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."
So far this was between IBM and SCO. However, now the major copyright holders for the GNU/Linux system can assert themselves.
In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?
Assuming that their actions of late (starting with the IBM lawsuit) have been directed under the advice of their team of lawyers, who the heck gave the approval for this? Even IF they somehow invalidate the GPL, are their lawyers so short-sighted that they can't see this coming back to haunt not just SCO, but the entire commercial software industry?
-Shadow
Is that right now, their actions are in violation of the GPL, and while they can claim that they believe the GPL is unenforcable and void, that does not mean it is until the courts say so.
Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.
The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.
Small claims court? If each and every music track put on a publicly accessible share is worth tens of thousands of dollars in fines, think of how much you could get from somebody who is illegally distributing a complete server operating system. With the number of source files involved, you could stand to make $Millions!
I don't think someone representing the Free Software Foundation would have any problem convincing anyone that at least some of the files in their distro are (c) by the FSF.
Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the (improper, from their point of view anyway) copyright attributions and continue distributing. ;-)
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
But this isn't soley a copyright case. This is a simple contract/license dispute. You, as a kernel developer, gave SCO a license to distribute your work, they aren't living up to thier end of the bargain.
the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.
Since Linus Torvalds is the trademark holder for the name Linux, does this mean Linus will sue SCO?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
This makes perfect sense for SCO to do. Their whole claim stands on the GPL being invalid. If you're betting the farm on the case, why would they care if they are held liable for violating the GPL? If it stands up there won't be an SCO left to sue.
SCO is throwing a hail mary. I'm not suprised they are sending as many receivers as possible. (Note I said this makes sense, I didn't use the word ethical or correct)
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Obligitory IANAL, blah, blah, but shouldn't it be possible to form a class-action suit against SCOX on behaf of all of the contributing devlopers? Just a thought.
TODO: Insert witty sig
Or the other way around? SCO versus a lawyer funded on the cheap by a single developer (once they win the first case, the precedent lets them get through the other N-1 pretty quickly), or SCO versus a bunch of lawyers funded by a pool?
It is NOT illegal to make a copy of a sound recording in the US and Canada (no, I don't know about other jurisdictions).
It is illegal to mass duplicate music - and I agree with that.
The Copying rights for Linux are CLEARLY labeled, and every user is CLEARLY informed of them. It is illegal to not supply this information.
The Copying rights for CDs aren't particularly clearly stated. It takes a bit of digging to actually figure them out.
Sound recordings occupy a special place in Copyright law. Computer source programs are NOT the same thing at all.
Now, all of this has been hashed to death, but the thing that makes you a Bozo is:
The RIAA does NOT hold sound recording copyrights. The RIAA is simply a cartel representing its members.
Linux is not even a cartel. It is simply a trademark. There is NO cartel; copyright is held and defended by the individual authors, or, in some cases, has been assigned to the FSF.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
There's all this talk about slashdotting their mailroom and taking them to small claims court. Hello? This situation is exactly what class action lawsuits are for. Someone needs to hire a lawyer and set up a class action lawsuit about breach of license. RMS seems like the logical person, since he's the one who started the whole thing and has been the strongest defender of the strong interpretation of the License. Then everyone who contributed--everyone who ever checked in (or even checked out)--code into something that SCO is overly restricting can join it.
So far the SCO mess could have been considered a "domestic squabble" between US-based corporations. There was a little noise in Europe and Australia over threats and such, but that died down fairly rapidly, and could have bogged down in the 'definition of thread' issue.
But this is different. Now SCO is violating copyright law, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Obviously they're testing the GPL, and thinking about US law. But now they have to worry about the status of the GPL under other nations, as well.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I will gladly make a large FSF donation if Linus will get off his fucking ass and have FSF represent him in this case. I'd appreciate if other developers would join him, and if other /.ers would contribute with dollars. If you've been wondering when "that time" would come, it's here now.
Mostly because there are two schools of interpretation of IP in the US. One, which equates IP with ordinary property, allows you to form a contract with any parties on any conditions the standard contract law would find legal. Incidentally, GPL implicitly relies on this interpretation when builds upon U.S.C. 17.
The other school distinguishes IP from P and sees U.S.C. 17 as artificial construct carefully crafted by State to strike the balance between IP creators and IP consumers. If you look at the IP from this angle, then GPL may be considered illegal (at least in the US) because it alters this balance. Hence, the SCO's argument that it is illegal and must be pre-empted.
