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."
Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?
Not that I know smack about law or anything
Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?
Why is this a bad thing?
Fine. Take them to court. Seems pretty simple at this point. Both sides want the same thing. A legal test of the GPL. Shouldn't we be celebrating?
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
We already knew the SCO were up to no good. They are just re-affirming what we already know. SCO seems to want revenge for a crime that hasn't been commited... How long do you think it will be until Linus files for a class action suit?
The only true question I must ask considering that the SCO knew the consequences is... why?
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
Speaking from SCO's eyes, the Linux developers violated SCO's user agreements. So it's essentially a retaliatory move I take it. However, even in a court of law 2 wrongs don't make a right. I can only hope for a speedy resolution to this whole mess so even SCO could go back to doing something normal and productive, instead of shooting themselves in the foot all the damn time (do they even have any foot left?)
...in bed
If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim, then the code reverts back to being the copyright of the individual contributers, who can then sue them for breach. Either way they are stuffed..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
I've heard that their legal basis for this is that they don't believe the GPL to be enforceable. I don't think that parts of some EULA's are enforcable (especially those "you must agree before you open, but you're agreeing to what's inside" type), so can I go distributing that software as and when I like under my own license?
I don't believe Microsoft XP's EULA is enforceable in Europe, so I'm gonna GPL it and stick it on the internet? Can't see a judge agreeing with this.
When they have a written statement from a court of law saying that the GPL is unenforcable and the copyright of all GPL'd work is null and void, then maybe they could try this.
No, a proper C&D, drawn up and sent by a real live lawyer (or as alive as undead bloodsuckers can get) on behalf of someone who owns the copyright on th ecode that SCO is distributing is the way to go.
Petitions are the last resort of the helpless attempting to achieve the impossible through the rediculous.
They don't do much to SCO, however. Somebody will have to actually sue.
As always, I am not a lawyer.
So many of you Slashdotters think that committing copyright violations against RIAA is just fine, but as soon as someone does it to Linux, you're all up in arms.
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen!
And since SCO is now not abiding by that contract, by releasing GPL'd code under their own license, they can be sued for breach of contract. I'm not sure what someone could actually pull for monetary damages, but it would be the show of support for OSS that such suits would bring. SCO might even be balked into small, out-of-court settlements to save time.
Basically, this is the same thing that happens anytime someone uses a proprietary license. It's not really a copyright so much as it is a contract -- it says Person A will only do X and not Y with software P. SCO is doing Y with software P, and this leaves them in breach.
I suggest Legal Engine as a good resource for how to file small claims in Utah.
IAALS.
Ermmm a 1,000 name petition (for example) being ignored is not any more powerful in court as evidence than SCO ignoring 1,000 C&D notices. Even though I'm not a legal type (am I an illegal type then?) this seems pretty obvious.
That doesn't matter, because much of the code is not theirs (they haven't claimed ownership of everything). Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.
It's my right to refuse to take the offer on your terms, if I don't like them or think they're wrong; however, it's not within my rights at all to substitute my own terms for your product instead.
This doesn't of course apply to their own stuff, which they can sell under whatever licence they choose; however, in changing the licence for someone else's code (e.g. Samba) they are breaking every rule in the book.
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
They're effective against people seeking re-election, or companies who actually sell a product (to the masses.) SCO knows that what they're doing is very unpopular, and so telling them that what they're doing is unpopular isn't going to have any effect on them.
I think the idea of individual developers taking SCO to small claims court is actually a really good idea.
Small claims verdicts are usually not all that tough to win. You go in, show you own the code, show the judge the GPL that was attached to the code. Of course SCO won't/can't send out a lawer for every regional small claims court session so they pretty much default.
You get a 1000 developers winning $1,500 a pop against SCO and it starts to hurt the bottom line.
Not to mention an ever growing list of losses against the corporation.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
IANAL, of course. This is Slashdot, we all play lawyers here.
