Slashdot Mirror
USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap
ronys writes "The venerable USENIX organization has written a fine response to SCO's letter to Congress.
As they point out, 'USENIX was here before SCO. USENIX was here before Linux.' Short and well written." And Reece Arnott writes: "As part of the NMap Press Release for the latest version of NMap, is a statement that explicitly revokes SCO's licence to redistribute it. From the press release: 'SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms.'"
For those too lazy to look up Section 4 of the GPL:
Now this gets interesting: if SCO continues to distributed NMAP will the FSF start filing lawsuits? This might be the "Big Test" everyone has been waiting for.
/me makes a bowl of popcorn and sits back to enjoy the show.. (as an aside, does anyone know what compiler SCO uses to generate their binaries?)
Trolling is a art,
Doesn't the GPL say you cannot discriminate against any group? Or is their license being revoked because they are in violation of the GPL?
It's good to see someone use the GPL back at $CO for what it is worth. If Fyodor hadn't, would anyone else?
I would hope so, but so far it doesn't seem to be happening. I can't wait for others to do the same. Maybe groups like Samba can muster up the courage to do the same to these guys. Since $CO seems to be touting integration with Windows networks, losing Samba would be one of the things that they couldn't afford to do.
So with a restriction like "may no longer be distributes with ", is it still "free software"?
I wouldn't say so.
- Hubert
It's about time that someone took this stance and let's hope that others do as well. The free-ride double-standard is over.
SCO's time to put up or shut up. This could be interesting in a few ways. If SCO continues to distribute NMAP, will USENIX sue on GPL grounds? That would be a great case to watch.
Sig it.
As far as I can tell, this sort of thing violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines, rule number 5:
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Good job. It is nice to see someone finally call SCO on the whole the GPL is invalid but we think we can still use software released under it issue.
"it's about time" dept.
Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?
This guy is way out there
This is burning bridges, but I really can't see SCO coming to their senses, so their users should get a feeling for the kind of situation which SCO is asking for.
please get on this bandwagon? Thanks.
What if SCO doesn't comply?
I doubt seriously that they will, so what will come of their non-compliance?
Probably nothing, really, but this may well be another part of the GPL put to the test. They've stepped up to the plate with Nmap - I hope they're ready to play ball.
Okay, now lets all get ready from some good FUD from Darl!
*GASP* "Ohh my, it appears we own code in Nmap too!"
Ok Mr. Torvalds, time for you and all the kernel developers to do the same with the kernel.
I really appreciate his stand against SCO. Maybe a lot of other GPL projects (Gnome, KDE *hint* *hint*) may also decide to revoke SCO's right to use their software.
Picture this: a worldwide tribe of programmers, all saying to SCO that they can't use this or that program with OpenLinux, UnixWare and so on. If everyone sent $1 to the FSF to cover future litigation at the same time...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
if (SCO topic)
goto http://groklaw.net
else if (Gadget stuff)
goto http://arstechnica.com
else if (Linux stuff)
goto http://linuxtoday.com
else if (good journalism stuff)
goto http://theregister.co.uk
else
goto http://news.bbc.co.uk
fi
Give them some knowledgeable attorneys, some time, and the 250K it would take to fight it - I'm sure they'd lend a hand.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Vulnerabilities like mail headers, perhaps?
NO. SCO is violating the GPL by placing additional terms on anyone's use of linux distrabutions. There's a clause in the GPL that states that any additional terms will cause their license to be terminated. Since SCO's GPL license is terminated, the copyright authors for nmap could do whatever they want. They could even sue.
Now let this be a lesson to all, don't violate the GPL! Nmap's action against SCO doesn't make it non-free, it's just that SCO has rejected the GPL and is using a product in violation of copyright law.
Forget about the SCO item in the 3.50 changelog... the bigger news about nmap is that it recently appeared in "HaXXXor Volume 1: No Longer Floppy".
Which, OK... is kinda weird, but how often to well respected tools link to cheasy porn sites? http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap_haxxxor.html
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Cheers,
atarola
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. --H L Mencken
Somehow, I doubt you can, and this may be something to address in the next iteration of the GPL. Too late for the pool of software out there, perhaps, but not for new versions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Great letter! Of course, it relies on congress seeing hypocrisy as a bad thing. Unfortunately, it is often par for the course.
Generally defined discrimination is based: Age, Race, Nationaliy or Sex. Or some combination of those.
Hence unless SCO can somehow be defined as an Age Group?? No
Race?? No
Nationality ?? No
Sex?? M, F, or SCO - No
So to descriminate (legally speaking) you would have to revoke thier lincense based on one of these criteria.
However, if a licensee is behaving in bad faith, i.e. SCO, that is a legal ground for revoking thier license. I think it could easily be argued SCO is acting in bad faith through out this whole affair.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
"Dear Mr McBride,
Please pay $699 for every installation of SCO Unix due to the presense of NMAP."
In USENIX Russia, Darl pays YOU $699!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
That is not what this is about, it is quit simply about Fyoder enforcing an already existing clause of the GPL (4). He's not ammending the thing to lock SCO out. He is just making it a little more clear that having violated section 4 they are no longer entiteled to make use of or distribute NMap.
Here is a company who in public says GPL is not legal. And these people are trying to use GPL against them.
SCO is not going to listen, they haven't listened to sense and reason since this whole thing started whats to make anyone think they will listen to a legal statement based on GPL which they declare is not legal to begin with.
In theory its great but unless nmap has the ability to back up its legal claims in court its pretty useless in this matter.
Personal Website
MMM a big steaming pile of crap. SCO forgot that an OS is nothing without apps. So as these apps start revoking themselves fromt he SCO distrib, the value of their product falls, along with the stock price, which is the exact opposite of what Darl wanted to do...
Looks like he'll prove himself the fool. I do feel bad for his family. He could have been something some day.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Where it would get really interesting is if any other big projects pulled the plug. Imagine no Apache for SCO? (okay we should probably resolve the existing fight over the apache license before starting another) but what about no Samba?
I'm not entirely convinced that it's the right approach - I'd rather just see SCO beaten, but it'd sure hurt them if they lost some big pieces of software.
Either the EFF or FSF should be able to help out - that's what they are there for. They can use part of our yearly donations to cover the cost (all you readers did give a donation to both orgainizations, right?)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How could the parent get 1 point?
As has been pointed out a few times:
SCO is violating GPL they therefore have no right to use any GPLed code. (Either you accept the GPL or it is copyrighted code)
nmap is just explicitly stating this.
And if they don't want to support SCO any longer that's up to them as well. It guess it means that in the future nmap might not compile on SCO out of the box,...
They (the nmap ppl) can only do it because SCOG is in violation of the GNU GPL. If SCOG stops violating the GNU GPL, they can no longer be "blocked".
Because surely it must have shot them all off by now.
Stick Men
I would agree with you but SCO doesn't follow the GPL (Adding other licenses on top) and call it unconstitutional among other things. And if they can't play by the rules of the GPL they should have no part of programs distributed under it. Thats why we have licenses in the first place.
Seriously, kudos to the guys with guts to stand up against those pigs, let's hope the SCO folks take notice.
Hurray FyDoR! But nmap is one of many, many open source programs distributed by SCO. Why isn't the entire open source community tell SCO that their software can't be distrubted, things like KDE, Gnome, and the GNU projects tar, make et al? I belive that other open source projects should start demanding that SCO stop distributing them.
What to do with for enforcement? With so many pending legal battles against SCO, it would only be a matter of time before an IBM, Novel/Suse, or Redhat picks up the illegal acticity and uses it in court. Additionally it is an election year. I'm quite sure that if we as a community looked hard enough we could find a hungry DA.
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
When I checked out the NMAP link, I eventually clicky=clicky-clicky'ed overt to the insecure.org homepage and saw (about halfway down) that part of the source for NMAP was featured in the movie Battle Royale.
So, this got me thinking: Since NMAP source is GPL, does it's inclusion in Battle Royale make the movie a derivative work and therefore also subject to the GPL?
Just thought I'd ask, because I don't think that - other than the DeCSS - case, anyone's ever mentioned this possiblility.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
IANAL and all that but I think the NMap folks are on shaky ground here. SCO has not attempted to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the [NMap] except as expressly provided under [the GPL]".
They have attempted that with the Linux kernel however. So I don't see how SCO has violated the GPL with respect to NMap.
I do approve of the effort however.
