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

Hmm.. question..

[rylin]

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

Re:Hmm.. question..

[harlows_monkeys]

Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?

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.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[idiotnot]

Most states you cannot take a corporation to "small court." If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign corporation (which would take into account all the US kernel developers who do not live in Utah), you have to serve papers on their registered agent in your state, unless you want to sue them in Utah (and why on earth would you want to do that?).

Re:Hmm.. question..

[Waffle Iron]

Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?

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!

Re:Hmm.. question..

[fliplap]

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.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[TWX]

But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[el_gordo101]

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.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[Dashing Leech]

I don't think you can terrorize with vaporware.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[John Hasler]

> Most states you cannot take a corporation to
> "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 ... you have to serve papers on
> 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).

Re:Hmm.. question..

[IWannaBeAnAC]

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?

Re:Hmm.. question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft have managed it for the previous two decades.

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.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[Anonymous Coward]

But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.

No. Disputing the terms of a contract is never copyright law. The relevant point is that SCO couldn't possibly argue that they are complying with the GPL (and have stated as much). This means that the GPL is irrelevant, and so it falls back to plain copyright infringement, not breach of contract.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[MrResistor]

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.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[eatdave13]

Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

Under capitalism man exploits Man. Under communism it's the other way around.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[pyrrhonist]

Drive by missionary work?

Re:Hmm.. question..

[E_elven]

>Moreover, I do not believe that most people buy SCO stocks with the intent to tank the open source community.

Correct. Stock is bought to generate money. Not *one* major player in the stock market cares what the company does -or even if it's doing well. Nowadays you don't buy and sell parts of companies. You trade pieces of paper based on their assumed value. The stock market is the most ingeniously engineered manipulation of mass psyche in the history of the universe.

Re:Hmm.. question..

[WildCode]

I think people are missing the BIGGER picture, its not just the linux kernel, but every single GPL'd application that SCO are distributing under their new licence. you could be looking at a couple of million people. a class action that big if it won could kill SCO.

That's right

[Kierthos]

we'll Slashdot their mail room....

Are they even obligated to legally respond to any C&D letters? IANAL, so I have no idea...

Kierthos

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:That's right

[jchawk]

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.

Re:That's right

[Dr. Evil]

By posting that message, you're a Slashdotter.

Make up your mind about copyrights!

Re:That's right

[Angram]

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).

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.

Re:That's right

[11223]

Dude, if you're going to try to slashdot someone, at least do it right:

This is a big, clickable link to slashdot SCO's servers!

Re:That's right

[Damn_Canuck]

It's not really up in arms over the the copyright violations. The community is more or less now going to follow SCO's lead, should the need arise: you are using our copyrighted information, without our permission, so we sue you. If SCO says that they are not breaking copyright law, then their own case has no merit by their own argument.

Everything can be looked at from several perspectives, no matter what it is. In this case, there are the two obvious ones: SCO is right in their argument, or SCO is wrong. If SCO is right, then they deserve to be sued back via their own stance on the issue. If they are wrong, then they have to drop the lawsuit and everything is done and gone.

Re:That's right

[mr_tommy]

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.

Re:That's right

[Cramer]

There's a big difference here -- even if the law doesn't make any distinction. SCO is taking stuff thousands of people have created for free, calling it theirs and then selling it (for real money.) And they're going even further to say it doesn't belong to those who created it. File swapping of songs is taking something someone was paid to create (and presumablly, at least one person paid money to obtain) and giving it away for free. (It's not as if everyone were downloading from napster, burning the stuff to CDs, and then selling them as their own songs.)

Granted, legally, there's no distinction between the two. Both are copyright violations and theft. Selling something that's free or giving away something that's forsale... doesn't matter.

Re:That's right

[back_pages]

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen!

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.

Re:That's right

[wfberg]

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.

How about send a DMCA notice?

Re:That's right

[cyt0plas]

"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.

Re:That's right

[Omni-Cognate]

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.

Re:That's right

[No One's Zero]

Mirror Here!
Er, is this a bad place to start karma whoring?

Re:That's right

[iso_bars]

Err, are we meant to be able to download from their 'password restricted download site' ?

If you just dont enter a username or password you can get at everything. whats going on there?

Re:That's right

[Kelz]

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.

Re:That's right

[Wastl]

Unconvenient. Try search for "GPL Violation" instead.

Sebastian

Re:That's right

[WCMI92]

Send a DMCA takedown notice to SCO's ISP.

If they distribute GPL'ed code in this way by internet, they are violating the DMCA.

Re:That's right

[tonyray]

Only paying a constible to serve the papers will stand up in court as proof of delivery (been there). In my case, I gave the sheriff's office the papers. They made copies so they could testify as to what they delivered and then delivered the originals. Worked great and wasn't very expensive.

Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution

[corby]

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.

So SCO can distribute code they do not own, and I can download the code I do not own, so long as SCO and I agree to our own made-up license for distributing this IP.

Don't you see where this is headed? SCO is entering the music distribution business!

Under this precendent, they will be able to host MP3s for major-label artists, even though the do not own the IP for the songs. Anyone can download the music, so long as you agree with SCO on the licensing terms!

Long live the Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution!

Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution

[cgenman]

Yes. SCO seems to be under the delusion that assertions made in court are TRUE until proven FALSE. That, for example, if a license is declared invalid the item falling under the license is immediately in the public domain. Or that a company which has allegedly been wronged is entitled to payments during the discovery phase of the trial, rather than after a ruling has been made. Or that claiming copyright infringement is the equivalent of proving copyright infringement.

