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,
RTFA, they are not changing the license. They are invoking a clause in the existing license.
ummm...That's Debian' social contract *not* the GPl, dude.
This guy is way out there
They're in violation of the GPL, by not fulfilling the terms necessary to be allowed to distribute the software under Section 4.
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.
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.
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.
To that i say: rock on!
SECTION 5 OF THE GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
I'd consider declaring it invalid is not accepting the license. Therefore, they're in violation of Section 5 (for distributing without agreeing to the license), and Section 4 (for distributing without being allowed to by the GPL, due to Section 5)
Apache has it's own licence that is far less restrictive in what can be done with the code than the GPL, SCO can do what they like with any code from Apache.
See here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
Um. No they aren't. If SCO believes that the GPL is not legal, then they do not have a license to use and distribute nmap. Now they're being called on it. The default state of software where the copyright is held by someone else is that you do not have the right to use it, and just disagreeing with the license they're distributing the software under doesn't magically give you the right to steal their IP.
More interesting, however, is the question of whether nmap have the right to retract the license from SCO (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure they don't - that's part of the point of the GPL, after all). And a new license that explicitly denies SCO the right to use the code wouldn't be GPL-compatible, AIUI.
That said, in order to exercise their rights under the GPL, SCO have to agree to it. They can't claim it's an invalid license while at the same time agreeing to it in other cases. My guess is that they'll just ignore this problem and try to keep their two faces pointing different ways on the issue...
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
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.
$ find
Apache isn't distributed under the GPL though, it falls under the Apache License. I don't believe SCO has ever made any statement as to the validity of the Apache License, and as such the Apache Foundation probably can't do anything about it.
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
RTFA and cite your sources or prepare to get pwnd
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?
Of course not. If, in a film, somebody walked past a bookshelf, and you saw the books on it, would that make the film a derivation of the books? It's the same sort of thing. NMAP in this instance is just a prop.
In a response to the dDoS attack from the MyDoom virus (several weeks back), SCO pulled sco.com and replaced it with thescogroup.com
Doesn't the GPL say you cannot discriminate against any group?
I believe that's the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Or is their license being revoked because they are in violation of the GPL?
Not only did you not read the article, but you didn't even bother reading the Slashdot blurb? It explicitly states which part of the GPL they are violating. Learn to read!
Forget PHP. It's not under a GPL licence.
Apache isn't distributed under the GPL. It's distributed under the Apache Software License (ASL).
Well, in the same way, the laws give the IP owner complete discretion in deciding who can copy/share/modify their code too. Perhaps the USENIX text could have been clearer, but it is right, and it does make its point, IMO.
I don't think Apache can do it, because their license is different. Samba could and should, but they've decided for the time being not to pursue it. There are a LOT of other software that could too - if they pull everything GPL out of their software they wouldn't have a usable system anymore.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
GPL is not a free for all: you have to actively accept it, and stick to the requirements. by claiming the entire GPL as invalid, SCO does not accept the terms of the GPL, so the software reverts to normal copyright, which does not allow distribution and (in europe) does not even allow use (not sure if this also goes in the US. in european copytight law for software it is recognized that in order to run a program, you have to first make a copy of it in memory which counts as duplication)
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
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 too haven't seen a response, but I believe the reason is that SCO did not identify any parts of System V code that were copied. They only identified sections from AIX and/or Dynix as being copied into Linux.
Basically, SCO changed from saying that the code from System V is in Linux to saying whatever any company developed and distributed with a Unix OS is a derivative work of System V and therefore owned by SCO. With this logic, any code that IBM developed for services on their Unix OS'es is now owned by SCO. This is such an idiotic argument that it's hard for me to think of a good way to rebuke it, other than "Are You F-ing Nuts?"
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
nevermind, I should have RTFA, and/or posted anonymously.
but note that the licence is "automatically terminated" under section 4.
You can set up with the EFF an automatically recurring monthly donation as well. I did this a couple years ago and have been donating $25/month to the EFF ever since I started.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
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.
