Slashdot Mirror
SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL
Pogue Mahone writes "According to The Register, SCO is now distributing Linux code under a more restrictive license than the GPL. This is a violation of copyright, since only the GPL gives them any rights to distribute the code.
Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO."
Wrong, the GPL defines the rights. One right it does not give is the ability to restrict rights.
This sig is the express property of someone.
Nice troll.. But copyright law is exactly what this is about. If, the GPL was invalid copyright law would still hold. It's the GPL that gives them distribution rights. Without that, they are violating copyright law.
Hippies unite! Have a nice day.
It's been a while since I studied Civil Procedure, but I believe that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright matters, and so small-claims court could not hear such cases, since they are state courts.
IANAL, but we have had to send a handful of cease and desist letters. Our lawyers advised us to send 2 copies of the letter. 1 copy goes by certified mail and the other goes in the regular mail. Get a recept that both were sent, that way if it goes to court you have proof you sent the letter, even if they don't sign for the certified letter.
Finally if you are really worried you can pay a constible to serve them papers. Once they are served, they are responsible for this information even if they throw the papers in the trash without reading them.
To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.
Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
Lets go on and look at another clause.
You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.
And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.
If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.
IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.
But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Letters like a C&D are sent with a timeframe - either they comply or it will go to court as of a certain date (typically a month in Small Claims Court). Basically, that letter (which should be sent with a Return Receipt, etc., is proof that they were made aware of the issue and were given time to resolve it. Without it, the court may just tell you that you have to give them a chance and throw out the case.
I'm no lawyer, but I was trained in Small Claims Court counselling (don't ask).
GL
Except that the brunt of SCO's claim is that Linux, being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO (having bought the System V copyrights, or so they claim; Novell says otherwise), so the copyright and licenses can only be decided upon and enforced by SCO.
For this claim to have any merit, SCO must prove that:
a) IBM or another party they attack willfully contributed SysV code to the Linux codebase, and it is still there.
b) The licences agreed to by IBM or another party gives SCO the right to any derivative works based on SysV code (many people have stated that the JFS code in Linux, upon which one of SCO's claims is based, most likely came from IBM's clean-room OS/2 implementation).
c) The "derivative works" clause would give SCO control over any other program containing the actual derivative code, regardless of other existing copyrights prior to introduction of, and after removal of, said infringing code.
Linux, after all, is not a Unix "derivative", but a Unix work-alike. It looks like Unix, smells like Unix, but is not a direct branch from other Unices (except, possibly, with code from various BSDs contributed over time). Its tool suite is not from Unix, but from the GNU work-alikes. SCO's seriously reaching here.
I see what you're getting at, but there are now issues beyond the SCO-IBM case. SCO is now, possibly, willfully violating the copyrights of other programmers. This now goes beyond SCO-IBM, and SCO's public statements can now be used in other ways in a potentially far more important case for the GPL. To paraphrase someone's Slashdot sig, they've stepped into penguinshit. On purpose.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
> Most states you cannot take a corporation to
... you have to serve papers on
> "small court."
You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.
> If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign
> corporation
> their registered agent in your state....
Which is exactly the same procedure as for a local corporation. That is why such agents are required (if they don't have such an agent they lose all lawsuits by default).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If you look and see their help section, it shows that during the sign up process, they require you to agree to a *new license* (SCO IP license) before you can access the code. That's a GPL violation. And if they claim that the GPL is invalid, then they're still infringing on the copyright.
This is completely unreasonable of SCO. And if you look at it, it's their plan all along. Their goal is to brand linux into their own proprietory unix.
This is incorrect. If you create a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder (of the original), you own the copyright on the derivative. The copyright holder of the original work has no claim to your derivative.
HOWEVER, if you attempt to exercise any of your intellectual rights regarding your (derivative) work (i.e. publication, distribution, etc) every copy you make of your work will be an infringement of the copyright of the copyright holder of the original.
This is well established in international law. This page provides commentary on Xu Liu vs. Price Waterhouse LLP et. al, which illustrates a similar issue. Apart from this there are (several) cases in which the the rights to a motion picture derived from a book were limited (in terms of time) and not renewed: the distribution of the motion picture was found to be infringing, but in no case has the court found that the derivative work (the motion picture) is owned by the book's copyright holder.
The result is that SCO cannot claim ownership of Linux. All it can claim is that Linux is an infringing derivative, and that is therefore has a claim against anyone who has used and/or copied Linux.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
It is strictly a copyright case. If they are using GPLed software in a way that violates the GPL then their rights under the GPL are void and they are guilty of copyright infringement. It says so right in the GPL.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.