In the spirit of SCO, I would like to begin the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration! Darl has wronged both me and my family, and owes us his entire estate. How much do I hear for a slightly used 4.2 liter 2002 Jaguar S-Type R?*

*Anyone participating in the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration implicitly agrees that the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration is completely legal and enforceable. All US judges and members of congress are required to take part in the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration. Some restrictions apply, which we will announce at the appropriate time in the future.

Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution

[midav]

That, for example, if a license is declared invalid the item falling under the license is immediately in the public domain.

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

Such audacity

[base_chakra]

It's as if they're actually trying to outdo themselves!

A better idea

[Pingular]

Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO.
A better idea might be to get together a petition, sending it to SCO telling them to stop this. If they fail to comply, the petition could be used as evidence in court against SCO, strengthing the cause of the open source community.

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:A better idea

[dougmc]

A better idea might be to get together a petition, sending it to SCO telling them to stop this.

All a petition does is show that lots of people care about something -- either they want something, don't want something else, etc.

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.

Re:A better idea

[SeaEye420]

Petitions are the last resort of the helpless attempting to achieve the impossible through the rediculous.

I don't think that Grey Davis would agree with you.

Re:A non-issue

[Tenareth]

Wrong, the GPL defines the rights. One right it does not give is the ability to restrict rights.

Grrrr...

[GaspodeTheWonderDog]

Just more corporate games... if only the strategy made any sense... as far as I can tell though, big business rarely makes any sense.

Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything? Unless somebody comes up with the money to back it up... I can't imagine it doing any good.

They'll just keep doing as they please and leave a tangled mess in the courts.

Re:Grrrr...

[bluGill]

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.

Time to enforce the GPL?

[l2718]

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?

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.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[acroyear]

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.

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.

Now, we all know *THAT* claim is also laughable, but that's the first claim and the actual court case itself, and if that's disproven, the GPL gets no legal test because its irrelevant to that particular issue. It all hinges on the case against IBM and whether or not Linux is decided to be a Unix System V derivative.

If SCO owns Linux, as they claim, they can assert their copyrights and the GPL simply doesn't exist on Linux anymore. Fortunately, the BSD case already set a precident that simple code copying of small modules, violating copyright/licenses or not, doesn't make for ownership of the whole project.

If SCO doesn't own Linux, then the GPL case can get tested, but only in countersuit. SCO's refuting of the GPL is at this point FUD and publicity. When SCO loses the IBM case, and Linux is proven to remain totally the property of Linus, then IBM or the FSF can countersue the GPL violations. But they won't bother, because after that loss, SCO will lose so much stock value the Canopy group (the *real* culpricks here) will sell it all off and run for the hills. There won't be anybody left worth sueing, or any money to be gained from it.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Rich0]

Nah - they just want to kill linux altogether.

If the GPL dies, then so does the FSF-ideology. Sure, you can have the BSD license, but any time a BSD project achieves execllence we'll just see a proprietary vendor take the software, add three features, and start selling it. If they become established they start messing with the code to break compatibility with the free project, and the free project dies.

This is the standard MS embrace-and-extend technique. Only the GPL has shown immunity to it.

Under standard copyright law linux would just die - many linux developers would not be willing to devote hundreds of hours of their time to a project that will just end up being a code donation to a proprietary vendor.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Platinum Dragon]

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.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Platinum Dragon]

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.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[arkanes]

Just to be clear, SCO hasn't asserted, except in press releases, any ownership over Linux whatsoever. Theres no courtcase whatsoever. The scope of thier actual, legal claims in the IBM case are for more restrained (although still laughable, imo) than thier statements to the press.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[acroyear]

True enough, but who's got the money to do it?

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[bill_mcgonigle]

IANAL, of course. This is Slashdot, we all play lawyers here.

Can't we just get a checkbox on our preferences page that says "I'm a lawyer". Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Twylite]

If SCO owns Linux, as they claim, they can assert their copyrights and the GPL simply doesn't exist on Linux anymore

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.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Eudial]

;; Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

You forgot the lasers...

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?

[Suppafly]

Can't we just get a checkbox on our preferences page that says "I'm a lawyer". Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

If they implemented that, I think I'd seriously consider becoming a lawyer just for the cool points on slashdot.

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?

[tuffy]

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

Only the morons. There's nothing to test. If the GPL isn't an applicable license, code licensed under it can't be redistributed in any fashion without some new license. But since the copyright holder gets to determine the license, there's little reason the GPL shouldn't be a valid one.

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:Isnt' this a good thing?

[GoofyBoy]

>If the GPL isn't an applicable license, code licensed under it can't be redistributed in any fashion without some new license.

Thats the sort of questions that need to be answered.

If I release code that says "You may use it if you give me your first born." and then that is found illegal/unenforcable, do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license? (Not enforcable so others can legally ignore it.)

Re:Isnt' this a good thing?

[lynx_user_abroad]

If I release code that says "You may use it if you give me your first born." and then that is found illegal/unenforcable, do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license?

If the contract said in effect "You may (cash my Adoption Fee check) if you give me your first born." and it was ruled unenforcable for me to demand your first born. I don't believe you would stll be entitled to cash my check anyway. I'd be even more surprised if your inability to deliver the goods stood as grounds for you to cash the check anyway.

