, since Oklahoma is naturally deprived of that important resource. After all, that saltwater probably fell as rain in Oklahoma before it flowed into Texas. By your logic, the 'Commerce Clause' applies. I want it back.

Notice to non-USians:

[benjamindees]

The US Federal Government doesn't own SH!T in America. They have been given serveral hundred thousand acres of desert in the West and ten square miles in Virginia. They also continue to maintain a few military installations in podunk areas of hillbilly states like Oklahoma, California and West Virginia, but those are rapidly being moved to overseas locations. Everything else falls under the jurisdiction of the State governments.

Maybe we've misunderstood everything?

[fr0m]

We all believe that GPL is unbeatable

Maybe SCO/McBride is not a foot soldier for anti-linux but for Linux itself. Think about it. Linux is getting so big that the GPL must be tested somehow for the companies to get comfortable with OSS. It is probably the stongest licence available today and Open Source need the buzz to keep on coming - it is free commercial!

Just imagine for a second that McBride actually want GPL to come out of this winning. What better way to make GPL stronger than to actually test it in court. How big is the risk that the GPL is invalid? Next to none probably.

1. McBride has a great plan to promote OSS and Linux but have no funding to do it.
2. McBride takes over SCO to create a bogus "anti-linux" company.
3. SCO get sponsor money from Microsoft.
4. SCO take the big boys (IBM blablabla) to court.
5. SCO promotes Linux with free advertisement for as long as possible (bad publicity is still publicity).
6. SCO looses the fictive battle in court.
7. Alot of companies and governments want to invest in OpenSource.
8. Linux PROFITS!!!

Does this sound unlikely to you? Really? It does make you think for awhile...

Linux has an alternative license available already

[argent]

What do you mean "they"?

Richard Stallman didn't release Linux in the first place, he has no rights over it... a fact that once drove him to write rather intemperately about, well, the fact that it didn't start with a "G".

And Linus has the option of using the LGPL (or any other license) for future releases of the Linux kernel already. Or any other license he wants, including the BSD license, the Artistic License, and the Really Free Software License.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[minkwe]

You still don't get it do you? You can't eat your cake and have it.

I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I am willing to share my idea with all of you, that idea, is the idea that because I am sharing my idea with you it becomes not my idea and not your idea but Our idea. The idea being that if anybody comes along and claims that Our idea then belongs to them. They are seeking ownership of our collective creative commons. Get the idea!

England gave America their constitution, their language and the cavity magnatron, what did America give England? Windows - ungrateful I'd say, and not a kind thing to do to the mother country. And to claim Alexander Graham Bell is an American, rubs salt in the wound.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[Daengbo]

so nice to see someone use the idiom correctly. it actually makes sense that way.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[WNight]

I'd have been contributing code under a BSD license if I didn't know about the GPL, but I wouldn't have been happy with it. Every time someone like Microsoft uses BSD code and doesn't even thank anyone it pisses me off.

But Stallman comes along and writes a legally strong license that does exactly what I want. It won't let you share my stuff unless you're willing to share what you do with it. It's what I feel copyright law itself should be more like.

I consider the GPL a perfect fit and I don't really respect people who whine about it because it's pretty obvious that they're just greedy. They want everyone else's code, it's so important that they have to have it, but nobody can have their code - that's the really creative stuff of course, so it should remain theirs... I've never heard a non-greedy argument against the GPL, and as such, I've never heard a slightly convincing argument against the GPL.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[mpe]

RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be

Just as William H Gates the Third was very sucessful in the mid 1970's at promoting his (no less obsessive) view on how software "should be".

and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL.

This couldn't be because they are in general agreement with his position...

How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable;

Do these forbid the incorporation of the code into proprietary code bases? Maybe quite a few of these these people would not be happy with proprietary software companies making money off their work.

once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces,

If you produce software from scratch you are the copyright holder and can attach any kind of licence you like to it. If you are distributing someone else's software then you need the permission of the copyright holder. By default you cannot distribute the software either as is or in a modified form. You can get permission either through a distribution licence attached to the software (which is what the GPL is) or by negotiating with the copyright holder. The advantage of the former is that you don't need to contact the copyright holder, since the conditions under which you can distribute are explicitally stated.

and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.

Writing software which duplicates the function of software which already exists is "extra work" as is tracking down and negotiating with copyright holders.

Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is more free because you cannot not distribute source. You can't keep your modifications proprietary.

This is exactly what makes it less free than public domain software.

You missed one point....

[whittrash]

None of this will stop them from burning in HELL.

what if

[whittrash]

Let me be the devils advocate here for a second. What if SCO wins a minor victory in court, but loses on all of the major issues, but is nonetheless awarded $10-15 million. What will that mean for Linux?

Re:GNU Public Virus

[drsmithy]

Seems to me you've got this all bass-ackwards...

I consider the GPL a perfect fit and I don't really respect people who whine about it because it's pretty obvious that they're just greedy.

And how is extorting all the work from anyone who uses a skerrick of your own - even if it's, say, 20 lines out of 2 million - *not* greedy ?

They want everyone else's code, it's so important that they have to have it, but nobody can have their code - that's the really creative stuff of course, so it should remain theirs...

And people like you basically have the same argument, just with different semantics. Effectively, you want anyone's code if they use _any_ of yours, even if their usage is completely trivial and the real meat & potatoes creativity of the software is theirs. *That*, is a greedy position to take.

I've never heard a non-greedy argument against the GPL, and as such, I've never heard a slightly convincing argument against the GPL.

Your arguments *for* the GPL are pretty selfish as well. I can only presume that you consider any attempts to develop software for profit to be "greedy", which doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable.

Why have a constitutuion (was Re:inth Amendment?)

[McFly777]

Ok, a bunch of questions. I will paraphrase some of them to avoid repetition.

Why does one need a constitution, instead of just passing laws? Because the constitutuion defines how one goes about passing those laws. Without it you get into things like dictatorships, etc. where the laws are basically passed, "because I say so." (or perhaps, because I have a gun and I say so ;-)

Why does a ~200 yr old document matter more than "what we want today?" What if we want to change the rules? The constitution provides for changes to itself, but it sets the bar for those changes higher than that for passing a law. Many changes have been made, such as the ability of the government to collect income tax, which was originally prohibited explicitly! (called a "capitation tax") It makes sense that the rules that control the process for making laws would be a bit harder to change than just passing a new law, otherwise why have them. (see previous answer)

Quoting you directly:

"Changes to law have to be made by the people's elected representatives, whether individuals agree or not. I see a constitution as merely a way of blocking progress. This may be its intention."

That is exactly the intention. The main idea is that "government recieves its power from the consent of the governed." The constitution is what defines that consent and is supposed to keep the government under control. Of course, if a large enough part of the people consent to change the way that control is set, then things can (and are) changed, but in general people still want that control to remain in place.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[WNight]

It's not possible for me to be greedy in this case because I'm not asking you to use my code. And if my code is as insignificant as you say, you wouldn't be copying it. Nobody searches the net for twenty lines of so-so code.

Why don't you understand that people hate freeloaders? The GPL isn't to be greedy, it's to spite you. We could just release the code, like people used to do, and let anyone use it, but we use the GPL specifically because greedy people who refuse to share bug us.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[Mnemia]

Your argument is much weaker than your parent post on several points.

First, I don't buy your argument that someone shouldn't have to contribute all their usage of GPL code if the usage is "trivial". If it was so trivial, why couldn't they write it themself? Obviously the fact that they are using the GPL code means that it was important to their project/was not something they could do themself.

Second, no one is "extorting" your work from you if you choose to use their GPL code. YOU chose to use that code, which is someone else's property. As such, if you have any respect for property rights, you must abide by the terms the owner attached to its use and distribution. If your argument held, then it would be perfectly okay for me to ignore whatever is in a proprietary EULA. Or is it just that you think businesses shouldn't have to give away their code, but that everyone else who contributes to open source should have to serve as unpaid labor for them?

Re:GNU Public Virus

[Mnemia]

doh, sorry, my reply was intended for drsmithy's post.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[drsmithy]

It's not possible for me to be greedy in this case because I'm not asking you to use my code.

Sure it is - the greedy part is wanting all my code in exchange for using any of yours. Not just the bits of yours I modified, or even the bits of mine that directly rely on yours, *all* of it.

And if my code is as insignificant as you say, you wouldn't be copying it.

Why not ? Any time saved re-using existing work means more time to spend on new work.

Not to mention a relatively "trivial" portion of the code in something the size of, say, Netware could still be significant on its own.

Why don't you understand that people hate freeloaders?