The FSF and the kernel hackers could have a field day with SCO right now. This, along with the aborted attempt to sell binary run-time licences that restrict rights in a similar fashion, may be exactly the mistakes the GNU/Linux copyright owners have been waiting for.
I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher. For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for. It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Has SCO made an offer to indemnify all the users or redistributors of their illegal license?
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
In spite of the fury in Groklaw and here, I don't see that SCO's actions constitute anything new. They have distributed and continue to distribute Linux. And they have claimed and continue to claim that they are entitled to additional licencing restrictions/revenues on this code.
As of this summer, they have claimed an additional encumbrance on Linux; that it contains their IP and that users have to pay them additional money. GPL is very clear that they can't distribute the software and also enforce these additional restrictions.
The fact that they are restricting their ftp downloads is moot. They continue to distribute code that they claim is not free and clear, and this distribution is not in accordance with the rights granted to it by the copyright holders.
In their response to IBM's complaint, SCO did not even attempt to claim that they were in compliance with the terms of the copyright holders. Instead their defense was to claim that those terms were invalid.
SCO has essentially stipulated that they operate outside GPL; this newest action seems insignificant to me.
What's really sad is that they are allowed to get away with it. In Germany, SCO has already been prevented from spreading lies and making baseless allegations in public. I enjoy and respect the liberty that is "freedom of speech", but I wouldn't categorize what SCO, Microsoft, and Sun are doing as merely "freely speaking".
IBM for one has the money to back it, and it might be in their interests to help someone sending on.
If you have contributed code to the kernel, and can easially prove it is your own personal creation, a lawyer who knows copyright law may be willing to take this case for a share of the winnings.
Of course you have to go through some steps. A C&D letter for the first part shouldn't cost more than about $75 (If I remember lawyer fees correctly), if that is ignored you then have to register the copyright (easy to do) before you can sue. You can in most cases get them to stop infringing, and lawyer fees. (But ask a lawyer)
If anyone is concerned about this happening to code they are developing for some other project consider registering the copyright formally once in a while, by registering before a violation occures you get tripple damages when you sue.
I'm not sure that a C&D letter is required prior to suing someone, if you have an airtight case (pre-registered copyright) you can bring them to court, but since this is expensive you normally don't want to explore cheaper options. Remember too that in court you can lose for no obvious reason (jurys are not a good way to decide cases, but everything else is too easially corruptable). Thus most people suing prefer to settle out of court if they can.
I am not a lawyer, if you are considering taking any action you should consult a lawyer trained in copyright law.
Although willfully violating the GPL/copyright law seems like an insane thing to do, it actually isn't.
Lets assume that SCO is convinced there actually is proprietary code in the Linux kernel. Therefore, by inviting suits to be brought against them, they are bringing the targets for countersuits out into the light.
They proably hope that there will be a class action, and can countersue the whole class for using their proprietary code.
It's an interesting, if machiavellian legal strategy.
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
By posting that message, you're a Slashdotter.
Make up your mind about copyrights!
Sure, but isn't this SCO's goal?
Quite frankly, this may not be SCO's goal. Some people have asserted, without evidence but with some inferences, that SCO may already be violating the GPL. By having the licence declared invalid before anyone gets a chance to look at their code (if ever), any discoveries would be legally cleared in a similar way to how the code SCO showed at their stockholders meeting was found to be clean--it was released at a previous point in the past under a GPL-compatible licence. Alternatively, those who think Microsoft is behind the whole thing believe that M$ may be attempting to destroy the GPL, and thus have the right to either raid Linux code, or wipe out a potential competitor without having to get their own hands dirty. Since M$ is working on its own, new CLI for embedded systems and GUI-less systems, eliminating a potential competitor that already does these things would make market penetration very easy, since I suspect many relatively recent Linux converts would go running back into Bill's arms before moving on to the *BSDs. Comfort syndrome and all.