Good luck with that
-- This is not a sig
Think the X (something) license changes, Mysql, etc...
As long as the distros are not violating the GPL, or enacting licenses which violate it, these scenario you propose is pretty unlikely.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Won't this backfire? Now that SCO knows this section 4 power is available,
won't they force us to stop using all code SCO has even touched?
SCO has publicly denied the validity of the only license they have to distribute the software.
If they don't accept the license, they can't distribute the software. Distributing without a license is copyright infringement.
I don't see what George W has to do with all of this (or did you mean precedent?) Anyways, SCO's rights of use for NMAP are being revoked because they violated the terms of the GPL. Not because they are being discriminated against. In fact, the GPL inherently prohibits the kind of discrimination you are referring to.
RTFA and cite your sources or prepare to get pwnd
SCOX trash talk the GPL in the press and on their website, but it seems to me they make a big effort not to wake that sleeping GPL dragon.
Hence they are still giving away Linux sources on their linuxupdate.sco.com site, as required by the GPL for three years minimum.
That they disrespected it and tried to undermine the GPL may be enough for Fyodor to decide he's mad as hell and isn't taking it any more, but to make a legal case they actually have to have violated some specific term(s).
GPL (or any other license for that matter) basically says that "You may use/distribute this software as long as you agree to these terms". If you do not agree to those terms, then you lose the rights the license gives you. SCO disagrees with the terms of the GPL, therefore they lose the rights the license gives them.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side."
Actually, they're violating section 4 by utilizing a clause in section 5 that they don't have to agree to it to use it, but they can't modify or distribute it.
First off, you're wrong. NMAP is revoking SCO's distribution rights due to the fact that they(SCO) have violated the terms of the GPL by claiming that the GPL is invalid and they do not agree with it. Therefore, should they be allowed to distribute code which is under a license they do not acknowledge? No, and that is why SCO's distribution rights have been revoked, the community is still a community, and the community is cutting out a cancer in the open source world.
I thought the bad president was George W Bush?!
God please let this be a TREND. I also would submit that the Samba group would be the next logical bitch slap in the gauntlet that SCO has so nicely laid before themselves. Losing that would really hurt.
-- kortex "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
I am no license guru, what part of the GPL license did SCO violate?
They kind of screwed up in their response... Specifically:
SCO specifically argues that open source (free) licensing "undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights." This assertion lacks any legal justification and therefore appears to be merely self-serving. Nothing in our intellectual property laws requires inventors to charge substantial fees for access or use of their inventions. In fact, the laws of copyright and patents, which underlie the intellectual property rights that most often protect computer software programs, give their owners complete discretion in deciding how large their licensing fees should be, or, indeed, whether to impose fees at all.
They're mixing free beer and free speech. Stallanism aside, SCO is clearly attacking the freedom side of the GPL and USENIX is defending the freebie side.
Almost all of USENIX's text focuses on fees, and SCO's (feeble) threat is against the freedom to share code. I wonder if they know what the "Free" in "Free Software" means...
We all need to write our congressmen and let them know how we feel and what side we are on. Maybe one of the talented programmers out there could make a simple website that will send a canned message to the appropriate congressman. Then we can all got to the site and quickly send the message. Think about it... What in the hell does a congressman know about IT and operating systems? Shouldn't we give them advice on this one?
Fyodor (or any author of GPL'ed work, for that matter) can only do this 'cause SCO is violating the terms of the license. No one can arbitrarily block an individual or group from using GPL'ed code if they comply with the license.
BTW, Groklaw has an interesting thread where it is noted that any contract or license with discriminatory terms, (such as a hypothetical GPL clone that excluded SCO by name) is illegal under common law, as it would violate principles of general equitable conduct.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Ok, this has been brought up a lot on Slashdot in the past few years, and I really think everyone should read this speech by Eben Moglen on why there will never be a test of the GPL in court (and a bunch of other interesting stuff). Here's the relevant portion :
It's quite simple see. The GPL cannot be tested in court, because if it is found invalid, the defendant can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. If it is found valid, the defendant either has to abide by it's restrictions or can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. Do you understand the pattern here ? Anyone who tries to fight it will only lose. That's the beauty of it.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Read the article and the linked message from NMap. They're not saying "You can't use this because we don't like you", they're saying "You have violated the terms of the license and therefore, it has been revoked". There's nothing wrong with this.
"Perl 6 gives you the big knob" -- Larry Wall
" Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?"
I think its irrelevant, since as far as I can tell, they aren't really selling SCO Unix these days. I mean, its for sale, but nobody is buying it who doesn't already have an installed base.
Also, keep in mind this doesn't affect end customers (who can download the code anyway), so this seems more like a public statement against SCO than anything real or meaningful.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
yeah, I figured out how to make this puppy purr: case (topic) SCO : goto http://groklaw.net; break; Gadget : goto http://arstechnica.com; break; Linux : goto http://linuxtoday.com; break; journalism : goto http://theregister.co.uk; break; default: goto http://news.bbc.co.uk; endcase;
This has already been done.
Without permission to distribute, they are committing a copyright violation. This is the default state under copyright law.
As long as SCO does not use the GPL as their permission to distribute, they are in violation of copyright law.
Maybe its just me, but I think the USENIX letter would be more convincing if it in some way countered SCOs claim.
This letter is like: "Ohh, the world is such a nice place with OSS, and OSS itself it not illegal or wrong". That argument is not very good IF Linux in fact does not stand on legally acceptable ground and contains lots of SCO proprietary code.
I realise that USENIX does not know the answer, but they could at least have mentioned that there are reasons to believe that SCOs copyright claims are wrong.
I personally much prefer OSS, but I do not support piracy or theft.
Of course, SCOs letter to congress primarily dealt with the economic effects etc of OSS, thus it was natural for USENIX to do the same. But SCO repeatedly mentioned that SCO property is in Linux. USENIX should have said that they support Linux as long as it is legally acceptable, and that they belive it is (and SCO is full of shit).
SCO announces special rebates for third world countries.
"We want to help these countries by allowing them access to the best software at the best price. Our special prices start at $200 per CPU, even if they choose other Linux distributions then ours" says Darl Mcbride, CEO SCO.
Their site has been down for a while. Do they even bother maintaining a website anymore?
This guy is way out there
Anybody who screws a troll around is alright in my books. Why not post with your name instead of hiding behind AC. Some people like to read the articles here without accidentally hitting a link to tubgirl and goatse. Did it ever occur to you that there may be young children nearby? I assume that you have no moral character in you or personal responsibility.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Yes losing nmap is small, but illegally distributing it is big.
Assuming SCO does not want to risk a copyright violation suit, they will have to immediately stop distributing this entire CD.
If they continue to distribute it the fines could be substantial
The SCO share is now well below $13. It hasnt been this low since august.
Seems like time is running out for our friends in Utah.
...since, after all, USENIX didn't write NMAP. ;)
- SCOX refuses to accept the terms of invalid licences.
- SCOX has stated that the GPL is not a valid licence.
- Therefore, SCOX refuses to accept the terms of GPL licences.
and then...- GPL is the only license under which NMAP has been made available to SCOX.
- SCOX doesn't accept GPL licences.
- Therefore, SCOX has no licence to use/etc NMAP.
QEDOf course, SCOX probably will argue something along the lines of "GPL must == public domain for the good of the country". If this were to be true, then use of NMAP would not require a licence to use/etc... or maybe they'll say that they'll accept the terms of GPL until such time as it is declared invalid (effectively squirming out of this particular mess).
If they agree to the terms of the GPL, no you can't revoke their rights to use it.
If they do not agree to the terms of the GPL, they are committing copyright violation and hence have no rights of distribution.
I do not see how anyone can argue that they agreed to a licence they claim is unconstitutional.
Legolas: Ai! Ai! A Darlrog! A Darlrog is come!
Gimli: Calderin's Bane! (hides face)
Lindalf: Alas! A Darlrog. And I am already weary.
(to others) Fly! Over the bridge! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way.
(to Darlrog) You cannot pass! I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the Flame of Finlandssvenskar. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Utah. Go back to the shadow! You cannot pass.
These sigs are more interesting tha
Also part of their press release:
To emphasize the highly professional nature of Nmap, all instances of "fucked up" in error message text has been changed to "b0rked".
Would not changing the actual gpl liscence to exclude sco just be really dumb? I dislike reading legal documents already, but if there would forever have to be an extra paragraph specifically to exclude sco, even i assume after they go out of buisiness, really suck. If something is 'included' the gpl says it cannot be removed later, yes?
