Slashdot Mirror
McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights
dtfinch writes "An open letter was posted today by Darl McBride, where he restates his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, patent laws, copyright laws, and the DMCA. Mostly he just builds up a false image of the Free Software Foundation and open source supporters claiming that they have no respect for intellectual property and believe copyrights should be eliminated, then attacks that image, AKA the straw man attack. Nothing we haven't seen before."
Nothing we haven't seen before.
Yet it qualifies as news here. No wonder McBride keeps running his mouth (:
Ok, then just copy paste links to every other slashdot discussion that's been had on this subject to date.
Unless there's something new to say, that is.
In summary:
SCO is smoking crack
Their case has no merit
yada yada yada
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
WHY post about it? I mean, come on. We're going to hear nothing but bullshit from SCO until they go under, why even bother listening? The only possibly important part will be the court hearings and we have awhile before those.
Everyone, breathe in, breathe out. Chill. Just chill.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
from the article:
"The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union."
This makes it seem as though software writers are being persecuted by having their code forcibly ripped from their hands and given away for free. What new (or revivalist?) idiocy is this? They left out the whole part where the creator chooses to release it under the GPL or not.
Esoteric reference.
I'm not even remotely nervous about this case anymore. Paraphrasing his argument: intellectual property laws are critical to business (agreed), open-source advocates disagree with a lot of intellectual property laws (irrelevant generalization), and the fact that they share information under their own terms should be illegal. That last point is patently ridiculous. OSS people can share or not share their own work under whatever terms they like. They cannot share SCO's work without SCO's permission, but that's fine because nobody wants SCO's work anyway.
Technology leadership? In 1986?! During the height of the Japanese bubble? This guy cracks me up! You're such a card, McBride.
--AC
In speaking of the DMCA
"...without protection, American companies would unfairly lose technology advantages to companies in other countries through piracy, as had happened in the 1970's.
This statement offers no explanation, whatsoever.
It's a little clever, actually. The DMCA is opposed by many who also support the GPL, the common ground being that both groups tend to be deeply concerned by the proper application of intellectual property rights. The DMCA is also opposed by scofflaw copyright infringers, those being the people it was nominally designed to fight. Therefore, people who support the GPL are copyright infringers and scofflaws.
It's not a tactic that works against people who habitually apply logical analysis to what they read, but that isn't the majority of people, is it? (If it were, many a war would never have taken place.)
Check his journal for details.
(Credit where it's due.)
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Darl is saying that all rights for non profit are disabled.
More like he's saying that a code author has no right to restrict their work in such a way that it can be distributed anywhere and modified freely by anyone within the terms of the licence provided by the original author. In Darl's view, copyright law is concerned with restricting works from being distributed without compensation, not with ensuring that authors are allowed to control distribution of their work as they see fit. He can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that many people have chosen to use their rights, as authors, under copyright law, to choose a set of restrictions that promotes copying and changing of their code, as long as anyone else can do the same. He only understands copyright in terms of sales and exclusivity.
Short version: in Darl's world, you can choose to restrict your works, but you can't choose to restrict your works into openness. Everything must be proprietary and closed, everyone must view each other as competitors to be fought instead of companions to collaborate with.
This seems to be the only logical way, outside of the obvious "pump 'n dump scheme" guess, to explain Darl's view of FOSS.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The biggest assumption this letter makes is that the FSF forces this GPL requirement on everyone who writes software, completely ignoring the fact that the person who writes the code decides to use the GPL. Mr. McBride creates the scenario where the FSF controls the copyright law like a vicious dictator, forcing all software to the GPL (by possibly firebombing "proprietary clinics"), creating anarchy. I guess this makes sense then:
"There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance."
I feel like I should pop into my X-wing or something and blow up Stallman's house.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
The jokes are so thin now, that they get a -2 redundant instead of +5 funny and McBride's stupidity seems to quanitify an order of magnitude each week.
Reading the letter made one thing perfectly clear though.
McBride like many executives these days seems only interested in the constitutionality of the copyright and patent rather than freedom of speech. ergo, the citizen should have no right to dictate how their creative works can be copied, modified and reused and that only the copyright office can do as such.
Such a perversion of the terms of the constitution I have never seen, well until 1998... but this line of thinking keeps getting more pronounced each and every year.