They could care less about selling their own version of Linux, they just want to get paid for the components of Linux they're asserting ownership of.
No, they want to get paid for all of Linux, regardless of how much they may actually own. If they really cared about clearing copyright infringements and getting properly paid, they could have been far more open and cooperative about what particular code is infringing. Instead, they're trying to hold IBM up for big money over code that many people have demonstrated SCO never touched, and may not be able to touch depending on the exact content and scope of various SysV licencing agreements.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
If they just wanted to enjoy it, or pass it around on kazaa, we wouldn't object. That's why we gave them permission to do that.
But they're trying to tell us that we can't do that, simply on the authority that they bluff well and have a lot of lawyers (actually, that they bluff mediocerly, and have some lawyers). They're more like the RIAA, only with no grounds for their actions.
Hopefully they'll overstep so far that even PHB's will laugh at them, and then IBM will swat them like a bug, and the SEC will through the ringleaders in jail for securities fraud. It really could happen.
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
Its about perspective. I imagine that if Linus T was making a few billion each year, some of you lot might just be up in arms.
Equally, your argument is somewhat flawed; the whole point of this SCO hoo har is too decide WHO has the copyrights to apsects of the linux OS - wether code was stolen which was SCO code, which by implication would give SCO ownership of parts of Linux.
I'm sure the remaining users of SCO Unix are going to love how their plans to integrate their systems with Windows are going to have to be shelved until SCO can write their own (like that's ever going to happen). SCO strategy update:
- Piss off IBM
- Get counter-sued by IBM
- Piss off OSS community
- Get sued by RedHat, SuSE...
- Violate GPL
- Get sued by EFF
- Piss off SCO customers
- Lose significant chunk of customer base
- ???
- Profit^H^H^H^H^H^H Devastating loss & jail time (oops!)
I wonder if Jack Valenti or Hilary Rosen have doing some moon lighting they didn't tell us about.UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
True enough, but who's got the money to do it?
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
What an embarrassment to moderately smart people everywhere. The GPL specifically SUPPORTS the copying and distribution of Linux. SCO is trying to usurp the RIGHTS to the body of work, whereas music downloaders are merely copying it for themselves.
Offtopic or Totally Stupid was the right moderation for this comment.
Of course, the standard disclaimer IANAL applies, but this whole new mess that SCO has stirred up seems to have a purpose. A nefarious purpose, but a purpose none the less.
....don't kill them yet, we need them alive so that we can torture them later!
The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling. They are not interested in really getting ANYTHING settled. I'm sure that Daryl is sitting in Utah right now, laughing while these headline come out. Their position as MS shill (licensing to MS and some bulls*%#t cross licensing of MS communication protocols under the settlement agreement to make it look as if MS is really sharing) and their disregard for the future viability of Linux (SCO not interested if it survives or not) has already been documented. They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.
SCO's only purpose is to somehow stay in business and continue to dump these types of infuriating legal turd tidbits for the community to find. This serves as the legal equivilent to "..hey, look over there!..." While they trumpet to the entire world that "we're still alive, so we must be winning our case" That's a tactic used by MS in court too....
Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.
They are doing this because they don't want you to notice how weak their hand is, and to drag everyone else into the mud also....don't fall for it, we'll pull SCO's body apart piece by piece in due time....
Wort Wort Wort!
ascii art
"Find specific instances of people who are ok with violations of the RIAA's copyright but not with violations of Linux's copyright and then you will have something to say."
I'll bite. I have little problems with violations of copyright infringement against the RIAA, and have problem with SCO vs. Linux.
Why? A couple of reasons. For one thing, I consider SCO and the RIAA to be evil (or at the very least bad). I have a hard time rooting for the bad guy, whether they are "right" or not. Secondly, few would dispute that the RIAA does in fact have the rights (rightly, or wrongly) to the music they sell. For better or worse, they own them. SCO is trying to take the rights away from everybody else.