Change that 2nd to last line to read:
I have misplaced my pants.
Please die.
If we assume that NMap or any and all GPL software can do that (I've been reading the big debate above about wether they can/can not do this but here me out) and all GPL software begins to do this then, over time, you might get to a situation where computer users must pick between an ALL GPL'd system or an ALL Non-GPL'd system. I run both GNU/Linux one one machine and Microsoft Windows products laced with GPL'd software on another. The good news is that Microsoft is not as either bold or dumb as SCO so this future will not come to pass but I bet Richard M. Stallman wouldn't like ring-side seats for it.
Now, I doubt it would ever come to this. It could be possible to shun a particular system. Heck, Microsoft tried do this with it's OEM channel and the big PC makers.
In the end, I think this is fair but would make setting up a system that is legally complaint a little more difficult (than apparently SCO is trying to make it).
Magic Eight Ball: Outlook not so good., Hmmm, how about Excel and Word?
They did not need to terminate SCO's license. It was already terminated when they claimed the GPL was invalid.
They could have just put them on notice of violation. This gives people the false impression that you need to explicitly terminate the license of a violator. You don't. The license is 'automagically' terminated if they person/entity does not accept the license.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
FSF could sue over GPL infringement (if they have the copyright I think)
But why bother? They have often said sueing is their last efford, and will try friendly talks first always.
But why bother? SCO is a dead man standing.
And if somehow Baby Jesus resurrects them, FSF can sue them later.
"/Dread"
Well... actually I think they can. The license change can't be applied retroactively to past public releases. It can (and has I believe) only applied to the newest releases. Someone could very easily fork nmap at the point right before the license change and distribute nmap-ng with support and all with no worries as long as they stay within the licensing provisions of the GPL at that point and time in the codebase. Never forget forks.
couldnt i just take nmap, add one line of code ( a comment) and release it under the GPL? wouldn't anything anyone else says be invalid after that .. since after all, the code if free for all :)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
A Big ol' SMACKDOWN!
Franklin was a prolific inventor. He refused to patent his inventions. He maintained that there was nothing wrong with someone else copying his work and using it to earn a living.
He also opened the first lending library (file sharing anyone?)
It is too bad he didn't have the concept of freely sharing things codified in the US Constitution. What a difference that would have made.
Mmm. Samba, PHP, Mozilla, Apache, XFree86. The last two may just do that in order to draw attention away from licensing issues. (Or to show we're all still in the same boat. However you want to interperet it.)
Maybe Perl too, but I'm not well versed on the Perl license or the Artistic License.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
It would be sort of like you clicking "I Do Not Agree" on a Windows installation, then somehow getting the software installed anyway. Microsoft wouldn't RETRACT your license, rather, they'd sue you because you're using the software without one.
Of course, this is one problem with most installers for GPL apps. You see, clicking "I Agree" lets you install it. However, clicking "I Do Not Agree", rather than showing something saying that you cannot distribute or modify it, and then installing, prevents installation.
Great letter! Of course, it relies on congress seeing hypocrisy as a bad thing. Unfortunately, it is often par for the course.
Of course too, Darl will see it and go "USENIX? that sounds like UNIX. We own it. Sue them!"
This is burning bridges, but I really can't see SCO coming to their senses, so their users should get a feeling for the kind of situation which SCO is asking for.
I see a lot of this rhetoric in the corporate world, and to be blunt (nothing personal against you), it is utter crap.
I have, countless times, seen someone get utterly screwed by an employer, a boss, a collegue, a vendor, or a customer, and continue to "make nice" with them (while bemoaning the fact to anyone who will listen behind their back) out of fear of "burning bridges."
While it is true that one doesn't want to fly off the handle and torch relationships because of minor disagreements, when one has had their career torpedoed, the business ripped off, customers stolen away through dishonest means, etc, and one continues to maintain the ficade of cordiality in such situations for fear of "burning bridges" (this is almost always their precise verbiage BTW) one is IMHO throwing good money after bad, so to speak; investing time and effort into a destructive relationship which is already a net loss and has absolutely no chance of yielding anything of value down the road.
In other words, the other party burned the bridge long ago, and folks engaging in this sort of denial are trying to build a new bridge toward the hoards on the other side of the chasm who are awaiting them with torches and gasoline in hand.
$CO burned their bridges to the free software and open source community long ago. Invoking clause 4 of the GPL for SCO's flagrant and continuing violation of the license isn't burning anything, it is merely a recognition of the current state of things and an appropriate, measured response thereto.
Destructive relationships aren't worth maintaining, and bridges that facilitate an enemies attack should be taken down. I am amazed at how few people in the business world get this, and how much continuing damage they suffer as a result of their ingrained, irrational fear of "burning bridges."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
On second thought, such a major backlash by the OSS community could absolutely destroy SCO's offerings, giving the impression that OSS software is dangerous to use as a core supplement to your products.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
On the tapestry in the background, when bender becomes religious.
10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL
If every open source project officially revokes SCO's license, they'd loose quite a bit. I think they would loose their TCP/IP support, if I recall correctly, because it is the BSD stack. Someone else already mentioned Apache yanking their licenses.
SCO also has a linux emulation API. At least at one point during this legal battle, SCO argued that the Linux API was embodied in Linux, and that this constituted an infringement on their copyright. However, SCO conveniently forgets about their Linux Kernel Personality. According to the SCO web site, "This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications." So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution. This could cause a major disruption in SCO's business, if properly executed.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries. The theory is that they could not have done this without viewing the code, and by doing so the code they've written is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Properly executed, this could kill SCO altogether. Wouldn't that be enjoyable to watch.
I thought perl didn't have switch statements.
This will effect, what, both users of SCO Unix?
Fyodor is just pointing out that SCO has breached the GPL and so has no license at all to distribute nmap (or indeed any other GPL app.) He isn't adding anything to the GPL itself, just a side-note.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I haven't seen a decent response to SCO's last court filing about what linux lines violate their IP rights. I'm SURE one has been written by now. Anyone have a link?
If you look at the donation page here, you'll find the EFF takes PayPal (it's in the dropdown). They're the important one to support in this case as really they fight the legal battles.
I've sent mail to the GNU FSF asking if you can use the donations email address as a PayPal target, I imagine the answer is yes but we'll see.
Both orgs should probably make a PayPal link much more visible to encourage small casual donations.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
SCO has revoked it's own rights under the GPL by not accepting the GPL. The language in the GPL that states that you must accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute GPLed products is pretty clear.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What if a page from the Microsoft book is borrowed here.
/proc or somesuch; and report the program as unable to continue if a SCO operating system is found.
Let's produced updated versions of popular packages (Samba, Mozilla, gcc, etc.) that check the platform name via uname(),
This would at least prohibit SCO from circulating newer versions without making modification to the code themselves. Of course, if they did this they would have to do so publically or would themselves be in violation of GPL.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
Apache isn't distributed under the GPL. It's distributed under the Apache Software License (ASL).
If other open source projects, apache,sendmail, postfix etc. Would follow suit, I think sco or anybody else contemplating similiar actions, would have to rethink their litigous business plan.
Stupid American!
Though it seems like all the bad laws flow from here, so perhaps everyone across the world should be focusing on helping the EFF firstly to fight the root cause, as it were.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I really wonder if SCO gives a damn what is or isn't in UnixWare and OpenServer anymore. Does anyone even buy new versions from them?
In stating that the GPL is invalid, they are refusing to accept it, and therefore do not have the right to distribute GPL'ed software.
Even if Fyodor doesn't technically have the rights to do this under Section 4 (it seems subject to interpretation), SCO has a couple of choices:
- Pull NMap to avoid issues, and thereby admit that the GPL might hold up in court.
- Continue to distribute NMap, and (hopefully) get sued.
If they get sued, they can present one of two cases:
- Fyodor doesn't have the right to do this under the GPL -- a case they might win, but wouldn't fit their party line.
- The GPL is invalid and therefore code released under it is public domain -- what they've been claiming, and a case they absolutely CAN'T win.