Maybe it's time we stopped pointing and laughing at SCO and looked at the bigger picture. McBride is but one of thousands of execs who wish to lay the smack down upon personal freedoms in order to kill competition and lockout the individual from the marketplace.
The recent move by the RIAA to secure anti-trust law exemption is based upon the very views expressed today by McBride: That the indivuals rights should be trampled by the government in the name of corporate self interest.
Just a jack handy moment...
GPL licensing isn't really giving up copyright protection. You've always been able to do that, just by placing something in the public domain. The GPL is just a fairly unusual license that deals with copyright.
It's kind of funny -- Darl claiming that he's fighting for copyright and justice and that the global economy depends on this case...and yet, the GPL works within the bounds of copyright, and most users of it are pretty happy, and the GPL's popularity has increased exponentially for years. SCO's own licensing schemes have crumbled in upon themselves, have on numberous times made bogus legal claims and tried to bend the law (such as refusing to disclose what code violated IBM's license to IBM after a judge ordered disclosure).
As for protecting technological advancement -- Darl, Linux is far more technologically advanced than SCO Unix. Furthermore, it's used in far more products, and facilitates research in a huge number of labs every day.
Darl's claims are so ludicrous that they start to enter the "so ridiculous that it's hard to get people to believe that he's really that far from the truth" zone.
May we never see th
It's amazing how McBride can continuously attack the GPL and open source. Yet in the back of my mind all I can think is, "Caldera Linux... Caldera Linux..." If McBride is so against the GPL, then why did he agree to take the CEO position of a company with it's foundations built upon everything he attacks? Quote:"However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents." Funny how he forgets that for a good couple of those 20 years, the company he now leads was a part of the Open Source software movement he despises. "Yes your honor, we would like to sue IBM for being more sucessful with open source than we were. We hate it because we lost all our money in it." Back in beginning months these stories really made me angry, now it's my weekly /. humor!
Mcbride may be playing loosely with the term, but still he made aver rediculous statement that i would like to point out:
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
If any real scince was carried out that way, we would still be in the dark ages. Real science is developed through scientific journals. Open publication of their discoveries and progress. How far would we be if lived in a society where Mathematicians had to pay roalities for using other peoples theroms in their proofs?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Copyrights (although terms are now excessive) but it is SCO who is assaulting them by trying to steal the work of thousands of developers, not the other way around.
Check with Groklaw.net... I think that they only have to defend their reluctance to provide IBM with the materials that they have asked for, or defend their "motion to avoid discovery and compel IBM to give them money"....
I don't believe that tommorrow means the close of items which they could possibly bring to trial... The issue is that, IBM has twice demanded information, they have claimed that IBM needs to give them some too (so they're bad too..).
Most interesting is Darl's statement that "this nonsense will continue for 18 more months...we've got a schedule with MS to keep..."
THAT'S INTERESTING!!!!...he's finally put a schedule behind how long they are going to keep this up.
I don't get it. How can the GPL be unconstitutional ? It's not a law, it's just a license -- a private contract between two parties. The Constitution simply doesn't apply. Now, SCO can claim that the GPL is unenforceable, but that's a different story altogether. What next ? Reading is declared unconstitutinal because it can potentially detract from the market of audio books ?
>|<*:=
honestly, he doesn't care if anyone on this site believes him or not (unless his mom is reading that is...)
2 1337 4 u!
So if SCO is so against GPL software why don't they stop using it in their product. And hyping it as core parts of their products. i.e., Samba.
I guess I'm confused why if they are so against it they don't pull all of the GPL'd software from their products to show their resolve.
Oh. Wait. Could it be because ALL their software was written by other people?
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
(As a diclaimer, IANAL, but I have read Eldred and I am familiar with public policy issues on copyright.)
Straw man is the correct term for this letter, as the entire case McBride makes is on a complete misunderstanding of both the GPL and Eldred.
First of all, his use of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution illustrates absolutely nothing. There is nothing in the GPL that precludes or infringes upon this statute in the least. Congress has the power to grant exclusive rights to a creation but has no power to legally mandate what the terms of those rights are. (See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City 383 US 1.) Congress has the right to grant me a patent, and if I want to take that patented product and license it to whomever, there is nothing that Constitutionally prevents me from doing so. In other words, if IBM patents a new storage device and they want to make those specifications publicly available through GPLed drivers they have every right to do so. If they want to license such technology to only one company, they may do so. If they want to take every existing model and shove it up their ass, they have every legal right to do so.