Finally, I believe "piracy" (like everything else) has positive and negative aspects. There are a number of pieces of software that I own, that I used before I owned it. A number of my associates have purchased software solely on my recommendation. I personally don't buy audio (and didn't even before napster/kazaa), but I suspect in many cases it's similar.
As for the RIAA being evil, I'm not so much convinced by how they treat their "customers" - They are a company, and the primary job of a company is to make money. I'm primarily upset by their hypocracy, and their poor treatment of their artists, the very source of their income.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Douchebag.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Though, I despise what SCO is doing, please, RTFDocs, before making statements like this.
Their reasoning why GPLed works should fall into public domain is not that it happens implicitly. What they say is that because GPL violated U.S.C. 17 you can not claim protection under it as a matter of equity. Look up AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES section here
Forgive me for such an evil thought, but it occurs to me that it might be possible to demand that SCO's upstream provider shut them down for illegally distributing copyrighted software. Wouldn't that be the most ironic thing in the world?
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No, they are illegally making copies. If you have copyright on some information, and I make an illegal copy, you still have copyright on the information. Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns. The victim may suffer financial losses further down the line, but this is the loss of a hypothetical (money which might have been made later if...), not of actual property.
What SCO are trying to do is to take away the right to control distribution. The only strategy that makes sense if they are trying to have the GPL declared invalid is to try and get GPL'd code placed in the public domain (if they do not acheive this second part, they are guilty of copyright infringement). In this case, they are actually trying to take away the copyright, not make a copy of the software. There is a much stronger case for calling this theft, morally if not legally, than what music pirates do.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.
It's actually worse, because the price you pay for free software is so much more reasonable than the monopoly rents (not to mention restrictive licensing!) Microsoft is charging. No sharecropping for me thanks.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
>Has ANYBODY heard SCO's explanation of how the
>GPL is "unconstitutional"? Do they even have ane
>explanation?
They haven't given one, apparently.
Lots of people comment on how the GPL has "never been tested in court."
My lease agreement with my landlady hasn't been tested in court either, but unless there is something in every clause that is plainly illegal, it's a safe bet that the contract will prevail.
As distribution licenses go, the GPL is as simple as it gets. You can go through it line by line, and at every clause, ask "is it legal for two parties to enter into this agreement?"
The answer will be "yes." The only question in this case will be whether the agreement is valid between the two parties at suit (SCO, and IBM).
It may be a result of this lawsuit that one or both of those parties is found to be unable to agree to the GPL due to some other constraints. (For instance, I could sign a contract that said I will not distribute GPL software, and that would be binding.)
Now, SCO realizes that if it came to this, SCO would not get very many offers of an alternative license agreement, whereas IBM probably would.
But if there's anything *unconstitutional* about the GPL, in any of its clauses or as a whole, what's really frightening about that is the same finding would certainly invalidate many other licenses. I'd expect EVERY software license to have a problem, and it's hard to see how it wouldn't translate to "copyright law is unconstitutional."
The bottom line of the GPL is that it is an expression of an author's rights under copyright law. The question is, do I, an author, have the right to enter into this agreement, or do I not?
If not, there must be reasons. The circular argument won't cut it. The reasons have to be specific. "Because it's the GPL and the GPL is not valid" will never be the precedent. In Mcarthyist philosophy, the socialist colour of the license might be accepted as grounds for prejudice, but that isn't going to drive a contemporary judicial decision, not even in Utah.
So, clause by clause, we need reasons why any part of the agreement is illegal, in the State of Utah, in the US, or in any other jurisdiction. If you can find anything in the GPL that constitutes a breach of law, that parties are breaking the law merely by entering into it, the finding should be construed to apply to every other agreement sharing the same characteristics. A judge may not simply "ban the GPL." That would show clear prejudice and would be a blatant disregard for equal protection of the law.
There was some noise about "releasing GPL'd copyrights into the public domain" also.
