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."

Comments

Isnt' this a good thing?

[moehoward]

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?

Re:Isnt' this a good thing?

[sphealey]

Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?

Why is this a bad thing?

In the long run, the SCO suit is a very good thing for Linux and the GPL. The weakest possible opponent filed the weakest possible challenge under the most disadvantageous circumstances with overt support from Microsoft. Assuming a victory of some sort for IBM, RedHat, and the GPL (looks likely but of course not certain) solid case law will be laid down on the most advantageous terms for Linux.

In the short term though Linux will have to endure a little pain and FUD, but that's OK: "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger [unless it leaves me a cripped wreck!]"

sPh

Re:A better idea

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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.

Re:That's right

[dougmc]

Are they even obligated to legally respond to any C&D letters?

No, nobody is. But cease and desist letters are usually sent with an understanding (at least they attempt to foster the understanding) that if they are ignored, further legal action will be taken, such as a suit. Sending a C&D letter is cheap, but if all you want to do is scare somebody into stopping, they're often effective.

They don't do much to SCO, however. Somebody will have to actually sue.

As always, I am not a lawyer.

Re:Makes sense

[Talthane]

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.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Platinum Dragon]

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.

We need some changes

[mao che minh]

In between the absurdity and jokes, we have forgotten how serious and profound this whole fiasco is. It's pretty sad when a collection of companies can't defeat a community-developed operating system, so they must resort to dramtic and exotic legal tactics. All of those billions of dollars, all of those employees, and they can't beat an operating system that is largely developed by volunteers.

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".

Re:That's right

[dspeyer]

I won't claim there's no hypocrisy in the replies to this articles (or any article), but this particular point makes sense. SCO, unlike 'music pirates' is actually trying to steal Linux. They are trying to make it so that they own it and the authors don't. They want exclusive power of disribution.

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.

Not even similar

[DingoBueno]

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.

No. When I listen to music, I just listen to it. I do not take it, repackage it, perform and sell it as my own, claiming to be the artist. On top of that, I do not send a letter to the artist demanding a licensing fee for their continued use of their work. I also do not claim I developed music theory, and that everyone else who uses it is commiting ip fraud.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[sg_oneill]

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.