Furthermore, precedent sets that the patent power is limited only for the purpose of the "progress of science" - as Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc 489 US 141 states:
What McBride argues is that the public domain itself is somehow contradictory to the very notion of copyright, and argument which simply does not hold to much scrutiny. Even the majority opinion in Eldred acknowledges that the Constitution does not allow for a perpetual system of copyright, and that at some point material must fall into the public domain.
The argument that profit motive is the best way of ensuring the public good is fine, but it is essentially a non-sequitor in this case. If the Linux kernel contains SCO code then that code has to be legally removed. However, SCO has no right to dictate that only proprietary licenses are legally valid, and that argument does nothing to advance their particular case. Moreover, any judge who has to rule on such a prima facie idiotic argument will quickly rule that SCO has no legal ground. The GPL is, as many have already mentioned, based on an acknowledgement of copyright law and relies on copyright law as a basis for its licensing terms. SCO has no right to say that a copyright holder must use a proprietary license any more than Red Hat says that SCO must drop all claims to their proprietary source code. There is no legal foundation for such a position and McBride clearly has no understanding of the revelant law.
I am pretty sure old Darl is full of fecal matter. It's really impacted fecal matter. He is badly in need of a enema. The fecal mattter has pisined his body and that is the only explination for his most recent "open letter" Take a look at the meta data on the word document. He didin't write it. 2 other bozos did.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Ah I see. So the 1976 Copyright Act was responsible for the economic boom of the 1980's. I'd always assumed the end of the oil crisis and lower taxes got the credit. Silly me.
Clearly it also must have ended the Cold War and led to whiter and brighter teeth. What would we have done without the 1976 Copyright Act, I wonder? Why, we'd probably still be driving around in AMC Gremlins, listening to 8-track tapes and wearing platform shoes!
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
'Where did you make the change from Liberal Democrat to Conservative Republican?'
He said, 'Well, I was in Northern California in 1964 and I was making a film, Major Dundee. I was driving down the road and there was a Barry Goldwater for President billboard and it said, 'In Your Heart You Know He's Right'. I looked at the billboard and it was almost a vision and suddenly in my heart I knew he was right - and at that moment I made the switch'.
George Orwell, "1984":
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
All of us stupid, short-sighted Free Software idiots:
Finally, we understood. In our hearts, we knew Darl was right. We won the victory over ourselves and mailed in our $699 checks, and we were thankful that we were given a Second Chance to avoid having to pay $1399. We loved closed source.
We loved SCO.
Don't you love a happy ending?
First of all, Eldred v. Ashcroft was about whether the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) could change the lifetime of copyrights from 50 to 70 years. The main challenges were that the CTEA (1) overlooks the requirement of "originality," (2) fails to "promote the Progress of Science," and (3) ignores copyright's quid pro quo. The case only narrowly answers these questions for the CTEA. While some decisions have larger ramifications, not all decisions can be extended to other areas.
Profit motivates copyrights. Congress has power to legislate copyrights according to Constitution. And?
There's no logical flow here but I think what Darl is saying is that: GPL not motivated by profit. Therefore, GPL violates copyrights. Therefore, GPL violates Constitution.
Darl, given that logic, I would say that you are a good candidate for a future Darwin award.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In the second paragraph, McBride writes:
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws."
He then spends the rest of the letter explaining why copyright is great, and why the FSF and Red Hat are evil for opposing copyrights. Fine. But *nowhere* is there any reasoning given why the GPL violates the consitution, copyright law or patent law. In fact, by the end of the letter, McBride is forced to write:
"Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software industry was a mistake. The positions of the Free Software Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible direction."
Note that there's *nothing* about the legality of the GPL. Adopting the GPL may be a "mistake", but nowhere does he even attempt to prove the point that he started with, that the GPL is a violation of the constitution and laws of the US.