So they're totally screwed, assuming that someone (EFF donations anyone?) pays to sue them if they keep distributing. No matter what they do, they're going to prove themselves wrong about the GPL.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Ouch, SCO, that had to hurt a bit. Definately made me smile this morning.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
The thing is Sco is saying many things, many of which contradict themselves, but one of them is that code was slapped with a GPL licence illegally. So they are trying with that argument to say that it does not apply to those sections of linux code. That, in light of your post, is their best hope. However, in asking for roalties for the kernel, they are most likely violating the gpl. So if they just asked people to not use it, they would have a better chance. But because they need money now to pay the laywers they can't wait, plus that was the whole goal of the lawsuit a new revenue stream. So to sum up Sco is obviously screwed here. GPL Cannot be tested for the reasons you pointed out, however one could argue that the code was illegally licensed as GPL.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Remember nmap is distributed under the GPL but the copyright is owned exclusively by Fyodor. This is why he ensures that anyone who contributes code gives away their copyright - so he can resell it. Fyodor then re-licenses his code to many major security companies under a closed source license for gigantic licensing fees, in the hundred thousand dollar range. He also extends the GPL in his documentation to give himself stronger legal legs to stand on (quote to follow). So perhaps this is his way of letting SCO know that they're gonna need to pay up?
COPYING:
"Note that the GPL places important restrictions on "derived works", yet *
* it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To avoid *
* misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a *
* "derivative work" for the purpose of this license if it does any of the *
* following: *
* o Integrates source code from Nmap *
* o Reads or includes Nmap copyrighted data files, such as *
* nmap-os-fingerprints or nmap-service-probes. *
* o Executes Nmap *
* o Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into an executable installer *
* o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above"
If you have any questions about the GPL licensing restrictions on using *
* Nmap in non-GPL works, we would be happy to help. As mentioned above, *
* we also offer alternative license to integrate Nmap into proprietary *
* applications and appliances. These contracts have been sold to many *
* security vendors, and generally include a perpetual license as well as *
* providing for priority support and updates as well as helping to fund *
* the continued development of Nmap technology. Please email *
* sales@insecure.com for further information.
Hey Darl! I like this part of the Usenix open letter:
"Inventors who find they can't compete against lower-cot or free substitutes are compelled to find other things to sell".
I have a few suggestions for you:
1. You could always sell your sharky legal dept. and probably make loads more money than this whole fiasco will provide you with
2. Since you seem to know so much about where to get a good tan, you could get with the Queer Eye guys and open a chain. Of course, they might not want to have anything to do with you.
3. After you get out of prison, you could peddle your body to the highest bidder.
Just a few suggestions anyway you twerp.
(Oh my. What's Poor widdle Darl gonna do now? Sned his gang of wolves after me now?)
Un-news
These are the vendors whose database and compiler products currently run on a *lot* of existing SCO and Unixware boxes. They all need to cease supporting the SCO and Unixware platform and announce to all current customers that there will be no future versions of their databases/tools for the SCO and Unixware platforms and that when the current support/maintenance contracts expire at the end of their terms that they will not be renewed since their database software, programming languages and services for these "legacy" platforms have reached end-of-life status and the users of these systems need to migrate to more modern operating systems platforms.
This business model of forced premature obsolescence of software products has been very successful for Microsoft, forceing their customers to "buy it all over again and again and again", I don't see why it couldn't be successful for these databases too.... after all, by now all business software customers have gotten so used to getting reamed repeatedly, that they're all beginning to enjoy it.
The GPL isn't a contract, which has to be "accepted" by the receiving party to be effective. It is a straight copyright license. So that argument would not fly -- except for one thing: equitable estoppel.
"Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than they did at an earlier time if another party would be harmed by the change[d] position." -- Wikipedia
In other words: You can't argue in a custody suit that you're the child's father and then argue in the following child-support suit that you aren't.
The GPL, as Eben Moglen points out, is a distributor's defense when accused of copyright infringement by an author: "I'm not infringing -- because this author granted me permission to copy, under this here license." However, SCO have argued elsewhere that the GPL is invalid. Therefore, even though the GPL is a valid license, and would be a valid license for SCO's use of nmap, SCO is estopped from raising it in court as a defense.
Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side. >:|
Have they forced users to buy licenses for nmap in addition to the GPL?
We don't know. The text of their "linux" license does not state clearly what are you licencing, but it states something like "anything that is or resembles System V derived code"... is it a joke or what?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Ok, I won't claim to be an expert on the GPL, or as others put it, IANAL.. but this is making me nauseous.
Hey Darl, instead of clinging to decades-old code that YOUR COMPANY DIDN'T WRITE IN THE FIRST PLACE, that may or MAY NOT be in the kernel, why don't you spend some of that time and energy in DEVELOPING SOME NEW SOFTWARE?!
Accusing OSS of undermining national security is the most frusterating thing I could possibly think of to hear on a Friday morning.
Capitalism is built on competition. May the best man win. Develop a better mousetrap and you might have people who want to buy it from you. Treat customers with respect and you build a loyal base of consumers who RESPECT YOUR COMPANY. The GPL by no means (once again, IANAPL) stops people from getting paid for their work. Hell, there's plenty of OSS that I know of, using the good 'ol paypal method who don't seem to be that bad off...
This has got to stop, it's starting to worry me. Ad I don't even use linux that much!
As if the state of our society wasn't frusterating enough before all of this...
Martin Luther was an earlier advocate of file sharing of establishment-copy-controlled scripture texts with the masses. And many early Americans thrived on ignoring English copyrights.
I for one find this, if true, quite frightening. That means that ANY license that includes something like GPL's section 4 is uncontestable in court. So if Microsoft puts in their license agreement something like "LICENSEE must stand in the middle of a busy intersection with a sign saying 'I love Microsoft' for 3 hours (or until killed by traffic)" I have no choice but to do this or not accept the license? That can't possibly be right. A judge would HAVE to be able to say, "This person is not in violation of the license because that part of the license is just silly." Right?
Now obviously the legal arguments surrounding terms of the GPL would be much subtler, but in principle it seems to me that a judge must be able to rule that a licensee is not violating the terms of a license because the terms are invalid.
GNU should follow suit with a dear sco you can't have GCC or GLIBC anymore. GNU could totally back it up. And a Linux distribution is worthless without the GNU software.
Don't libraries freely distribute books? How are bookstores and publishers to compete? Under SCO's logic, they should be shut down to preserve the US economy.
Copyright (C) David J. Davison
.sig now.
Set the trailing bit on in each character of the plaintext
( This will make B == C, D == E, etc ), thereby approximately halving the possible input space.
Compress that result.
It *should* be smaller than compressing the original input. Note, specific cases that exhibit no "lossiness" can be constructed.
QED.
Sorry, I guess you will have to change your
emt 377 emt 4
You must be smoking something really good, dude. The copyright holder said "take this,
That's a huge difference, and you know it!
HAND.
They cannot change the license for software they have already distributed unless the license lets them do so, or the license is not valid for this case.
Unless they are using a modified GPL, they cannot "revoke" a license. The new software released could have a "everyone but SCO" license.
If, however, SCO, by stating that the GPL is invalid, has disagreed to the terms of it, then the softwares authors can simply declare that SCO has no legitimate rights to use their software.
A man is free as long as he complies with the laws.
Can you demand to exersize your freedom once you have broken the laws?
Plaintiff - OK, SCO, you are distributing my copyrighted work, nmap, without a valid license.
SCO - But you released that code under the GPL. I can use it without any further license. [But please pay me $699/cpu for the code I shipped under GPL which I claim does not grant you the right to use or distribute it]
or
SCO - You are right, I have no license and that is, indeed, your copyright.
or
SCO - That copyright notice is not really a copyright notice.
Finally! Fyodor does what the Samba team SHOULD HAVE done. Hats off to Fyodor for getting the ball rolling. Let's hope that all the authors whose packages are on the skunkware CDs will have the wisdom to revoke from SCO the right to distribute them, since SCO does not accept the GPL.
Without skunkware, a SCO server is barely usable.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Unfortunately, for the most part the FSF is blustery with very little follow-through. FSF could have already taken SCO to legal task, and has failed to do so. In fact there are probably many other cases of GPL violations that have not made it to the spotlight like SCO, that FSF could have sued over.
Certainly, IBM has self-serving motives in stepping on the SCO bug, but really, deep pocket commercial entities like IBM are our best hope for vindication of the GPL.
Of course this is only my insignificant opinion, but sometimes I think the FSF is simply an ego platform for certain persons spout this and that with little real incentive to follow through...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So your tagline wasn't meant to be just funny, I guess... ;-)
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
GNU should pull gcc, Trolltech should pull qt, GNOME should pull gtk and put an end to this... Okay, it's a great start...