There are precedents that decided both ways of interpretation, which makes SCO's case less laughable, then any one of us would want it.
Whether GPLed works fall into public domain or not is a separate question. AFAIK, SCO's argument why they should, is because distributing works under illegal license, you barred yourself from the copyright law protection as a matter of equity.
The most ironic part of the whole thing, is that, in general, most people on /. (including myself) consider IP != P, which weakens their pro-GPL case and corporate IP creators, including SCO, in general, argue that P == IP, which makes their anti-GPL case weaker.
Since both sides try to have a pie and eat it too, I expect the trial to be more interesting then MS' anti-trust case.
From that perspective, it's clear that SCO is not "getting away" with their actions. Instead, they're being sued by two organizations.
This case is becoming exactly what you asked for - a possible situation where the GPL is tested in the courts. It may not come to that; SCO could quickly back off on those points when it's trial time. But to get the GPL tested in the courts, you need someone willing to blatantly violate the license and continue to do so while in a trial. That's not happened before; violations are usually unintentional, and nobody's ever been willing to stay in court to fight the GPL. I think most lawyers have decided that it'd be far too risky to play that game, and their clients have some product or service that can make them money. SCO has nothing to lose.
By the way, you ask "What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version?" There have been persistent rumors that some major proprietary vendors (including Microsoft) are using GPL'ed code illegally in their proprietary code. However, they're just that, rumors, and it is not fair to allege that someone has committed a crime when there's no evidence that they've done so. Indeed, I think Microsoft takes copyright quite seriously and I would expect them to take many steps to prevent violating any licenses.
Currently it's difficult to detect stolen GPL code in proprietary programs. But in theory it's quite possible to compare proprietary machine code (possibly decompiled) with GPL'd source code. If anyone suspects that GPLed code has been wrongfully included in proprietary code, and the binary is available, feel free to create and use tools to do such checking.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Why not send a DMCA takedown to their ISP?
Group petitions?
WTF?
Doesn't anyone learn anything from watching the news about Afghanistan or Iraq??? Why do think we're getting our butts kicked? Why is Ramadan now synonymous with Tet? Stabbing with a million little knives is always far deadlier and more effective than with a single large knife! Did Saddam plan it this way? Hell, yes! This precisely what the war-naysayers in the Pentagon was worried about.
J-H-C! Do the fixed and variable cost of engagement calculation. Learn something about Lanchester equations already! Why did Rumsfeld say "we're at a disadvantage... our cost structure is $1Bs and the resistance is $1Ms"? It's the fundamental weakness of centralized power against distributed power. It's a mathematical inevitability. It's why you don't jump into a guerilla war with a conventional force, unless you're an idiot or a shrub. Why do you really think open source kicks butt on proprietary source?
The most effective way to combat SCO's blatant copyright violation and rights theft is precisely to file a million separate C&D letters, followed by a million separate lawsuits, each for maybe only several $1K-100K each. To make this easy the EFF, open source lawyer, et al., should post a D&C template kit and a copyright lawsuit template kit (GPLed of course!) that can be taken to a local lawyer for a perfunctory blessing and establishment of legal figurehead.
Now, the overhead of addressing each and every suit (as SCO is required by law) is probably enough to burn out all their new venture money by itself and then some. To make it extra difficult and expensive, allocate the filings over every federal court district. Hey, lawyers do this calculation all the time!
But just case that isn't enough, follow through to step two. Next the EFF becomes a clearinghouse for a marketing and pr campaign against SCO based on all these D&Cs and suits. The campaign should focus on institutional investors, first and the general media. Add up the damages and publicize the enormous financial risk facing SCO and pretty soon even the most strident SCO supporters will be demanding they backdown or will be pulling their investments.
And then there's steps 3 and 4, but I won't go into those...
Sigh! :-( The square-law multiplier and economies of scale (aka technology and financial resources) are neutralized and much more, by a distributed, asymmetric engagement. That also is a mathematical inevitability. That's how we lost Vietnam and how we'll probably lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we can finally learn something good from it.
Group petitions?! Class-action?! Psshaww! This is war, unfortunately. You want to make yourselves an easy target for neutralization? Class-action has a single-point failure! Just like Lanchester's Convention-vs-Convention engagement you have a square-law force multiplier: double the legal clout and they get 4x better results. The only group action should be massively independent distributed action, just like open source development itself! Also like DDOS
JGski