Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the this-just-gets-more-interesting dept.

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."

23 of 1,043 comments (clear)

  1. That's right by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    1. Re:That's right by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:That's right by jchawk · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:That's right by dspeyer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --

      Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right

  2. Time to enforce the GPL? by l2718 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      The FSF and the kernel hackers could have a field day with SCO right now. This, along with the aborted attempt to sell binary run-time licences that restrict rights in a similar fashion, may be exactly the mistakes the GNU/Linux copyright owners have been waiting for.

      I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher. For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for. It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    2. Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Isnt' this a good thing? by moehoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Why is this a bad thing?

    Fine. Take them to court. Seems pretty simple at this point. Both sides want the same thing. A legal test of the GPL. Shouldn't we be celebrating?

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

  4. Re:Get over it by Curtman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:A better idea by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Rahga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Makes sense by Talthane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That doesn't matter, because much of the code is not theirs (they haven't claimed ownership of everything). Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.

    It's my right to refuse to take the offer on your terms, if I don't like them or think they're wrong; however, it's not within my rights at all to substitute my own terms for your product instead.

    This doesn't of course apply to their own stuff, which they can sell under whatever licence they choose; however, in changing the licence for someone else's code (e.g. Samba) they are breaking every rule in the book.

    --
    "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
  8. SCO Was in total violation anyway by JamesSharman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Hmm.. question.. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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!

  10. We need some changes by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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".

  11. DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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. ;-)

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  12. Re:Hmm.. question.. by TWX · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  13. Will Linus Sue? by Ridgelift · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

    Since Linus Torvalds is the trademark holder for the name Linux, does this mean Linus will sue SCO?

    --
    Ruby on Rails Screencast
  14. Re:Hmm.. question.. by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    > 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).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  15. Not even similar by DingoBueno · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    ascii art
  16. Class Action Lawsuit? by bobbv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:Hmm.. question.. by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.

    You most certainly can. Furthermore, IBM/FSF/REDHAT/SAMBA/WHOEVER should not only cease and desist these fuckers, but should as a matter of urgency try and get there assets/stocks frozen on the basis that these will be needed to repay the litigants once they have won.

    Fortunately the first inevitable judgement against SCO is likely to lead to a panic sell, which could either trash SCO's financial position or make it impossible for them to repay any fines/compensation imposed.

    Some folks will argue "what about shareholders". I would argue "EXACTLY!". There should be a massive penalty against shareholders in SCO who are currently able to sell out but aint.

    People who knowingly invest in fraudulent enterprises should be punished as loan sharks and charlitans.

    To cut a long story short. SCO should be crashed and its shareholders bankerupted.

    Not because its satisfying. But because its moral.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.