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."
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
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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".
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."
Small claims court isn't going to touch copyright issues. For one thing, copyright is a federal law, not a state one, much less county. A county small claims court has no jurisdiction, and there is no such thing as a federal small claims court.
If you actually want to sue SCO you have to do it the right way -- file a lawsuit in your local federal court.
Have fun. Enjoy going broke from lawyers fees. Expect to be fired from your job because you need to be in court so often (if you didn't hire a lawyer). Understand that whatever the ruling is, if it goes to appellate court you cannot represent yourself (at least in criminal cases; not sure about civil). Oh, and proving ownership of the code should be enough fun, since SCO's lawyers are likely to hound you over whether or not you actually wrote it, what sources (books, consultation on IRC, etc.) you used while composing it, and so forth.
For the love of GNU, stay out of this. Do not let SCO drag you or any other OSS advocates into court. Sadly, this may force FSF's hand and cause them to enter into a lawsuit with SCO as representation for all of the developers that contributed to anything SCO is relicensing. I really think this is what SCO wants, although I cannot fathom what they expect to gain from it. Are their lawyers really that certain that the GPL can be broken, and that the judge will rule that the code is actually public domain? (note - this would still allow them to sue over copyright violation, since you cannot place anything into the public domain that is not yours. Of course, this tenant of copyright law is one of the parts that strengthens the GPL, which they're now trying to break.)
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
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....
ascii art
You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.
You most certainly can. Furthermore, IBM/FSF/REDHAT/SAMBA/WHOEVER should not only cease and desist these fuckers, but should as a matter of urgency try and get there assets/stocks frozen on the basis that these will be needed to repay the litigants once they have won.
Fortunately the first inevitable judgement against SCO is likely to lead to a panic sell, which could either trash SCO's financial position or make it impossible for them to repay any fines/compensation imposed.
Some folks will argue "what about shareholders". I would argue "EXACTLY!". There should be a massive penalty against shareholders in SCO who are currently able to sell out but aint.
People who knowingly invest in fraudulent enterprises should be punished as loan sharks and charlitans.
To cut a long story short. SCO should be crashed and its shareholders bankerupted.
Not because its satisfying. But because its moral.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
>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
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