Too bad for SCO. The only way they can have a long term money-making plan with Linux is if they get the GPL declared illegal, all developer contributions under it made into code in the public domain (I suppose public domain is against the constitution too?!), then they can assert ownership of the whole product based on whatever proprietary contributions they think were made against their wishes by IBM et al. IANAL, but it ain't gonna happen.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Disclaimer: I work in Public Relations.
That having been said, CEOs and the like never, ever, write press releases themselves. And an open letter is just that -- a press release. Call it whatever you want, but that's the purpose it serves.
CEOs and CFOs and Presidents and the like don't write letters themselves because writing is generally not what they're good at -- and if they are, that's incidental. Most large corporations have an entire PR department whose only purpose is to handle, wait for it, public relations.
The mark of any good manager is the ability to delegate responsibility effectively. You may be a fair writer, but if your reputation and your company's are at stake, why not hire an expert?
For the record, I think Darl McBride is a fscking moron. But the fact that he didn't write the open letter shouldn't come as a surprised to anyone familiar with corporate culture.
I love how the ignore the rest of the first amendment, that, and the very fact that copyright law gauruntees that the authors have the right to distribute as they wish, and impose restrictions upon it's distribution...
SCO in particular, hasn't noticably changed their product since I was saddled with 286 Xenix a decade and a half ago. Neither their product nor their technical support improved from the first time I used it a decade and a half ago to the last time (And I swore it'd be the last time) I used it just about 4 years ago. I bet it hasn't noticably changed in those 4 years either, especially judging from SCO's current posturing.
So instead of cleaning up their own house (Because they don't know how) they'd rather try to destroy the only source of IT innovation around. People with SCO's mentality (Sadly widespread in corporate America) would shit in your dinner because they don't know how to cook themselves.
Currently the publicity's been pretty one-sided. How's about we start dusting off our technical contacts and start working to expose the lies?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So, basically, Darl of SCO is saying that he realizes that SCO has distributed Linux under GPL after he knew about what he claims as his infringement of SCO IP. And because that distribution would negate all his claims of infringed IP, he has no other choice but to dispute the legality of the GPL. Well, maybe he doesn't realize that, but at least his lawyers did.
That's a very interesting point you have there, one I had not considered. Of course, I believe he fails to see the flaw in his argument. That flaw is obvious, really...
SCO's distribution of Linux under GPL wasn't wholly their IP. They didn't create it from nothing here. Perhaps some of it was, certainly, but there's certainly a lot of it that was part of the Linux kernel, or a contribution by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of open source developers. They own the copyright on all that code, and they released it under the GPL. The GPL is essentially their license to let SCO used their copyrighted code. If SCO rejects the GPL or is successful in having it overturned, they don't magically get all that copyrighted code. Instead they get a big class action suit smacking them square in the face for copyright infringement, because now they've used other people's copyrighted material, without permission, for profit, etc, etc...
I just don't think SCO realizes the depth and power of the GPL. It's based upon copyright law itself. If you overturn it, then you fall back to the normal copyright law, which states that you can't use copyrighted code, period. It doesn't matter that the developer has shown it to the world, it's still that developer's property, and it is not SCO's to use. Fighting the GPL is not smart, because even if you win, you lose.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
When I was in grade school, there were always some alpha kids for whom rule and reason did not seem to apply. They could get their way by plugging their ears saying "LaLaLaLa" or whining until everyone gave in out of frustration.
I looked forward to the day when we would all be adults and those who had nothing to contribute would be swept aside. Sadly, I see that these bratty children are now all grown up, in charge and their manipulative behaviors are polished. And still the smart people are groveling at their feet for attention.
Darl and his kind are not concerned about programmers making money on software. Hell, thats what India is for. He is worried that people like him, who couldn't write "Hello World" to save their life, will not be able to make money off software anymore.
Notice he does not mention the word "Jobs" once in his open letter but mentions corporate interestes like IP and DMCA ad nauseum. Those represent the devices by which a company can stop producing and start fleecing.
And by God, what could be more American than that. Our Founding Fathers(TM), Congress (a division of Worldcom), and Supreme Court(R) have determined this is what is best for us. To question them would be unpatriotic and would be allowing the Terrorists to win.
You can clearly tell the lawyers wrote it
That letter can't have been written by a lawyer: it just makes no sense whatsoever. Even someone who ordered his law degree by mail would know better.