SCO's behavior seems to be that of an organization which either fails to understand the terms of the GPL license it has agreed to (and fails to understand the necessity of understanding now) or that of an organization which is trying hard to maintain the facade that it does not (or cannot) understand the terms of the license. Maybe they honestly misunderstood what they thought they were getting when they signed-onto the GPL and don't want to admit that in court for fear of the dereliction-of-duty backlash from the investors. Or perhaps they really are hoping to cash in on a strategy of "Your Honor, the GPL couldn't possibly mean what it actually says, so lets just presume the thousands of contributors actually meant to dump their contributions into the public domain instead."

Re:Isnt' this a good thing?

[WNight]

A contract that is invalid for any reason isn't binding. Because you need a binding contract to allow you to copy a copyrighted work, if the contract wasn't valid you'd be right back at the start, with you having a copyrighted work and someone wanting it. They wouldn't get it free because of this, any more than you'd get a car for free because the dealership misspelled your name on the contract.

Re:A non-issue

[Trick]

No, it wouldn't. The GPL gives them the right to distribute code, provided they follow the conditions of the license. Without the GPL, they'd have no right to distribute it at all.

You can't take away a right SCO didn't have to begin with.

Come on...

[MoeMoe]

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?

From SCO's eyes

[tekiegreg]

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?)

Re:From SCO's eyes

[aug24]

However, they are violating the rights of *all* kernel contributors and they only allege infringement by IBM's kernel developers.

Hence there are an awful lot of innocent people out there with whom SCO are breaking their licence terms. Got get 'em!

Justin.

Ask for compensations then...

[xPertCodert]

I think that every developer ever contributed to GNU/Linux should not send cease-and-desist letters, but ask for monetary compensation and enforce his own copyright . Let's see, how SCO will be able to cope with that

Ahh

[UrgleHoth]

My SCO drama fix for the day.
Thank you!

Understand..

[adeyadey]

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..

Re:Understand..

[Planesdragon]

If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim[s], thene the code reverts back to being the copyright of the indivdual contributers...

Only if the GPL is totally voided--which would make the re-compilation of Linux impracticable. (Annoying word, that--sure, it COULD be done, but it's not practical...)

If SCO wins their "Copyleft is non-constitutional" argument, then they'll probably argue that the GPL is a warranty-free release into the Public Domain, or at least similar to the BSD license.

Re:Understand..

[adeyadey]

But of course that makes no sense. eg. I am a programmer, I release my code under a set of conditions called GPL. If GPL holds water, then you may only redistribute under the terms of the GPL. If the GPL doesnt hold water, then I keep copyright. At what stage did I state that my code is in the public domain? Its like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.."

Re:Understand..

[briaman]

No, The BSD licence is a copyleft licence in the same way the the GPL is. If copyleft licences are unconstitutional, and I can't see any way that they are, then the BSD and every other copyleft licence is similarly unconstitutional and thus voided. IANAL, but even in such circumstances, the court does not have authority to set aside the authors ownership of the copyright to the original work. Those who had already received the work would probably have reasonable grounds for continuing their ownership and use of the work as they received it in good faith and with the presumed consent of the author, but they would have no right to redistribute the work as that right derived from the GPL (or BSD etc). A mighty hole would have been kicked into the side of the copyright system as any licence would be liable to challenge using the GPL revocation as a precedent. Microsoft and many other software houses would suffer serious problems as they face the loss of redistribution rights over the BSD portions of code in their products. Ultimatelty, the Free Software movement will continue as the FSF and other organisations establish explicit contract procedures where you sign up to membership of a society and receive access to source-code and documentation in return. There's a little good in every situation. All we have to do is find it.

Re:Understand..

[WNight]

Only in very few cases does invalidating part of a contract not invalidate the whole thing, and usually only when that one clause was somehow slipped past one of the parties. As the saying goes, it's the courts' job to make sure you get a fair deal, not to make sure you get a good deal. If you sell you house for $1, when clearly compotent to make such a deal, then it stands. If you buy a TV and part of the warranty contract on page 20 says that I own your house, and I specifically told you that the contract didn't say anything of the sort, it wouldn't be binding, even if you didn't read it. Courts are also a little more strict with contracts for necessities, ruling that if I buy a car and get a bad deal it's too bad, but if I'm afraid to buy food or shelter because of the contracts, that's not acceptable.

(The courts are really starting to find that contracts that both parties didn't expect to be read aren't binding - giving the average Joe a twenty-page, densely worded contract with sneaky lawyer tricks in it, just isn't going to convince the judge that you were in agreement, another key point for the contract, because there's no way the average Joe could be expected to find and understand some hidden clause.)

Further, even when a contract is voided, if the consideration (what you or I get) for one party is somehow invalid (illegal, whatever) the whole contract is pretty much voided. The court isn't going to rule that just because it turns out I couldn't give you my house, that you still had to pay me $250K for it.

To summarize, the GPL is fairly clear, there are plaintext summaries to get you to read the appropriate parts, not for a necessity, and clear that it does not override existing copyrights, etc. Because of this, it's very unlikely that any part of it would be found invalid. But, even if it was, the whole consideration for the original author is that their code remains public even in derivative form, if the courts removed this they'd void the whole thing and you'd be back at regular copyright.

Re:Understand..

[midav]

If copyleft licences are unconstitutional, and I can't see any way that they are.

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.