Could the FSF take the lead in a class action suit, where the class consists of all GPL code owners that have products redistributed by SCO?
I'll probably get modded down for this and told to take off the tin-foil hat, but...
It seems like Darl is doing someone else's lobbying for them.
There's a lot at stake here for a certain software monopolist. And most of Darl's arguments benefit that Redmond company more than SCO.
Why would it benefit SCO to lobby Congress against open source? It really doesn't. The more open source goes on, the more companies that SCO can sue. On the other hand, it does benefit a certain software company that actually SELLS software, and is currently suffering from open source competition.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy-theorist. I think this is the best indication we've had yet that Microsoft is doing some under the table bankrolling of Darl's Misadventures (in addition to the above-table money they have already given SCO)... where there's smoke, there's fire.
Image that there is a clear notice in Samba, Apache Etc...
As the SCO group has broken the terms of the GPL by redistributing our program XXXX under conditions prohibited by the GPL they have automatically lost their rigth to redistribute our software under this license according to line ?? of the GPL. They have not right at all to distribute XXXX unless they pay for a new different license.
This includes:
-
-
-
If you have this software included with any of this products please contact us.
Hooah..! :=)
NFM
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Informative while you are high on what? This is complete and utter bullshit. If you release software under the GPL, it has been released under the GPL. You cannot un-GPL it later, or revoke anyones license to it. That's the whole point of the GPL, to ensure it stays GPL. The parent is completely 100% wrong on both counts. It *is* about wether or not SCO thinks the GPL is valid, and nmap.org has no right whatsoever to revoke the license. If SCO doesn't agree to the GPL, then they don't have license to distribute it, that's what its about.
I also find it interesting that you think the person that released the software under that license doesn't have the right to decide who is violating the license. This is not the same as the public domain!
"Yeah, you see that? Deploy Linux and your company could be NEXT on the GPL hit list!"
Has SCO actually claimed in court has the GPL is invalid? It doesn't seem that estoppel applies to statements made to the press--SCO can say one thing to the media and another in court all they want. They only have to be consistent in official legal proceedings.
It's maybe more to do with the court of public opinion than a court of law.
Legally speaking, SCO have a valid license to distribute nmap - the GPL.
If (and this is a big if) enough challenges from developers of GPL software force SCO to admit that the GPL is valid, it will make them look even more confused than they already do. And maybe a few investors might hear what's going on too.
In the courts of course, their stance on the GPL will not last a day's hard scrutiny anyway.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
That bit about nmap makes me think, would be kinda cool if the maintainers of thousands of various projects all introduced code in their projects to specifically not execute on SCO platforms. Let SCO sit around with an OS that nothing runs on.
Because they've already said that the gpl is invalid for their code that they redistributed under the GPL, they would have effectively already plead guilty to copyright violation. Sounds like some of that litigation fund could be put to better use with the NMap developers.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Let's leave that aside for the moment, and suppose the argument for some mysterious reason does not apply to most other services but does apply to software. Then marketplace competition will drive prices down, as I understand the theory. How low can they go, in SCO's view, before they become unconstitutional?
Suppose that someone comes up with a brilliant new software package called ninunec ("Ninunec Is Not Unix, Nor Even Close"). Suppose that person wants to give away ninunec, perhaps with the intention of proving his worth to scare up venture capital for an even more ambitious plan he has.
Under the theory that SCO is presenting to congress, he should not be allowed contribute his work into the public domain! since this constitutes "dumping". I'm sure this raises free speech questions, but let's leave that aside, too. What is the lowest constitutionally permitted cost, under SCO's argument. so that our genius can promote his wares and himself. Let's say he keeps a conventional copyright and charges a penny per source download.
As long as the cost remains low enough, the evil consequences that SCO attributes to open source remain. You haven't solved the alleged problem that SCO proposes by mandating that software cannot be free. It therefore becomes necessary under SCO's arguments to mandate a minimum price for ninunec, and for every other piece of software (and every other service that falls under the SCO guidelines) that ever enters the marketplace! (Good luck with that one.)
SCO's letters, aside from their usual dubious claims about ownership of code, make claims that amount to mandating a profit for their industry by preventing contributions from a volunteer sector. The only meaningful way to implement that position into law is 1) to create an exhaustive list of activities that are constitutionally impermissible without charging a fee and 2) to have a government body set mandated minimum prices in all those activities.
That's not the free enterprise model I've heard so much about. I think we should reconsider which position is the subversive one!
mt
If some big company that made portable music players created a tv commercial using a copyrighted song, without licensing the rights to use that song.... hmmm... I wonder if the copyright holder would sue?
SCO has clearly not accepted the GPL. Which means that (barring any agreements they have made with individual authors) they have no license to either use or distribute any GPLd software.
Instead of banning SCO from distributing nmap, Fyodor should be suing them for copyright violation since they are clearly distributing it without a license.
Better still, form a class action lawsuit against SCO of people who hold copyright for GPLd software distributed by SCO for copyright violation. That a big enough cookie that you might find some laywers willing to go for it on speculation.
This incedentally is one of the reasons it makes some sense to assign copyright to the FSF. It's a lot easier for a single organization to press a lawsuit than to organize a class action with thousands of individual developers. Think herding cats.
Except for the Linux Peronality Module that they ship. I strongly suspect they had to look at Linus's GPL'ed code to get that to work.
SCO may be in violation of sections 4 and 5 of the GPL in regaurds to that piece of code (LPM) as well.
I suspect that the SAMBA team may hold the largest trump card in this case. Seeing as anyone who would want LPM functionality may well instead build a second box with Linux on it. The SAMBA functionality is a great add on and SCO's marketing dept have long trumpeted its capabilities.
I suspect other authors will also publicly revoke SCO's licence.
I wonder if the OSDN/IBM/NOVELL defense funds can also be used for Offensive lawsuits to protect authors' terms of licence. If so, that provides a contract-free way to build a case specificly to show the GPL's strength in court, in a case argued on those grounds alone.
Mod parent up!!
The Nmap authors must show that SCO has violated the terms under which they have licensed Nmap to SCO, not the terms under which someone else has licensed another work. The fact that the Nmap and Linux licenses happen to be identically worded is irrelevant. Violation of the Linux license is not violation of the Nmap license.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
While nmap is a great tool, I don't think this is going to have much effect on SCO.
Pull the license for something they can't easily do without, like Apache or ksh, and you might have something.
The GPL has never been "proven" in court.
Eventually, there will have to be a showdown.
This is not the time, SCO could ignore this with no problem. Fyodor, I doubt would sue. And if he did he legal fees could be sky-high.
FSF wouldn't want to back fear of draining their resources.
While the FSF thinks GPL is rock solid, others do not, and eventually a company will not be willing to settle out of court.
And the real fight will begin.
Very brilliant move.. Now if sendmail, apache would do the same it would definitely drive a nail into the SCO coffin. Im not a lawyer or anything but it would be very nice for many people to jump on this bandwagon. It would be quite evil for hardware manufacturers to do the same.. No Driver support for you! or.. No Soup for you!
There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
Or SCO for that matter? For companies in which Linux is allegedly a direct threat, having the GPL declared invalid is precisely what they want: for MS, everyone moves over to XP, for SCO, people buy more Unix licenses. All GPL software
call me anal-retentive.
I think that the expression "for free" is bad writing. Linux is "freely" available, it is "free" and you can get it "for nothing."
But to say you can get it "for free" is just bad English. I've got this ruler right here. Now, hold out your wrist...
This could also allow the FSF to pull such tools as GCC, binutils, and all of the C development libraries, which would make it very difficult to develop software or run certain programs under SCO's version of Linux.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I hereby grant permission to the SCO group to use under the GPL license dhowells-map which is similar to nmap but seperately licenced. Doesnt this fuck up fyodor's restriction. Although he can still sue them for violation for the violations of the GPL which they have already comitted, but not for continuing to use and redistribute dhowells-map
use Blunt::Instrument;
The suggestion has come up from time-to-time that it would be a "distributed attack" on SCO to buy their shares. This idea is misguided: both because it props up share price and subsidizes wrong-doing, and also just because most shares are not publicly traded.
But a genuine distributed attack would be for many authors whose copyright SCO is violating to individually sue SCO for statutory damages. There are certainly hundreds of different applications under GPL that SCO continues to distribute, in violation of licensing terms. Hundreds of lawsuits in hundreds of different courts would certainly be fun to follow (and would probably speed up the bankrupcy of SCOX).