The letter argues that because the FSF takes a certain political view of copyrights, its copyright-related contracts are invalid and violate the US constitution. That's roughly like saying that you would lose your drivers license because you have stated that cars are bad for the environment.
Fortunately, we live in a country where one's political views don't generally affect the validity of the contracts we enter in.
The preamble to the General Public License (para 2) says:
No need to panic everyone, the profit motive is alive and well.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
Just to make sure I'm getting the facts of this case and surrounding accusations right, here's a condensed summary of the course of events:
....
SCO: You stole from our UNIX intellectual property
IBM/Community: We did not
SCO: we own UNIX, so we should know
IBM: we own the contributed code
Community: we own linux and have publicly available records of everything that ever happened to it.
SCO: here's an example
Community: pfft, that's BSD / clean-room code
IBM/RedHat/Community: we know what we did and have records of everything, now please show us some proof.
=== WE ARE HERE ===
SCO:
So, anything else than evidence, including this particular letter, is entirely inconsequential, am I right?
So far this one has been influential however; besides, I know the 9th's reputation, but that's still not a reason to ignore what's happening over there.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Exactly. I noticed the bait n switch technique too -
Darl's argument:
#1, Red Hat is anti-american, because we say they are against Patents and copyrights.
#2, evidence is shown that they are against software patents, with a copywright notice at the bottom.
#3, Conclusion: Red hat is bad because we say they are against patents and copywrights.
This is idiotic. It's obvious he's just making unsupported claims here. Darl & SCO are retarded and have no leg to stand on. I just hope the NYT points it out this time. There is no evidence that RH is against the US copyright system. And the KEY to the matter is that the SCO v. IBM case is not about PATENTS (which RH and the FSF are against) but about COPYRIGHT, which RH and the FSF are all about. Without copywright, the GPL would be meaningless. boil my blood, darl is a fool. -1, trolling for him.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
"SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension. We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work. "
Note that their position in no way gives them right to earn a profit from other people's work. And yet their threat to charge money for Linux is exactly that.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
not only that, but the SCO v. IBM case is about COPYRIGHT. the FSF and RH are bashed because they dont like "copyright and software patents." But, the FSF and RH only hate patents. They like copyright. And in the SCO v. IBM case, they fully support US copyright law. So it isnt' even a straw man, it's a false redirect, or bait n switch. or whatever. it's just plain RETARDED, man!
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
The share price dipped yesterday, and has been on a decline for few days anyway, so we were due a public statement. You can predicate press releases from SCO, just watch their share price.
Plan9. Inferno. NeXTStep. Arguably the original Macintosh and the Xerox PARC work they extended.
Meanwhile, in the open-source world, we're fundamentally tweaking UNIX clones. Totally kick-ass, love-'em, best-of-breed unix clones, but still. You might cite Hurd but, comparatively speaking, it's a toy.
None of the commercial UNIX vendors has done a whole lot to advance the state of the operating system from where it was 30 years ago.
Isn't Apple a commercial UNIX vendor now?
SCO in particular, hasn't noticably changed their product since I was saddled with 286 Xenix a decade and a half ago
Sadly, that's probably true..
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
Under the Copyright Extension Act, the "limited time" that a copyright lasts is now 70 years post-mortem the author. Something copyrighted today by someone who is not too old will still be copyrighted when everyone now alive is dead.
Is that really a limited time?
... is that these individuals (SCO "managers" and their "lawyers") make a living out of this.
You and I have to meet deadlines, pass appraisals, fear that our jobs are shipped to cheaper countries (and rightly so, but that is another matter), suffer the dialy commute just to make a living that will not makes us rich and that does not gurantee an easy retirement.
The thought that somebody (eather this person or his lawyers) has the aplomb to sit down, write such a piece of tosh and then publish it is just mindblowing.
These individuals have no regard for decency.
How do they get home, kiss hello to their loved ones: "honey, I am home! Yeah, I had a hard day, I had to come up with a document full of lies and misrepresentations in order to try to pump up our share price. What is for dinner?"
For the life of mine, I just don;t understand how they can live with themselves. No, I know. Only people without morals can achieve true wealth. Look at Saddam Hussein Palaces.
Pathetic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) has to necessarily agree with it though.
I've not read any other comments yet, so I apologise if I repeat what's already been said.