Re:Understand..

[Planesdragon]

The BSD licence is a copyleft licence in the same way the the GPL is.

Last time I checked, BSD allowed for the creation of derivitive works and non-attributed sale of said works.

It's quite different from the GPL; if it wasn't, Windows wouldn't have its TCP/IP stack and OS X wouldn't even exist.

Re:Understand..

[midav]

David, you are missing the point.

To clarify it, I'll recite Bruce Perens: Federal law "establishes the right to license copyrights in return for some compensation, which is what the GPL does," Perens said."The only difference between our licenses and those used by everyone else is that they ask for cash; we ask for some rights regarding derived works."

This is what exactly the SCO's point, you can ask for anything but the "rights regarding derived works", because these rights are already established by U.S.C. 17. To take your examples in this context In fact, copyright explicitly says that the copies must be authorized by the copyright owner.. If I were arguing for SCO, I would say that they (FSF) can control authorization of copying their work, but not in a way that alter our rights to use derivative work to the fullest extent granted us by U.S.C. 17.

Now, excuse me, I have to go and wash my mouth :)

Re:Understand..

[midav]

But nothing in the GPL does alter anyone's rights under USC 17 to use the work.

I am not talking about use of the work. I am talking about control of the rights on the derived work. And, technically, requirement to release it under specific license, may be construed as alteration.

And asking for limited rights over derivated works in return for allowing such derivated works to be made is a fairly standard setup. It happens all the time, although I'm not privy to any specific example.

I would consider AT&T UNIX License, so precious to SCO, as one of those examples, since it limits use of derived components to the use only within the derived work. Which by SCO's logic also should make it unconstitutional.

What SCO is saying possibly applies to EULAs that restrict things like reinstalling on a different computer

This is exactly what SCO is NOT talking about. SCO is not arguing validity of GPL for distributing/using original work, only the part that governs distribution of derivative works, e.g. they do not try invalidate BSD-like licenses because they do not exhert any control over derived works.

Rubbish.

[ledow]

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.

Re:Get over it

[Curtman]

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.

Ramifications

[Shadow2097]

If they invalidate the GPL in this manner and get away with it, won't they just have the effect of providing legel precedent for throwing out ALL software licenses and EULAs? Surely this move has got to be one of the STRANGEST moves yet by SCO.

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

Re:Ramifications

[AntiOrganic]

For some reason, I can't picture them being that worried about SCO UnixWare getting pirated.

Conspiracy Theory

[TexVex]

I would like to once again put forth the theory that SCO is in fact on the side of open source -- that what is really going on is, they are just working a win-win-win deal where they make a little bank while getting the GPL upheld in a court of law as they go out of business with a bang!

The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions...

[Rahga]

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.

Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions...

[abe ferlman]

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.

Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions...

[greenegg77]

The SCO Group (SCOX) announced today that it will begin selling unauthorized copies of Microsoft's (MSFT) MSDN CD's. "We believe that the license that Microsoft distributes their software under is unenforceable and void," said SCO CEO Daryl McBride. "As an added incentive, we will also begin selling Milli Vanilli CD's since they weren't worth licensing in the first place."

I must congratulate SCO.

[pecosdave]

I didn't know it was possible to invent a better kick me sign.

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.

death by 1000 cuts

[Ffakr]

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.

Re:death by 1000 cuts

[Zathrus]

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.)

SCO Was in total violation anyway

[JamesSharman]

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.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

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.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

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.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

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.

Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway

[Twylite]

I'm going to be somewhat of a Devil's Advocate here. The problem with the GPL is the same as the problem with any shrink-wrap license: there is a combination of the private law of contract and the property law of copyright at work.

Consider the following simple license: "This software is Copyright. All Rights Reserved. You may receive and use a single copy of this software is you have paid the author $20. You agree to waive your fair use rights."

What does that mean, legally? Copyright law gives the holder certain rights, and gives the user of a legitimate copy certain rights. Now the holder has attempted to use his rights in conjunction with (a presumed) demand for the product and the law of contract to remove the statutory rights of the user.

So the user takes a screenshot of a menu from the program for a review in his blog. Now what? Arguably the user has not infringed on the copyright because fair use is a statutory defense against infringement. But the user has broken the contract. The effect of breaking the contract is (typically) to invalidate it and make the breaker liable for damages. Only the breaking of the contract, in this case, also terminates the right afforded to the user to use the legitimate copy. So by keeping the screenshot in the blog, the user is infringing copyright, because fair use only applies if you have a legitimate copy. Nasty.

More subtly, this contract also contradicts the doctrine of first sale. It requires payment directly to the author, and in the case of infringement the "onwership" of the copy is revoked, and cannot be transferred.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Another author releases his work into the public domain, but only distributes it to his web site, where he has a click-wrap license agreement: "This work is in the public domain and you may download and use one copy, but you may not copy it, distribute or publish it, or modify it in any way". No use of copyright at all, just the law of contract. Would this contract be considered legally valid? If so, is there a point in copyright at all?

When Microsoft claims their license locks an operating system to a particular hardware system, we object and say the license is invalid. But many of the same arguments hold against the GPL because ultimately the GPL, like a commercial EULA, is a combination of contractual and copyright law, and is largely untested ground.

Class action lawsuit.

[MongooseCN]

IANAL but how about every coder who has contributed to Linux, get together and file a class action lawsuit against SCO? SCO's current move violates everyones contribution to Linux. I think a lawsuit that combines as many FOSS developers as possible is the only way the GPL will get the financial backing to fight SCO.