If you want to get into "unconstitutional" territory, we need to start with the right of an individual not to be deprived of property without due process of law.
A settlement in a lawsuit between two parties unrelated to me, does not constitute process on the question of my property rights. That is simply not something that the judge has the authority to consider. The motion to release copyrights into the public domain would have to be filed against each and every individual work, and each and every author would be entitled to due process.
Some of them would be in a position to put up an even bigger fight than IBM, since the question would be even clearer.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
They've gone beyond the simple, day-to-day corporate malfeasance and arrogance. A simple boycott of their crappy products doesn't help because their only clients are those already locked into their platform. FSF needs to open a website taking donations strictly for the fight they *must* pick with these bastards.
If software libre means anything, the FSF *must* file a suit. Show me where to contribute. Moglen, et. al. just got job security for the next four years.
illegitimii non ingravare
CO is trying to usurp the RIGHTS to the body of work, whereas music downloaders are merely copying it for themselves
For the mentally impaired, that's like saying to the RIAA that I made the music, not the artists.
Invalidating the GPL isn't enough. It is just the tool by which the programmers are granting others to use their work, it is not the copyright itself, so invalidating the GPL still leaves the copyright with the owners. They need to somehow convince the judge to transfer all of those copyrights to them. I can't imagine any judge allowing such theft, and an appeals court would probably overturn any judge who does.
The Register says that, in order to download the kernel source, you have to agree to some sort of license agreement that "supports their IP claims." But I didn't really see anything on the SCO link.
:)
Does anyone have a copy of this agreement, and have they successfully downloaded a copy of the kernel source under said agreement? If so, we're eager for details.
I wouldn't put it past SCO to do something like this, but neither would I put it past The Register to exaggerate the situation to get click-throughs.
Dammit, now SCO's website is down.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling.
I'm not sure of the logic here. They can't easily fight that many lawsuits at the same time. How many judgements against them would their stock price survive?
They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.
What's so bad about wanting to them to the sharks.
Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.
How does the IBM case affect the industrial scale copyright infringment they are now enguaged in? If anything waiting would weaken any copyright infringement actions, because they could use a "you knew on 31st October 2003, but did nothing until now" kind of defence.
We use SCO at work and they are pissing me off too.
In all honesty I told the boss, SCO is sueing IBM, IBM will crush SCO and pave them over. Now we are replacing our SCO aplication server with a WinXP and a new application, we are a dental office and a vertical market for software. This used to be SCO's bread and butter, multi-user apps in dental/medical/vetrinary offices, restarants that sort of thing; now all gone these people are leary of Linux and now petrified of SCO leaving them without OS support again. I think all these types of markets will go to a microsoft based application, as their hardware gets obsolete.
If Microsoft isn't behind this, they should have been, SCO wins Microsoft wins, SCO loses, Microsoft wins!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If i'm not mistaken, a good way to harm a company is to short their stock en masse. Basically, you're betting that the company's stock price will drop, versus go up value.
10,000 pissed off penguins shorting SCOX at the same time on the same day might send an interesting message to the market.
Regardless, if I were a kernel developer, i'd be mighty pissed right now. Between lacing up my boots and thinking of the right orifice to plant them in, i'd do a little bit of thinking... You know, along the lines of, "How many more companies need to rip me off before you finally get up and do something about it? 2? 3?
For those who are still a little on-the-fence, I have just one question. If you're not going to do anything about it, can I have some of your money too?
Bowie J. Poag
The IBM suit involves allegations that IBM infringed SCO's trade secrets. That allegation has nothing to do with SCO infringing the GPL. What you're saying is akin to:
The two issues are totally unrelated. They should be dealt with separately.
Besides, if a kernel developer sues them. SCO will be subject to discovery under the theory that SCO is violating the GPL as part of a propaganda campaign to pay for their new Microsoft licenses. SCO will be forced to turn over all kinds of embarrassing material.