But I have read though the Article, and want to present my first opinions on parts of it.
I think his use of the terms "$186 billion global software industry" and "technology business" certainly show SCO's position on technological advancement.
Mainly that they think it's primary purpose is to generate a profit.
Darl has a point though. Such laws are critical in the survival of what could be called "The current model".
It's just that GPL, FSF, Linux, etc, are operating on another model. Yeah, they pose a threat. But to say that such a threat is illegal/unconstitutional/whatever is just plain arrogant.
Oh, and speaking as a Brit, there is one other thing that has to be taken into account.
What has the US Constitution got to do with companies/organisations outside of the US? Should European/Asian/etc software houses be stifled/restricted by what's good for the American economy?
"Oh, the drama!"
OK, so it's one side against the other. But, personally, I'm firmly on the side of "you can't own an idea".
You can be responsible for the specific application of a though or idea, but to own abstract concepts that one person happened to think of before another? I just find that a bit wrong really.
Doesn't the GPL predate the DMCA?
Though I'm not sure what - if any - effect that would have on the legal nature of things.
One thing, though. Is the DMCA US-only?
If so, that means that the GPL - being an itnernational license, as far as I know - is certainly legitimate in non-US companies irrespective of whether it's legan int he US. But certainly that would mean that US companies can't complain about it, wouldn't it? After all, surely it's outside of US jurusdiction that way?
if I'm wrong, let me know. I can rebuild a PC with no worries, but legal-matters lose me in no time flat!
Again with the "Profit Motive"
Actually, I kind of agree with the profit motive. What I don't agree with is the way that some companies (including SCO) want to use it.
Yeah, come up with an idea then you have the right to make money from it - well, as long as the idea isn't "ransom Darl McBride for ca$h" or something blatantly illegal and reckless like that. But I think such a profit motive has to be time-limited. If fact, if it's really to "promot
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
When they were making Linux sales? ... Hmm.... Odd...
The entire letter is amateurish though. The GPL doesn't prevent any sort of ownership or control. You can release code for GPL then later release it as PD, BSD, whatever else you want. It's your code. The GPL only controls what *other* people can do with your code.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
CEOs and CFOs and Presidents and the like don't write letters themselves because writing is generally not what they're good at [...}
What are they good at?
"The profit motive is the engine that ENSURES the progress of science."
Absolutely NONE of the MAJOR advances in science have been advanced by the profit motive. See: Einstein, Newton (for which almost all kinds of physical engineering requires), Alan Turing...
Not ALL advances in science are motivated by profit! If the Constitution only supports profit-motivated advances then it would be unconstitutional to advance science without trying to make profit! The whole profit-motive thing is a red-herring.
"SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension."
So, in other words, promotion of science is constitutional, destroying or preventing advance in science is anti-constitutional. This must be the extent of influence of the Constitution because if it only supports profit-motivated advances in science, then any science-advancing scheme which is NOT profit-motivated would be barred. By that argument, advances in science by the efforts of people like Einstein and Newtown would be unconstitutional! Ridiculous!
So: The only way the GPL is anti-constitutional is IF the GPL destroys or hinders advances in science. This is, of course, not so. The GPL protects non-profit-motive advances but does not interfere or prevent profit-motivated advances.
If propriety code is so good for science then on a global scale it should compete with GPL code favourably! The lovers of competition should have nothing to complain about.
- Matt K
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress.
Granting copy protection is mandated. Accepting that as what the author wishes is not mandated. As an author if I write my own software I can choose to GPL or not to GPL, that is my choice. If I GPL I give up the old system by choice, if the GPL breaks I STILL have the old system. If I use another authors I am bound to the terms of his license be it GPL or Proprietary. I am not enslaved by the GPL. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents. Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.
the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union.
Why would you use the European Union to argue the constitutionality of a point? Barring the fact that the EU is only a couple years old, they have NADA to do with the US constitution. Maybe you should write a seperate letter about how the GPL subjugates the EU, but your point here is lost.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.
How dare they lobby congress for something so self serving. They should follow the generous example of the RIAA and MPAA and lobby for the betterment of man kind. Oh wait, GPL puts software development in reach of non billionaires and thus it is for the better.