Someone should put up a website that will coordinate this effort. Someone, or some group, should get a lawyer and discuss the problem. I would start something but I know nothing about law.

Awesome!

[Captain Rotundo]

I remember the simpler days. Back when falmes wars would be fought over the defendability of the GPL in court. Its was interresting conversation then but all speculation. Now we finally may have a chance to see it.

I say good! Let SCO violate the GPL blatently, and let it go to court. Lets put it all on the line and see once and for all what the courts say about the GPL. Of course I believe the GPL is rock solid and will prevail, but even if it doesn't we'll have it settled and know what has to change.

Imagine the insanity if all the code has to be re-licensed! - things like this point to everything that is wrong with our so-called "intellectual property" system. Sane people using common sense can clearly see the intent of the GPL, and if not it can be discussed easily. But we can't do it that way, why? because the world is filled with assholes and degenerates that will do every thing they can to lie and cheat and get away with it.

Too bad the legal system isn't as simple as common sense, then the authors of the code could go to a judge and say "any child with half a brain can see our intent, and that SCO is violating that intent" :) - of course the whole reason for the GPL wouldn't exist if it weren't for proprietary software makers exercising the 'rules' in a much harsher way.

12 percent of SCO's stock is short already.

[Wakko Warner]

People are catching on.

- A.P.

Indemnification

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

Has SCO made an offer to indemnify all the users or redistributors of their illegal license?

Unixware Free Download

[idlethought]

I'm planning to set up a ftp site where you can freely download source and binaries of SCO's Unixware and other products.

It's all perfectly legal: You can only download if you agree to an additional license that allows you access to my proprietary IP that comprises part of the SCO products.

I can't tell you what that IP is, because I haven't looked. But I'm a pretty clever guy and there is bound to be something I've thought of in there- or at the very least something that I would have thought of had I bothered to think about it.

-- Learning from SCO one Crime at a Time.

Class-Action lawsuit

[buckinm]

Couldn't someone start a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who has any code in the Linux kernel? Seems like it might be a good way to pool resources, especially if there is a lawyer out there who might take the case on a get-paid-if-you-win basis...

This latest action adds nothing new

[gvc]

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.

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:A non-issue

[DHam]

You misunderstand copyright. You do not violate copyright for writing down something that someone else has already written down. You violate copyright when you copy their work. In fact, being able to show that you never had access to the other company's source code would be a pretty good way of showing that you hadn't violated copyright.

This aspect of copyright law (and the fact that copyright law only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves) is the reason that clean room implementations are legally possible.

Incidentially, this is all OT to what SCO is reported to have done. They are just copying source code in breach of copyright which has nothing to do with the situation you raise.

So send a C&D Anyways...

[Anonymous Coward]

When they ask you to show what part of Linux you contributed, say "you first". :)

DMCA Takedown request, anyone?

[lynx_user_abroad]

Wouldn't it be possible to send their upstream provider a DMCA takedown request, alleging illegal distribution of copyrighted works?

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. ;-)

Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone?

[lynx_user_abroad]

SCO would simply reply in kind, forcing the takedown of every U.S. site for downloading Linux...

Ah, but you have to spoecify exactly which files you believe infringe your copyrights, something SCO is completely unwilling to do.

SCO would not succeed requesting a takedown of rh90.iso but if they go after lance.c in anyone's distro, we at least know where to look.

Besides, at least one of SCO's position is that these Linux files belong in the public domain, so anyone should have the opportunity to publish at will. Now I wouldn't put it past them to shoot one of their own arguments in the foot with a braindead act like asking IBM to takedown their Linux files, but I think trying to have a DMCA takedown issued for every mirror of every kernel file is too much work for them; it's just not their style. SCO is playing a strategy based on only having to win one battle, and only having to fight in the court room (their home turf). Personally, I think the real world frightens them.

what are the more restrictive terms?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm not an a SCO customer, and am unlikely to ever be one, so I can't register my product. Does anybody have a text copy of this new IP license?

Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance

[l0ungeb0y]

At this rate, IBM's legal team wont have the day in court they are so looking forward to...
Seems they will be taken down by a horde of Joe-Blo developers and rightfully so.

IANAL, but the ones I have talked to about sending nasty grams (cease and desist et al) have stated that the offending party can be billed for that "service".
Consider the math, if even 1,000 contributors (remember, this isn't just the kernal, but all "bundled" services as well) send cease and desist and then have their lawyers invoice SCO: figure US $500.00 x 1,000 = 500,000.00
And that's just for cease and desist letters (cheap ones at that).
Not too hard to imagine a picture of a slashdot effect in the courtroom as this does seem to qualify for a class action on behalf of all US developers, not sure about international developers abroad however. And if such a class action was granted, SCO would be killed prior IBM's legal skirmish as a class action could be argued to take precedence as they have harmed individual persons in a gross and egregarious manner.

Overall, I am not surprised by this latest tactic. DarlCo seems to crib it's notes off ShrubCo in it's motive of Preemptive strikes.

ShrubCo: No proof/discloser on Iraqi WMD's, state they want a war, start a war still without the proof/disclosure to justify it's actions.
DarlCo: No proof/disclosure on Source Code infringements, states the GPL is moot/void state that all source code under the GPL within the last 3 years should be Public Domain, they preempt and relicense the "public domain" source code.