Buy Text Processing in Python
I like the part where they basically said "why would you buy our software when you can get the same thing for free?" FVCKING A. Why buy SCO when Linux (or my fav, FreeBSD) will do the same job better and cheaper. Sounds like they are saying "It's not fair...we are loosing money and we can't underbid FREE software" lol cb
Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets.
USENIX ASSOCIATION
2560 Ninth Street
Suite 215
Berkeley, CA
USA
510 528 8649
FAX 510 528 5738
office@usenix.org
URL http://www.usenix.org
February 27, 2004
The SCO Group, Inc. (SCO), has recently sued IBM and Novell and launched broad attacks on the legality of and the economic justification for socalled open source licensing, including the free licensing of Linux. As an organization dedicated to advancing the skills and contributions of computer researchers and developers, the USENIX Association is compelled to address and refute the position SCO has taken regarding open source software.
Since 1975, USENIX has brought together the community of engineers, system administrators, scientists, and technicians working on the cutting edge of the computing world. USENIX was here before SCO. USENIX was here before Linux. USENIX and its members serve as an unparalleled demonstration that the best way to support advances in computer programming and to create better computer programs (and to help the American economy) is by sharing innovations, rather than keeping them secret or charging large amounts of money for access to them, as SCO advocates.
SCO argues that open source software, and in particular the General Public License (GPL), by means of which Linux and many other open source programs are licensed without charging fees, are "a threat to the U.S. information technology industry." SCO's own programmers themselves use open source computer software tools, so it is difficult to explain SCO's position except by noting its hypocrisy. Many of the most popular computer development tools are available to programmers worldwide for free through the contributions of the open source development community. If their developers were to charge substantial fees for their use or to withdraw them from distribution entirely, commercial programmers such as SCO and noncommercial programmers alike would be the worse for it.
SCO specifically argues that open source (free) licensing "undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights." This assertion lacks any legal justification and therefore appears to be merely selfserving. Nothing in our intellectual property laws requires inventors to charge substantial fees for access or use of their inventions. In fact, the laws of copyright and patents, which underlie the intellectual property rights that most often protect computer software programs, give their owners complete discretion in deciding how large their licensing fees should be, or, indeed, whether to impose fees at all.
SCO specifically argues that open source software "has the potential to provide our nation's enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are restricted by U.S. law." Intellectual property law is not the right place to impose restrictions on the use of computer programs abroad. That's what our export control laws do. This confusion between intellectual property licensing and export policy shows how bankrupt SCO's arguments are. Furthermore, the U.S. export control authorities have acknowledged the impossibility of restricting the geographical distribution of most computer software programs. In any event, neither area of law hinges on whether software programs are licensed for fees or for free, or whether the innovations are kept secret or are shared.
SCO specifically argues, "Each Open Source installation displaces or preempts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyrightprotected software." This would only be true if the open source applications were superior or at least equal to their proprietary counterparts. America has always asserted that the marketplace is the best regulator. Expensive products stimulate the introduction of less expensive and better substitutes. Intellectual property laws do not change that basic principle of capitalism. SCO's desire to be protected against competition is understandable, particularly if its products are inferior to those of its open source competitors. But it is unreasonabl
One of the reasons I became an Associate member of FSF is to help the piper. Put your money where your popcorn is going and become a producer of the show!
I've read the majority of the public SCO documents, and i have to say, they're either really desperate, they've got yes-men for lawyers, or the head of their legal department is a 11-year old who's trying to imitate his lawyer daddy. In every single document SCO claims that the GNU GPL violates U.S. copyright law, and also the DMCA. BUT THEY NEVER SAY HOW!!! I don't know if they live under a rock, but every legal commentator i've seen on the net says they have absolutly no case! They would be laughed out of court! I'm starting to think that MS is paying them to go on with the case in order to boost their Anti-open source propoganda that they're firing at the common man. SCO's and MS's stuff almost sounds like it came straight from a computer-literate Senator McCarthy!
Go Fyodor
Doing this harms innocent users of the UnixWare platform. Although I fully support the revoking of SCO's rights to distribute, actually removing support for their platforms is unfair to users.
This reminds me of when the FSF boycotted Apple's A/UX - us A/UX users were left at a disadvantage because of the difficulty that resulted in obtaining GNU software - including those who purchased before Apple even began taking action based on its "look and feel" patents.
...at the holder's request.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I wonder if the best way for coders to fight against SCO isn't just to code open source alternatives to every single one of SCO's software products. Is there currently any reason for a customer to stay with SCO other than the cost of changing their existing infrastructure?
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Very public statements that they do not consider the GPL to be enforceable and therefore they didn't license their alleged IP in the Linux kernel under the same when they distributed it in their Distribution amounts to a public statement that they don't intend to honor the GPL.
If you don't intend to honor the GPL, you have no license to produce derivatives or redistribute code because one of the clauses says so.
Fyodor's just making an official and public statement to this effect.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It may happen that a judge takes a good hard look at the license and decides that due to the obvious intention of the license (to distribute "free" software) and the subsequent widespread distribution of said software, that it is in fact in the public domain, and the original author has no rights under copyright to it anymore.
- Daryll
...they don't intend to honor the terms of the GPL in the case of the Linux kernel- period. In the process, they've made it clear that they don't intend on honoring the terms of the GPL, or agree to it for that matter, for pretty much anything licensed under it. Since this is the case, they're pretty much without a license as they have to agree to and honor the terms of the same per the terms of the license- failure to do so means your license is automatically revoked.
Fyodor's just made a public statement to that effect along with a statement that he will no longer be supporting SCO systems.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I don't know why more coders haven't refused SCO use of their code. It is one very distinct power allowed by the GPL, and obviously SCO is violating it.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Their public proclaimations are actionable as well- and will be held against them in court. It's stung them badly in the hearings they've had for discovery.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
There's a strong argument that SCO, by their actions of offering a paid license for their alleged intellectual property in Linux
I assume here you mean the Linux kernel, not other software which may run on Linux and they may have provided.
has violated the GPL.
No, they have violated the license agreement for the Linux kernel (hint: If I violate some proprietary software, nothing affects the license on the competitors software licensing, even if they use identical wording
That legally, ethically and morally terminates their right to the software under the GPL.
Ethical and moral aren't involved here, and legally, they only lose the right to distribute the software in question.
Satisfying the license agreement for the kernel (or not) has nothing to do with them satisfying the license agreement of other software.
If this were the case, it might be that people distributing nmap with this additional license restriction would lose their license to distribute the Linux kernel!
Sorry, but for the nmap author to do this, he has to show that SCO distributed nmap with additional restrictions.
You have to know that Darl's just a stooge for Micro$oft, who gave SCO 50mil just for the purpose of litigating linux for 5 years until they come out with their next great windows POS. And then, guess what? I'm sure Darl will get some cushy job at M$, maybe VP of linux integration fuckhead or something. All of this is so OBVIOUS, in that it has NOTHING to do with IP, persay, but M$ using their MONOPOLY status to push and pull the software industry any way they want using intimidation and coercion. I THOUGHT THIS WAS WHAT THE ANTITRUST LAWS WERE CREATED TO PREVENT!
Again, it only shows that our govt. is bought and paid for by Large multinational satanic companies. Even though i hate to admit it, Ralph Nader is COMPLETELY CORRECT in this regard....
DARL COME SUCK MY DICK YOU FUCKING WHORE
Actually in this particular case of nmap they wouldn't be. The clauses that Fydor would claim they are violating are clauses he added to the license (as is his right). These clauses have no bearing on GPL.
Sig is on vacation
well said, just straight hardcore facts
Doesn't contributing to a GPL project give the copyright to the creator if not explicity (c) signed by the contributor?
HOLY CRAP! From the SCO Website!
Feb 27, 2004
For immediate release:
SCO Group of Linden, Utah announced the first end-user lawsuit designed to further their SCOSource program to get people to properly license SCO IP currently being distributed in Linux. SCO has filed suit against the owners of insecure.org who, according to Netcraft, are running Apache/Linux.