They (NMAP authors) have NOT changed their license at all: NMAP is still GPL.
Its just that the new RELEASE notes point out an obvious fact: SCO cannot distribute NMAP since SCO does not accept GPL.
By stating this, NMAP has not further restricted the GPL, neither have they changed their license.
> Section 4 ... seems subject to interpretation
But section 5 isn't - "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program"
> The GPL is invalid and therefore code released under it is public domain
not even that - if the GPL is invalid, it falls back to being Fyodor's personal copyright, and he can sue them for that instead.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
No, SCO is breaking Section 2b of the GPL by charging for the kernel, as they are NOT licencing their code in it free of charge to all third parties. You will note that this Section also states that putting two programs on the same CD/distrubution package does NOT put them under the same licence. So you can break the licence of one without touching the other, since they are NOT under the same licence. (This also means that you can include proprietary code without any problems)
Since they are breaking 2B., then under Section 4, their licence is void, and they may not redistribute at all. However, if they go up to a company running Redhat, and demand a fee, they have not violated the GPL at all: The GPL is only void if they sell copies of Linux complete with a licence to use the code. Of course, it is illegal to demand compensation for something you don't own, but unless they are charging it for their OWN copy, the GPL has nothing to do with it.
Further more, they are only charging for the Linux kernel. They are not charging for NMap, grep, gcc, Samba, perl, or anything else that may or may not be in a particular GNU/Linux distribution. As such, they have not violated the licence on these pieces of software. If the authors try to revoke SCO's right to this code, THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties. SCO's right to the kernel is void by their actions (If they are selling licences to the kernel that they are distributing, and the licence sold is a condition of said distribution) but not their right to anything else.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
You may be correct on the issue you're analysing, but consider that TSG has argued in court that the GPL is illegal. And remember that you don't sue anyone for 'violating the GPL' you sue them for copyright infringement. They then have to come up with a defense, and the GPL would be their defense against the infringement charge - it's not something the copyright holders need to bring up but rather a defense against them. Since TSG has and is arguing in court that the GPL is invalid, they should be therefore under an estoppel preventing them from then arguing that defense in another court. IANAL, and anyone wanting to sue them should definately talk to some folks that are about it, of course.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Trolltech and SCO are both part of the same parent company.
it goes by the name of Canopy.
I somehow doubt Trolltech is gonna do *ANYTHING* to SCO.
I think you are mistaken about what the GPL is.
First of all, it is impossible for the copyright owner to violate the GPL on the software that he himself wrote. He _owns_ the copyright, after all. The GPL does not take ownership of copyright away from the author.
Secondly, standard copyright law _always_ applies to any copyrighted work: permission to copy and distribute a copyrighted work is categorically forbidden without the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of GPL'd software, the GPL outlines the terms and conditions that one must simply agree to in order to obtain said permission. Where more conventional copyrighted works require express written permission from either the copyright owner or those explicitly authorized by him (such as a publisher), the GPL simply defaults to having given you permission that can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time should you fail to comply with the terms of the license.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.)
"Pump and Dump" is vernacular language for something that people seem to think is illegal, or wish was illegal, but it's not illegal. The SCO folks have probably kept their toes ever so slightly on the "legal" side of the line.
They have followed a bold, irresponsible course, they have made many public statements that are plainly false -- but they have also stopped short of securities fraud or perjury.
Maybe they'll mess up and cross that line, but they haven't yet.
In the mean time, you should have been investing in SCO, and making some money off this fiasco. There won't be much warning when it's time to head for the hills, but there will be some. So far, if you'd followed the analysts' advice on SCO, you'd have made money.
There really hasn't been anything for the SEC to be interested in. What crimes do you suggest they have committed, exactly? Until the various court cases are decided, it's all still based on open questions.
The Australian letters are a bit of a counter example. They may have broken Australian laws. I'm sure that has them scared in Utah.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
That is why the FSF suggests that you turn over your copyrights on GPLed code to them. If they can gather all the copyrights in one place then it's easier to defend.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.