Note that all of Darl's arguments become invalid when dual-licensing or BSD licensing is used. There really IS a desire by some in the free software industry to market leverage proprietary software out of the Linux market. This is unfortunate.
While I myself choose to give the software away for free, I do recognize the legitimate tradeoffs involved in copyright law. There are businesses that simply are not viable without a short-term (I favor 14 years) payment for use of their software. I don't think that the games that I play would be anywhere near as good if the developers were not paid for them --- it is very expensive to produce the fancy animations and graphics I enjoy.
Those of us who are (barely in my case) able to make it with free software businesses should not lock out others who cannot make it without charging. This is why I make all my software available under a non-GPL license for those who are willing to pay for such a license. That way they can make proprietary enhancements of my software, and sell them, and good for them!
I am one of the more technically successful developers in my industry, yet my business has been bouncing from one fiscal scare to another its entire existence. People who think GPL is the only way should try supporting a family and a payroll (the payroll is harder...) on free software for a few years, and they may find their ideology becomes less fervently fixated on the superiority of one way of doing business.
All that said, I still believe that copyright should require full disclosure of the source code, and the allowance of improvements to be made and sold by others, or else it serves no US constitutional purpose of advancing the arts and sciences.
I doubt this can happen because there are (6,000?) licenses based on the System V code. Releasing System V code would undermind all of those licenses.
Ever written an effective resume? Welcome to the club!
Not that outright lying is what we're talking about here, just shading the truth to your advantage by disclosing information that tunes in a desired perception in the reader. Call it "good marketing" if you're trying to make a living or "disingenuous sophistry" if you still harbor romantic notions about the human race.
But in SCO's case the shading it so at odds with reality we'll just call it lying.
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
What he seems to be arguing here is that it is unconstitutional to give inventions or works away without charging for them.
The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software innovations.
This passage (and the first one) seem to stem from a belief that there are forces out there trying to forcibly remove the right of inventors to receive patents and authors to maintain copyright over their works.
Does he not understand what "voluntary" means? No one is trying to take those rights away.
That's cold, kid. Hey, scenario for you. I own a company. I make a product. It is a really really awesome product that everybody wants.
But I work in a non-descript brick building in a small town in upstate New York. How ever will people learn of our product?
Advertising -- and Public Relations.
Now, I want to tell you why you want to buy it. But it's kind of complicated. I only have a 15 second radio spot. Which of these messages do you suppose is more effective?
1) Widgets are designed to PDQ your YSZ using ASD technology licensed from ZX. They are sufficient for small to medium clients.
of
2) Widgets are freakin' awesome, man. I don't need to tell you. There's all this technology in there but you'll never know anything about it except that you have more time and more room to breath when you use it.
#2 is full of exaerations, vague descriptions and is incomplete. But if they entice you to take a closer look, BAM! Good enough.
You're all taking a VERY close look at SCO's arguments at the moment. Ordinarily that would be a marketting success, but since SCO only has old or stolen products, I'd say maybe they should be averting your gaze a little bit...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The GPL has nothing to do with copyright law. The GPL is only one of about a billion licensing agreements. It just happens to be one of the most loved and is not WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND LEGALESE WHEREBY MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE AFORMENTIONED HEREUNDER
But I work in a non-descript brick building in a small town in upstate New York. How ever will people learn of our product? Advertising -- and Public Relations. And word of mouth. If you're an honest company, people will say good things for you. On their dime even. Same thing is true if you're not an honest company.
If his point is that at least line of thinking within the IP universe sets out to devalue most forms of IP (copyright, patent) -- well, is that not right?
No.
The FSF and EFF stand to promote Free software and Electronic Freedom. They do not support software patents because patents are, by their very nature, a restriction on freedom. A patent is a limited time state-mandated monopoly for the inventor(s). That does not mean that the EFF or FSF seek to devalue patents - merely that they do not support them.
On the topic of copyrights, the GPL could not survive without them as it provides the basis for the license. Without copyrights, the GPL could not require distributors to provide the source code because the distributor would have the rights to distribute the material freely. Because copyrights exist and protect the author(s) work, the GPL allows recipients of GPL'd material to further distribute that work under the terms of the GPL. If the recipient does not agree to such terms, then the GPL is not in force but the recipient can't distribute that material because it is protected by copyright. So I believe that the EFF and FSF are probably extremely staunch supporters of sane copyright laws as it helps them provide the framework for information exchange.