Asked for comment, SCO Group CEO Darl McBride responded: "It is a terrible day when IP owners have to resort to a lawsuit to protect their valuable IP interests. insecure.org had months to do the right thing and respect SCO IP by signing up for our SCOSource program, but they blatantly ignored our generous offer. It appears that the only option left open to us is to take our case to the courts where we will ultimately prevail. So, it is with great sadness and regret that the SCO Group announces this lawsuit, because we don't do business this way. It just goes to show you how far these IP terrorists will go to destroy the valuable creations of hard-working Americans. Nobody likes a lawsuit, but we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves and the Constitution of the United States from the evil axis of IP destruction that is the Open Source community."
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Unless you call Solaris useable without half of the software at sunfreeware.com
At least in the United States, you do not need a license to use software, only to make copies. Section 117 of copyright laws says:
Essentially, loading the software onto a disk and into memory isn't considered infringement (even though it's technically a copy). This is why you can use GPL'd software (or any other software that you legally obtained, for that matter) without accepting the license. I have heard that it is possible to bypass Microsoft's EULA this way, though I don't know if any court has ruled on whether or not it's infringement.
A$$ from the SEC for Pump and Dump. They know their days are numbered. Clearly they have no rights to derivatives as seen in the AT&T doc, now their rights to UNIX is in question.
Lets go out on a limb here and say sco gets the GPL declaired as public domain. How will this effect the paris treaty on copywrite. The US would now stop enforcing copywrite of some non-US material. Would it be a defacto withdrawl and US copywrite is not enforced world wide under any treaty?
It would be the same as if A bug were found in open software. The hole would be patched the same week. GPL 2.1 would be on the front page of slashdot, everyone would start using *that* license...
any patch submissions that an individual makes to nmap find their way into a closed source security tool sold by fyodor. his use of the GPL license is shoddy at best.
fyodor is also a black hat hacker, having publically hacked and shamed one slashdot individual.
the fact that the slashdot editors still embrace fyodor and all he stands for makes me think he's hacked them and has something that they don't want to see released.
i'd love to know what that something is.
AOL was very quick to say that Gnutella and WASTE were unauthorized software releases. That makes the legal status of the original binaries/source murky at best. In any case, it would take a trial for a definte answer.
Not that it matters, anyone can implement the protocols.
Could the FSF take the lead in a class action suit, where the class consists of all GPL code owners that have products redistributed by SCO?
We're back to "the FSF can't sue someone for violating the license on someone else's code." The fact that the FSF authored the GPL does not give them any standing when it comes to licensor or licensee.
And so far as I know, the only GPLed project whose license is being violated by SCO is the Linux kernel. As long as SCO honors the GPL on the products that it distributes with UnixWare (gcc, Samba, etc.) the developers don't have any standing to sue.
Jay (=
The trick is not to let SCO spin this copyright protection as the actions of an unfair and rapacious Free Software Movement. Of course, they would anyhow
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
For TrollTech, if you were developing GPL'ed software, you could use their toolkit, but if you were doing proprietary software, you had to buy some sort of license.
IANALJAP (IANAL, just a programmer), but what would stop Fyodor from doing the same thing? This software is offered under two licenses: the GPL if you are anybody but The SCO Group, or the No License if you are The SCO Group. This way, we don't have to have these long arguments about section 4 or 5 of the GPL, and life is good. I realize that this may be against the spirit of the GPL, but, according to section 2:
So, is this legit? Personally, I'd really like to see the SAMBA or GCC folks do something like this (no offense to Fyodor, but losing the rights to distribute SAMBA would hurt SCO a LOT more than losing the rights to distribute NMap.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
From the letter:
Society is better off when consumers have choices and when products compete with one another on the basis of functionality and price...
Unless it's Microsoft, because we hate them.
After rereading the submission and copy of nmap's release notes, I see that Fyodor isn't revoking SCO's license to nmap because he doesn't like them, he's accusing them of violating the GPL and telling them their license to use nmap is revoked as a result.
On that thought, I think Fyodor is missing a bet here; IIRC, the penalties for intentional copyright infringement can be quite large. (After all, isn't that what SCO originally accused IBM of?) He should talk to a lawyer and get them to draft a "cease and desist" letter to SCO.
If they want to use his code for free under the GPL, they have to abide by it. Otherwise, if they want to license it separately, they should have to pay $$$ just like a "real, Constitutional" license agreement.
Jay (=
(Maybe there should be a slew of copyright registation requests sent to the Library of Congress for source code...)
Seems fair. You violated his privacy by republishing private correspondance. You've not got a leg to stand on by complaining that he published all your private details.
Anyone care to find morally sound arguments against this?
this is great news - hope some other projects do the same.
Lets ask Blake and Darl what she/he/they thinks - and hear the intelligence roll from their mouths.
fsck off Microsoft.
I agree with the general thought that all package developers should do the same as Fyodor and refuse SCO the right to distribute their packages or software as part of a SCO distribution.
Till now there's just been wide spread noise about SCO but nobody's really taken any big steps outside the courtroom.This really has potential to take this game into a totally different league as it lets a lot of people do something about this mess.
Lord of the Binges.
Unless of course they obtain the right to distribute under some other license. If the author (who holds the copyright) grants them redistribution rights without adhering to the GPL, then that's the author's good right.
Me thinks no author in their right mind would want to grant anything to SCO, but it's a theoretical possibility
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
The problem was that sdem was a teenage high school student at the time. Fyodor was in his mid-30s. How can you justify what Fyodor did when you consider age? There's a reason why juvenile punishment is considered separate from adult punishment. It's because kids don't have mature reasoning or judgement skills.
In other news, Washington Post responding to the growing popularity of New York Times among the important Slashdot readership has renamed itself Washington First Post. In turn, Chicago Daily Herald is considering a more computer geek oriented image as Chicago Nightly Herald...
As long as [SCO] are in violation of the GPL, they do not have rights to distribute any GPLed software.[emphasis mine]
Where the hell do you get this? If I distribute the work of a kernel copyright holder without their permission, I am infringing on their copyrights. How would this automatically cancel permission from a different copyright holder to distribute their distinct copyrighted work (e.g., NMap) if I have not violated the terms of their permission?
Two independent copyright holders independently give permission to Darl to distribute their copyrighted work. If Darl violates the agreement with one of them, it does not somehow magically void his agreement with the other.
Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side.
Emphasis mine.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
is ensuring that others preserve those freedoms. Think about it this way...if you believe in freedom, why don't you believe in the freedom to kill people? It's because that freedom comes at the cost of a greater freedom, the freedom to continue living. Just so, the freedom to take away other people's freedom, as SCO is doing by violating the GPL, is incompatible with ensuring that everyone can reap the benefits of free software. In short, "free software" is only free insofar as you preserve for others the freedoms that you were given.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
IANAL but I am not sure that a license has any binding nature on the copyright holder. The "You may not impose any further restrictions ..." bit is clearly aimed at the licensee when they pass the software onto other people not the copyright holder.
I can invite my neighbour to use my pool anytime she likes under certain conditions and that is a license. But the person doesn't have to break any of those conditions for me to be able to revoke the license whenever I like. If we had a contract that would be different but for a contract you need "consideration", the other party has to give me something in return, and in the case of the GPL that isn't true.
This issue has been brought up before and discussed on the other site, but I have never seen a really convincing arguement for why it is wrong. If it is correct then it has troubling implications, especially as copyrights can be transfered between people, not always volentarily.
Imagine as an extreme example Linus being sued into bankrupcy by a large corporation and the corporation getting all his assets, which would include not just his house and car, but all the copyrights to software that he has written. If the GPL can be revoked then that corporation could bring Linux development and distribution to a crashing halt until such time as all Linus's code could be removed and reimplemented.
Only a hundred or so years to go from not respecting copyright to the DMCA and perpetual copyright...
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
I read Darl's letter and was appaled that he misses the point of the GPL entirely. Though the copywrite laws are there to encourage commercial growth and the ability to create wealth from IP and brand names, you should inversely be able to ensure your work will not be used for profit for the good of humanity / the general public. The GPL, rather than ensuring a stiffling of cemmercial work, ensures the prosperity of public works. The GPL makes software freely available because those who contribute are excercizing their rights to allow people access to use and distribute their work, without the ability to with hold their work on GPL projects and make money from those changes without redistributing source changes under the GPL. This ensures that the creators interest in keeping their work protected is safe from commercial theft or commercial managment.