DarlCo unfortunately doesn't have the sway or the power to cover it's ass. They aren't the largest military unit in the world and do not enjoy certain protections. This act right now is THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN
They just woke up a force more powerful than IBM, the open source community. Which if organized against a common menace is a force much larger than any corporate entity in the world. That's why MS is scared of Gnu/Linux, not the market share but mind share.

Alas poor Darl, we hardly knew ye.

Will Linus Sue?

[Ridgelift]

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?

What's wrong with SCO?

[deanj]

What's wrong with SCO? Do they think Linux is an MP3 file or something??

SCO's Legal Strategy

[MattTC]

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.

actually...

[thoolihan]

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

*N*E*W*S*F*L*A*S*H*

[JaJ_D]

Mircosoft HQ Redmond

A press spokesman for microsoft declared that Microsoft 7 year undisputed record, and title of "Biggest Pisstakers of The Year" had finnaly gone.

"We just could compete with the SCO Board" He was heard to say "Their tactics have been unbelievable! There are a lot of people, here at Microsoft, who are very unhappy - with alrights we should have thought of this"

His comments were into SCO latest tactic in the We-are-on-a-loser-but-our-share-options-are-rising -so-we-can-bail plan. The reason Microssoft is unhappy is becuase of SCO's tactic of getting developers to do all the work for them, with out paying, and the altering the licensing so apparently claiming the work as there own. Intersting in any other case this would be simply called "theft".

As the Microsoft spokesman summed up the anger and frustration many people at Microsoft feel, "why could we think of that - it was shear brilliance! Think of all the money we could save. Heads will role because of this"

Also today the Microsoft announced their latest offering. "In the world of computing", the spokesman said "there is a need for reliable, effective, cheap, stable, secure computing. It has to be said that our latest offering have fell a little way short. So it our pleasure to announce the release of 'Mircosoft Lin++'. It is a fully compatible Linux operating system, that only costs $129 per user licence".

More details of MS Lin++ to follow shortly"



Jaj

With tongue firmly in his cheek

What's the Samba team say to this, I wonder?

[Zocalo]

I wonder what stance the Samba team is going to take on this? They (quite rightly, IMHO) stood by and let SCO bundle the Samba package with SCO Unix because they were doing so without breaking the GPL, only bending it. Now that, they are applying further restrictions to the license and are in clear breach of the GPL they could tell SCO to stick it without the slightest stain on the conciences that let SCO continue to distribute Samba in the first place.

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.

Follow up

[poptones]

it would appear "the community" has already taken care of the take-down part.

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html

The following error was encountered:

* Read Timeout

The system returned:

[No Error]

A Timeout occurred while waiting to read data from the network. The network or server may be down or congested. Please retry your request.

I say we sue them for one MILLION dollars!

[Perlguy]

What? Oh.

One HUNDRED... BILLION dollars!

Time for devs outside the US to call their lawyers

[Yaztromo]

AFAIK, SCO is only challenging the GPL within the US court system. Regardless of the outcome, the US doesn't dictate license validity to the rest of the world -- only their own country.

And so far as I am aware, many (although certainly not all...) kernel and other core Linux developers live outside the US.

I think it's time for these developers to rise up and smack SCO within their own countries. If SCO is redistributing their work outside the confines of the license the copyright holders provide it under, SCO is in violation. And if developers in enough countries where SCO does business file lawsuits, SCO's going to have to hire a massive army of lawyers to deal with all of them, hitting SCO's coffers.

I know that if SCO were to start redistributing any of my GPL'd code under another license without my prior permission, I'd be hauling them into Canadian court to answer for their actions.

Yaz.

Class Action Suit Time?

[handmedowns]

Wouldn't this warrant all of the linux developers to now come together and file a class action suit against SCO for violating their copyright? Or does this indeed have to be done by the FSF and FSF alone since the copyright is turned over to them? In either case isn't it one more suit that we can hit SCO with?

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait..

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

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.

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.... ....don't kill them yet, we need them alive so that we can torture them later!

Re:No GPL Violation

[narfbot]

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.

GPL Licence is NULL ?

[cozman69]

It's interesting that the GPL licence is currently powerless to protect Linux against SCO hijacking the source code and doing whatever it wants with it. Considering that was the very reason the GPL was written, right now it's turning out to be a complete failure.

And it's also interesting that the BSD licenced OS's don't care about code hijack, and yet have the least problems with it.

Is it time to think about getting the GPL tested in the courts ? What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version ?

Is Linux dying as opposed to *BSD ?

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.

Hmm, can I sue SCO now?

[linuxbikr]

Just finished a quick bit of research and found a couple of interesting things...

1) I can download Caldera OpenLinux ISO images from here.
2) The SCO "register to access downloads" feature is a bunch of crap. Wander on over to Caldera's FTP site and download the source RPMs at will, the legal notice notwithstanding.

So, what happens if I install OpenLinux 3.1.1 workstation on my box at home (it is free and I have a spare machine I'm not using) and SCO closes the Caldera website down? If I go to SCO and say I need the sources, they ask "Are you a Caldera customer, I say, 'No, I am using a free downloaded version of OpenLinux 3.1.1' and they reply "You need to buy a SCO Linux License.", I think I have the grounds at that point to sue them for violation of the GPL's terms of distribution since they cannot deny me the sources on a product they distributed just because I didn't buy it.

