Slashdot Mirror
SCO Madness Reigns Supreme
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.'"
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...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
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".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
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."
Peace and love, y'all
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.
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.
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.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
- November 1 comes.
- IBM buys one (1) SCO UNIX license.
- IBM downloads the full linux kernel from SCO's website.
- 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.
- All the code IBM ever put into linux now falls into two categories.
- Code which IBM had the right to put into linux because they own it.
- 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.
- 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.Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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?
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).
'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?
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
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*."
This sig no verb.
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?
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?
-R
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.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
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.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
"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.
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.
-pyrrho
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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....
> 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.
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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.
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?
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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?
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.
Democrat delenda est
"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.)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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.
BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.
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
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
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.