I think Darl should look at the fact that many PhDs, Graduate Students would love to work on AIX, Solaris, or any other flavor of commercial UNIX to make modifications, do research, or improve their product merely for the fact of learning. Operating on these systems is impossible for most students and professionals and this is the reason Linux was created and the reason that it continues to be a force in the software world. People are tired of spending money to Companies for a product that they would rather create and contribute to themselves. If we live in a country where you cannot create a free product without profit motive (many companied make money selling and supporting Linux by the way), I am suprised and shocked at our greed. This is like saying you cannot make art that people can view frrely or you cannot have a pot luck and not charge the guests for eating it. The fact that this is software has little to do with the issue unless A) Foriegners make a supercomputer using Linux, in a situation where they could not circumvent the law and use another UNIX, B) We are using a commercial UNIX to copy code from and the vendor that created the code is unwilling to let that information go. I think in the case of B), that SCO does not have a case bacuase IBM never copied the snippets of code from Sys V, because everyone knew through work on BSD and Minix in college what the Sys V code ideas were that made a real Unix like OS. IBM copied their own work and used their developers to make the changes to Linux that they made to AIX. These changes are what make AIX a powerhouse and will bring Linux to the next level.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
In the past, certain developers licensed software with usage restrictions: for instance, one license I've seen said something akin to "anyone may use this software except members of the United States armed forces." The GPL prohibits these kinds of restrictions.
:-)
.mil in my Apache logs. All the other armies and "bad guys" in general do not have their own TLD.
Interesting. I'm also occasionally thinking about adding almost exactly the same clause to my own license. (Except it would apply to any armed forces, not just the US).
So it seems I can't do that on top of GPL.
But anyway, the "bad guys" are far from being only the military, so the whole idea is somehow silly even if it has it's tempting aspects, which come to haunt me when I see
"That's exactly it, Private. War's over. We won. Turns out you're the big hero. We're holding a parade in your honor. I get to drive the float. And Simmons here...IS IN CHARGE OF CONFETTI!"
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
There's a more explicit breach than that. Section 4 states that you may not attempt to sublicense the covered software in any way, and any attempt to do so automatically revokes all granted priviliges. So by attempting to charge $699 to license linux (including nmap) they are breaching section 4, which revokes all rights to distribution they once had under the license, which makes them in breach of copyright if they continue to distribute.
The statement by nmap is really more of a clarification than any positive action - the infringement (and thus the revocation of rights) occured the moment SCO started licensing linux for a fee.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Think of it... how many programs/tools use nmap as a back end scanner?
This would also mean that nessus and other tools like it would not be able to use nmap's "features" when running on SCO "stuff"...
--
Time is on my side
SCO has filed a statement with the court (in response to IBM's counterclaims) saying that the GPL is (among other things) "unenforcable", "void and/or voidable", and "unconstitional". This could be read as prima facie evidence that they do not accept the terms of the GPL, which is a requirement for distributing any GPL'd software.
If they'd confined themselves to press releases questioning the legality of the GPL, then I think you might have a point. But they've basically stated in open court that they do not accept the GPL at all, therefore they're in violation of section 5 of the GPL with respect to any and all GPL'd programs. (Thanks to the smart folks at Groklaw for pointing this out.)
Has SCO actually claimed in court has the GPL is invalid?
Yes, in their response to IBM's counterclaims, SCOG states that the GPL is "unenforcable", "void and/or voidable" and "unconstitutional". Those statements are all on file with the Utah court at this time.
revolt I say, revolt
This is what SCO has said in FEDERAL COURT!!!
This from Dan on Groklaw:
SCO's disavowal of the GPL isn't just in public statement, its in testimony submitted in federal court:
From "SCO"'s answer to IBM's ammended counterclaims.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.
"Void and/or voidable" might be a problem for "SCO". We saw
that they looked to have some difficulties with other defenses (affirmations of fraud on the part of IBM in patent and copyright applications), they may have problems with these defenses too. Consider:
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.
...they'd have to affirm the GPL! Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Especially since it would contradict their court filings in Utah, and possibly open them up to charges of perjury.
SCOG is truly between a rock and a hard place.
From the Sydney Morning Herald we have this. SMH is about as mainstream as you get ... true it is in the technology section but it heads the section as a Special Report.
Bitter and proud of it.
Forget RTFA, Read The Slashdot Mini-Story!
Sheesh. You GenMTV'ers can't even be bothered to read the bite-sized morsel Slashdot provides.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
If they want licensing right to portions of the kernel then that's sublicensing portions of the kernel.
Could the GPL be invoked to prohibit them from using the parts of the kernel that they do NOT lay claim to?
ex, they claim 5% of the kernel souce, but because of the GPL they're then not allowed to use the other 95%?
-Me
There really isn't a challenge under GPL.
What should have happened, is that SCO should not have been offered a license (GPL or otherwise) for the new NMAP code.
No license -- and SCO can't distribute. You can't ADD stuff to the GPL, but it *is* ok to not offer.
Just tell SCO "I'm sorry, but everyone *except* you can license under GPL. You can't...".
The GPL won't let you retract an existing license.
But new code doesn't have to be exclusively under GPL licensing terms.
There is *one* problem -- if the NMAP folk license under GPL to another party, the third party can redistribute to SCO. So SCO can *use* the software. But the original copyright holder can simply tell them that they have no right to copy.
Remember folks, it *is* a monopoly!
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
It would be nice if OSI provided approved BSD, GPL, etc templates that had no-SCO clauses.
I love it how whenver there's an article like this everyone quickly becomes an expert on the GPL, copyright law,....
We need a new version of the GPL that adds an exclusion clause preventing SCO from using or distributing the software. GPL_EXCEPT_SCO.
While they can still distribute the OSS software, they don't get the benefit of OSS developers porting it to their platform and generally working for them.
They get to do the extra work themselves.
That's bad. What if you lose the custody suit, *then* find out the bitch cheated on you and you're not the dad, *then* have to pay child support anyway? Sounds like a good way to get screwed.
TSG (please don't call them SCO, they are not the Santa Cruz Operation, which as bad as it was in some way doesn't deserve to be associated with these morons) has danced around this very carefully. They don't ask their customers to buy the 699 licenses. Only other folks (like Red Hat customers for instance.) And if you read the license they're supposedly selling, it goes through amazing contortions to avoid actually saying what they're licensing to you when you buy it. It doesn't claim to be a license for Linux, or for anything else specific, their FUD campaign to the contrary.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
there is a very good reasons you should not limit execution! the GPL was written to make code free limiting the execution the would prevent a user from using the code on a SCO system unless they modified it not every user of GPL software knows how to do this as with most projects you only need to know how to type these two lines: ./configure
make install
if this kind of attack was done to SCO on a large scale it would make it seem like it was ok to do so and therefore you would open the possibility for this to be done to any OS resulting in a really bug usability mess. If a end user can't get the sofware to run is it really free?
the difference that you fail to point out is that if a closed-source vendor makes this 'choice for you', there is very little/nothing that you can do (opposed to running emulators or 'reverse engineered' systems like wine).
this is yet another 'plus' for open-source. this action would punish sco as a company, get additional publicity for the action, AND still leave sco users (the poor saps) to make the decisoins for themselves.
Gekido's Lair
Seems ineffective to me. Couldn't anyone else simply modify the source code, create a compatible version, and re-distribute?
Perhaps they should have included a line such as - "we hereby terminate rights to modify for compatibility with OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms." But then, with selective revocation, could it still be under GPL license?
Now we need more developers to step up to the plate and also terminate SCO's rights to redistribute the software... Long live the KING... LarryX
What if instead of simply not supporting the SCO platform in the future, he actively put a sheck in there that crippled the software if running on the Unixware platform?
If SCO found themselves having to hire engineers to change code to work on their platform (rather than marketing & PR people) they might rethink defaming the GPL.
Of course all this is based on the premise that they still want to produce software, not lawsuits.
...an Isaac Asimov novel!
Isn't it about time we move on and give SCO and this topic the attention it deserves?
~
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -Albert Einstein
SCO may turn around and revoke NMAP's right to detect SCO's Operating Systems over a network.
what license is GCC under, and do SCO use it? that would piss on their chips, so to speak. I haven't got time to look into this, but does anybody else know?
Parent's sig:
Do something useful... figure out lossy compression for plaintext...
Dne. I'v alrdy fgurd ths out. Wsn't rly dffclt, ethr. Nxt tme wy dn't yu ask me to do smthng hrder? Lke crck th CIA or smthng crzy lke tht?
A large out of court settlement should go a long way to funding GPL software & future court defenses.
Wouldn't hte moral high road for nmap to take to be to continue offering it including to SCO platforms? SCO are playing enough games for everyone.