Also, here is a fun page on SCO's own website OpenLinux Supplemental Open Source Software. Hmm, does IBM need some more ammunition provided by SCO themselves?

Bozo

[ratboy666]

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

WTF?

[t0ny]

I dont even use Linux, and SCO is really pissing me off.

Re:Furthermore

[N3WBI3]

Actually if someone wanted to drive to Utah they could press SCO to small claims in that state (actually they could press for their own home but that would require a lawyer and thus make it not worth the effort).

Think about it if every time a contract went bad and it had to go the the lowest level of courts the geographically includes both the federal courts would be far too busy.. When working on a projectin NY with a company in MI a dispute came up and it was handled in NY becuase that is where the contract was taking place..

SCO, MSOFT, RIAA, GOOGLE = copyright war

[argoff]

The copyright war is almost here. Amazingly there are so many parallels to our last civil war. The way the plantation system could no longer controll the labor force and so after desperately regulating slaves (to the point they wernt even allowed to read) failed, then they tried to micro regulate the northern states who had no intention of placing the industrial revolution on hold for the sake of the plantation system. It wasn't long before they broke off into seperate camps and all hell broke loose. Today we see this with SCO and open source tech industries, xcept for this time there is no north and southern boundaries - it will be more like anarchy, and also because the government is so beholden to the media, I am not sure we can rely on them to be on our side this time either, perhaps the courts will take one side - the congress the other. First the battles will play themselves out thru the system, then it will likely play out onto the streets as those who try to impose copyrights try to terrorize, fear monger, buy off, and brow beat those who resist into submission. I could really envision a mafia and gang like enforcement units, and armed independents trying to protect their industries and way of life batteling it out with each other. I know it seems crazy, but when there are trillions and trillions of dollars at stake, crazy things will happen.

DMCA?

[uucpbrain]

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!

Re:I can't see they break the GPL

[fishbowl]

>Where does it state in the GPL that you can't
>restrict downloads?

If you reject the GPL and do not negotiate some other agreement, under copyright law you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to distribute the code.

Class Action Lawsuit?

[bobbv]

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.

The REAL fun, now it's non-USA, too

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Unconstitutional? hahahah

[fishbowl]

>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.

Re:Hmm.. answer.

[ubiquitin]

Really? Microsoft has done this for years.

They're still doing so. Longhorn anyone?

FSF

[gr8_phk]

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.

Re:The DMCA as your friend?

[John Hasler]

> No, I think it suggests that you do so, but it
> does not require it.

The GPL suggests no such thing. Read it:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
^L
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute
the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written

Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway (followup)

[Twylite]

Further to my last post ...

The ALA has some comments on mass-market licenses. In general a negotiated contract is enforcable over Copyright law, while a non-negotiated one ... well, that depends on the court, from time to time.

So riddle me this: a fBSD kernel coder sees a cute trick in the Linux kernel and, with minor modifications, uses it. Infringement or not?

Is it fair use?

• It is small, probably factual (despite its precise expression), so it probably meets the requirements for fair use.
• The GPL is non-negotiated, and thus fair use may be a defense against infringement.

Ouch. Strictly a violation of the GPL, but legally acceptable? How far does this go?

Re:SCO might be good guys masquarading!

[fishbowl]

I don't know what anyone thinks a "court test of the GPL" means, exactly, but the only thing to be found about it is the question of whether it is legal for a given party to license a given work under each clause, and then whether it is legal for a given second party to distribute a given work under each clause.

The "test" that everyone wants has already been done a thousand times. Attorneys who are licensed to practice law have read the GPL, and have found nothing specifically illegal about it.

Read it yourself, it is quite clear. Ask yourself at each and every clause, "is it legal in my State for me to make this agreement?"

Saying the GPL has not withstood the legal test is like saying that my mortgage contract has not stood the legal test. Just because I haven't sued my lender, doesn't mean the contract I signed is no good. Even if there is an illegal clause or two in that contract, doesn't mean I'm going to lose my house, or that I'm going to get it free. And it sure as hell wouldn't mean that the State can come and bulldoze it without compensating either me or the bank.

That's what SCO is proposing. Because they have an idea that there is a clause in the GPL that does not apply to SCO or IBM, that they can make the property rights of arbitrary other parties go away. They have only suggested that was possible, but they have not made any sort of argument that would even reach the ear of a judge, much less be decided on.

I think the popularity of the whole SCO versus IBM thing caught SCO by surprise. I don't think they understood that the noise they made would create an international contraversy. They probably thought it would be settled under the radar of the public eye, that the FUD they created would somehow derail the free software movement which they no doubt perceive as fragile and easily derailed. I think someone may have miscalculated significantly, and now a combination of cognitive dissonance (we've risked our future on this, we MUST prevail), risks associated with estoppel (we cannot change our story even if we know we're wrong), and wishful thinking (if we keep up the negative publicity against linux and gcc, people will stop using it and start looking to us for alternatives) has shaped their strategy.

GPL isn't really powerless, proprietary checkable

[dwheeler]

I don't think you're seeing the full picture. All licenses are "powerless", but only in the same sense that all laws are powerless. There are laws against other kinds of stealing and of murder, but clearly many kinds of stealing and murder happen all the time. The power of law, and of licenses, is that if you break the law/license and get caught, there's a strong (deterrent) risk of being punished.

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.

right on, brother

[rodentia]

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.

The story seems pretty light on details.