I do understand that. Why don't you understand that demanding *all* of the code from a product just because a proportion of it is GPL'ed *is* a form of "freeloading" ?

The GPL isn't to be greedy, it's to spite you. We could just release the code, like people used to do, and let anyone use it, but we use the GPL specifically because greedy people who refuse to share bug us.

So someone using your code is "greedy", but extorting all of someone else's code from them for using a bit of yours isn't ?

Re:GNU Public Virus

[drsmithy]

First, I don't buy your argument that someone shouldn't have to contribute all their usage of GPL code if the usage is "trivial".

I don't have a problem with them having to contribute all their usage of GPL'ed code. I don't even have a problem with them having to contribute all their modifications of GPL'ed code. Heck, I don't even have a problem with them having to contribute all their bits of code that directly rely and utilise GPL'ed code.

What I do think is completely unfair, is the requirement that any software which might have a tiny skerrick of GPL'ed code in it somewhere must be completely GPL'ed.

If it was so trivial, why couldn't they write it themself? Obviously the fact that they are using the GPL code means that it was important to their project/was not something they could do themself.

Because time spent *not* reimplementing something that's already been done a thousand times before is time that could be spent on actually doing something *new*. Something *creative*. Something *completely your own work*.

Now, (from a moral and ethical perspective, not a legal one) why you should you *have* to give away that which is *new*, *creative*, *completely your own work*, just because it used something already existing ?

For a hypothetical example, let's say Microsoft used GPL'ed code in creating, say, the help system for the next version of windows. Why should they be required to GPL the code for NTFS just because the help system is part of the "whole product" that is Windows ?

Or, for a real example, take the recent story about Cocoatech. They have approached the using-other people's-code "moral dilemma" in a completely ethical and reasonable manner - by sharing all their modifications and relevant derivative portions of code with the community. This is good. This is fair. This is compatible with actually being able to sell software. This is how OSS *should* work - existing code that is modified and/or reused is made available to any and all, while new work remains under the control of its author.

Yet the GPL implies - and the FSF zealots demand - that they open up their *entire* product code base, even the parts that are completely their own new, creative, not-derived-from-anything-else code. I consider this unreasonable, counter-productive and a perfect example of why the GPL - and GPL'ed code - is often avoided for commercial, sale-for-profit use. It's simply not worth the risk that your ability to charge for the software can be completely circumvented.

The practical end result of GPL'ed code is massive levels of effort duplication all over the place by developers because they don't want their own work being "forcibly" opened up. This situation is inefficient, lose-lose for all and, quite bluntly, bloody stupid.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[WNight]

You have a very funny version of extortion, where writing code and leaving it on the net for people to use, or not, counts?

You are never trapped into having to use GPLed code, so it can't be seen as extortion. You never have to work harder than simply writing the code yourself. Pretty simple.

Greed also implies a lust for personal gain, and hoarding. It's hard to be greedy about something that is being given equally to everyone. I really want there to be more GPLed software, but it's hard to see that as greed. Is it greed when people wish for world peace? I'm in a rich country, I could easily buy all the software I needed if there wasn't free software, much like peace activists usually aren't in personal danger. But we both want to better the world, for ourselves and for everyone else in more urgent need than us.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[drsmithy]

You have a very funny version of extortion, where writing code and leaving it on the net for people to use, or not, counts?

The extortive part is what you want in return for allowing other people to use that code.

Greed also implies a lust for personal gain, and hoarding.

One of the definitions of greed is "Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."

Personally, I'd call wanting *all* of someone else's work because they used a *bit* of yours to be greedy.

Re:GNU Public Virus

[WNight]

You have reading trouble, don't you? The GPL never "demands" anything, but offers. Even then it doesn't require all of your work, merely all of what you combine with mine. Half the code in your project, without the rest or the build files, is useless. You get to pick and choose through my code, why should I get less from you?

Further, your use of the word extortion is incorrect. Extortion requires "coercion or intimidation, illegal use of officials powers or position" according to the dictionary. Making you an offer, however bad you may feel it would be for you, can never be extortion if you're honestly free to take it or leave it. Considering that I don't even seek to make you the offer, that the GPL is merely there if you want to look, it's even farther from extortion.

It's not greed, it's a flat price. Play along and be generous to those around you, or play alone. Be a good neighbor, or don't expect any help from anyone.