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.
They're in violation of the GPL, by not fulfilling the terms necessary to be allowed to distribute the software under Section 4.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, but this isn't the playground, and apache can't just take their ball and go home. Unless SCO has violated the apache software license, the apache foundation cannot just suddenly remove the rights of SCO under that license because it "feels like it."
SCO has violated the GPL. Companies that distribute their software under the GPL have a right to withdraw the licensing of SCO because the GPL gives them that right due to the violation.
No such clause exists in the apache software license that if you violate the GPL they can pull your rights.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
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
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.)