[An Onerous Coward]

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. :)

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait..

[mpe]

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.

Look at Their Strategy

[spiritraveller]

Standing back with mouth agape, wondering how they could be so dumb is not a recipe for success. We would better serve ourselves by determining what SCO's strategy really is when it does things like this.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it their position that they now own all software that has ever derived from UNIX (pursuant to the original UNIX license)? They have at times implied that even the BSDs are not immune.

AT&T made this "derivative software license" claim with BSD a long time ago, but they lost because they had violated the BSD license themselves (by stripping the copyright notices of BSD contributors). SCO has said that BSD might not have complied with that court order. Sounds like FUD to me, but it does reveal their hand a bit.

Of course, their argument regarding Linux (which seems doomed to fail) will be that because Linux at some point in time had some of their code in it, they own it under their license as a derivative work, free of the GPL. It's the same argument that AT&T made 20 years ago.

The SCO code that existed in Linux (which at least SGI has admitted to inserting) was a copyright violation only until SCO distributed that same code under the GPL. As soon as SCO distributed that same code under the GPL, it gave everyone the right to use that code under the GPL.

SCO's distribution of its own code under the GPL was not intentional... but it doesn't have to be because copyright law creates strict liability.

Will they argue that they should not be deemed to have relicensed their code under GPL unknowingly... Will they at the same time argue that everyone who used that code is strictly liable and shouldn't be allowed to rely on the fact that SCO had distributed the code under the GPL? That is arguing for a double standard under the same statute: strict liability for them, fault liability for me.

Their argument doesn't hold water, and hopefully the court will see that.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the future of Linux, and the future of SCO now depend on what a judge says. SCO is betting the company on a legal strategy. They were going down the tubes anyway, so why not bet it all on a long shot?

Lets see if we can get an answer from someone...

[coldnight]

I used to work CSR/Helpdesk. I know how to behave on the phone even when I have to jelly elephant [1] something.

So, just for grins, I thought I'd call SCO. I asked what was going on and if they could explain how they were now stealing code while sueing others over the theft of thier code.

I got hung up on. No suprise. But, maybe someone else will have better luck.

Product and Sales Inquiries
1-800-726-8649

I own a copy of Caldera linux 2.2 and they give this number for help: 1-800-850-7779

Also, 1-800-go-linux ( oh the irony! ) I don't know if this last one is still active.

I'm going to call them and ask what my standing is and what an 'upgrade' would cost. Mostly for grins. Okay, all for grins - no way I'm going to give them a penny.

The MySQL AB case

[Un pobre guey]

Apparently, GPL has been tested in court. You really have to wonder about SCO's legal counsel.

MySQL AB even wrote a thank you letter to the FSF.

Score one for the DMCA

[Greg Lindahl]

Why not send a DMCA takedown to their ISP?

We need to carbomb these fuckers

[gelfling]

They have got completely out of control. This is like giving legitimacy to the Mafia. Someone really needs to pack the truck with exploding material and drive it the fuck through their front door.

SCO realy doesn't know what its done

[budgenator]

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!

Class-action? Group petitions? WTF?

[JGski]

Class-action suits?
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!
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 :-( 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.

JGski

Who has standing?

[blackbear]

While IANL, I just got off the phone with mine for an unrelated reason, but the SCO question came up. The question is, who is being infringed? Did the contributers to the kernel give up their copyright in favor of Linus's (i.e. Linus (or his legal entity) now owns all kerl code for Linux) or does the Linux kernel have many different owners, all of whom have agreed to distribute thier code under the same license.

If it's the former, then only Linus (or his legal entity) can send SCO a C&D letter. If not then SCO is looking at a lot of potential law suits. But that also means very bad things for companies that use Linux because they would not have a sngle point of negotiation. Also, there are a lot of GPL'd packages that are typically distributed with Linux. Each of those owners is likely being infringed as well.

Anyway, this is an interesting problem. If you do want to sue SCO (in the US) or serve them for some reason you must find thier registered agent. Many national companies maintain one in each state. I was unsuccessfull, after speaking with the VA SCC, in finding one in my home state of VA.

Just another delaying tatic...

[CrazyFool]

Your honor.. we need more time to dump our stocks ... um... respond to IBM's allegations because we have to respond to so many copyright infringement lawsuits.

Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy?

[Bowie J. Poag]

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? ...20?"

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? :)

This affects the *ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION*

[0x0d0a]

I would like to note that this does *not* merely affect the kernel, as the earlier poster (inadvertently) claimed. This affects the entire GNU/Linux distribution, including FSF-owned libraries such as glibc (thereby invoking the we-go-after-people-who-steal-software-we-own policy of the FSF...FWIW with IBM already in the game). As I am a contributor to a number of software packages that are commonly distributed with Linux, I would be interested if anyone could post/link to a list of their software packages. I believe that SCO may be infringing on my own copyrights.

But have SCO accepted the license?

[Per Abrahamsen]

I'm sure they will deny that. They are simply redistributing some code they claim is in the public domain.

Since there is no way any sane court will accept their claim the GNU/Linux is in the public domain, and they haven't accepted the license, they are simply making a copyright violation.

By their own estomate, GNU/Linux is worth at least US$ 699 (that's their price, right?), per seat. So as a copyright holder, you should sue them for that amount for every copy of Linux ever distributed by SCO, including those downloaded from ftp. This is what RIAA does, with success.