You use the word 'devalue' but your usage is ambiguous - it could be taken to be used as a purely monetary description. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging for your work. Coming from a scientific background where material is constantly made public knowledge through the many journals and scientific websites, the existence of this information in the public mind does not devalue it in a monetary sense since pure information has no monetary value. An implementation of that information may indeed lead to a monetary value - much advanced image processing software using maximum entropy theory exists which costs a significant chunk of cash is based on publicly accessible theorems and equations. The existence of a free software equivalent does not reduce the value of another solution either. Whether people are prepared to pay for a costly solution over a free implementation is up to the consumer to decide. Even in cases of direct competition between Free software and commercial software, I view the Free software as having a 'keeping everyone honest' effect. If a solution can be generated quickly or easily by a small group of developers working in their free time, competing commercial packages must do much more to justify their price. Without the Free alternatives, consumers would be at the mercy of companies massively inflating their profits by being able to pick their prices without reference to the cost of production.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
"I think McBride is failing to see that nobody has to incorporate GPL'd code into their creation. If you don't want to use the GPL on your code, then don't use code covered by the GPL already. It makes perfect sense to the rest of us, but he seems to have some kind of ego thing going on where he thinks that SCO should be free to rip off everybody else without giving anything in return. That seems to be his entire argument, albeit in more verbose language."
It's dog logic. "What's mine is mine. What's yours is mine. What I see is mine." If you look at Caldera's history, it morphed from being a GPL-friendly company under one set of administrators to an IP lawfirm. I wonder if former officers of Caldera, from the 'Time Before SCO' era could be called to testify about their company's doings under their administration, and how they felt that the GPL was to be considered true and respected. This would demonstrate the about-face that the company did, and how it accepted the GPL initially, and later rejected it when it wasn't convenient. If this is documented in court, it would be legal establishing of the situation that would let Linus et al. sue Caldera for contract and copyright infringement.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"The mark of any good manager is the ability to delegate responsibility effectively. You may be a fair writer, but if your reputation and your company's are at stake, why not hire an expert? "
Frankly, I expect people who run and manage a business to be experts at letter writing. I also expect them to be experts at everything their business does.
Delegation is used because you don't have the time, not because you can't. Managers and CEOs *should* (and I realize this is not what happens) be expert-level on, as I said, everything that concerns the business.
A point of note: I come from a family that has followed this formula successfully for 300 years. It is, as we have found, the only way to run an efficient and productive company that is ethical, trustworthy and doesn't fsck up. We also have other points of note, such as:
Social Responsibility trumps Profit
(which is another one of those old ideas that are being scrapped, despite the fact that it is the cornerstone of corporate trust).
It sounds unrealistic, but it ensures that no-one who comes in to a company is in it for the money. You have to slog your guts out to get the knowledge and experience to, in our opinion, run a company well and be able to know instantly what everyone is talking about. Sure, it takes time, but it's about being *responsible* and if you aren't aware of (and don't understand) every little thing your company does, then you don't deserve to run one.
SCO is the epitome of an irresponsible company. Then again, so is almost every large company out there. Too much short-term thinking and no long-term planning. Does no-one do exhaustive Business Plans that go through every possible combination of events any more? *sigh*
--N
...is that they're up against IBM, and not some linux hippies. Try telling the court that IBM isn't into GPL'd software because of the profit motive, but out of some anti-business, anti-profit anarchist agenda. Yeah. Right.
In business terms, think of Linux as the world's greatest co-op. Here's a little definition "An enterprise or organization that is owned or managed jointly by those who use its facilities or services." Pretty close at least, particularly if you replace "owned" with "mutually licenced through the GPL".
What's the purpose of a co-op, e.g. a cooperative apartment building? To avoid the overhead of having an outside company run it for profit. Linux is much the same. When you work for the co-op (Linux) you work for your own good, even when you're not getting a paycheck for it.
Darl's latest bullshit sounds like it's illegal to form a co-op because then a "real" company can't come in and make a profit off it. The entire argument is muddied up with other ravings, but that's the core of it. If they tried anything like that with a less tech-oriented subject, they'd be laughed out, both of court and in public.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings