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.'"
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.
In a word, bravo! This will make for an interesting summer.
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!"
IANAL, but if I were a judge, I'd see that their declaring the GPL invalid is a disagreement with the GPL, which says that you can use the software, but not distribute it if you disagree with the GPL.
I don't think they are allowed to modify the licensing terms, that may only apply to their own software written in-house. If they could modify the terms then the GPL loses all its bite.
Trolling is a art,
In fact you pretty much have to.
There was no discrimination; SCO opted out of accepting the licensing terms of the NMAP software. Since they have said publicly that they do not accept the GPL, usage of any GPL licensed software is immediately forbidden under the terms of the license. The NMAP folks simply pulled the trigger in textual form.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
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
Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?
What they've been doing for the past year: hire more lawyers. SCO isn't a software company any more.
Trolling is a art,
Nope. SCO believe that all GPL'd software is really public domain, since the GPL is (allegedly) unconstitutional. And they think that, by getting the GPL ruled invalid, suddenly all this code will become public domain and fair game for anyone who wants it.
I can't wait for the collective Linux developers to sue them outright, should they get the GPL overturned, for copyright infringement (since the code does NOT actually go PD but rather reverts to standard copyright, which is of course more restrictive by default with regards to copying).
Great letter! Of course, it relies on congress seeing hypocrisy as a bad thing. Unfortunately, it is often par for the course.
To what extent would Apache, Samba, and NMap explicitly preventing SCO from distributing those packages affect SCO customers? Could SCO customers still obtain those packages on their own?
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
SCO may not *believe* they would be violating copyright law by ignoring the GPL, but ignorance is no excuse is it?
either way the law is against SCO.
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.
Yup, even without the GPL, SCO is still bound by copyright laws.
They need to now get permission to distribute the software from the copyright holder (as I understand it the GPL is one such form of permission), and they seem to have been denied it.
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,...
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.
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
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.
Sure they could - the customers are not SCO.
However, what's the advantage of spending big buck$ on a commercial OS if you immediately have to go and download a metric shitload of free software to make it usable?
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).
How do you suggest that the GPL should be changed? So that the author could block certain companies from using his software? In that case the software wouldn't be free software anymore! GPL should NOT be changed to allow that to happen!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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?
Ummm... you are aware that SCO's current product line does not consist of Linux distributions, but rather original UNIX kernel-based operating systems, and thus pulling SCO's right to distribute the Linux kernel does them no harm whatsoever?
Since they have said publicly that they do not accept the GPL, usage of any GPL licensed software is immediately forbidden under the terms of the license.
Slight nitpick: It's not forbidden under the license. That would be utter madness, as they don't accept the license. It's forbidden under copyright law, something that is much stronger and more well-understood than the GPL.
In order for SCO to argue that they have the right to make copies of NMAP, they must show that they have a valid license to do so. The only license NMAP is available to the public under is the GPL, and I doubt Fyodor will license it to them privately.
On the other hand, SCO could just sue Fyodor claiming that they own the copyrights - after all they are doing it to Novell.
Have they forced users to buy licenses for nmap in addition to the GPL? My understanding was that the licenses were only to cover the kernel itself, which is where the disputed code lies. SCO may have violated the GPL in general, but not in this specific case. Looking at it dispassionately, I can't see that they've actually broken any aspect of the license with respect to nmap.
Whether they believe in the enforcability and constitutionality (is that a word?) of the GPL is kind of irrelevant - as long as they comply with the terms of the license in a given case.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Have you been paying attention at all? /. after all)
Or do you just post without RTFA? (forgot - of course you do, it is
They are invoking clause 4 of the GPL (read #5 as well). They are not doing this just because they don't like them. They are doing it because SCO has said the GPL doesn't apply to them. Since they are in violation of the GPL, they CANNOT modify or distribute NMAP.
That does NOT mean they cannot use it. It means they cannot include it (or any modified version) in their offering of whatever (UNIXWare, Linux, etc..)
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
I wonder if one could say SCO has actually violated the license.
Well, the GPL doesn't prevent SCO from charging for Linux code. But it does require SCO to distribute that code under the terms of the GPL. They can charge for providing the code, and for supporting it, but they can't prevent someone from freely copying the source and using it for other things, or distributing it for free. I think a strong case could be made that attempting to bully the rest of human civilization into paying a license fee for Linux, regardless of SCO's involvement in activities outlined in section 1 of the GPL, implies that SCO believes that Linux falls under a license other than the GPL. Since they've directly said that many times, I think the question is somewhat analogous to asking if a the unabomber is guilty of arson.
In fact, now that I think about it, that analogy is perfect.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Makes you wonder if one of these situations are going to happen.
USENIX: SCO, You don't agree to the GPL so now you can't distribute our software.
Samba: Yeah! You can't use our software because of that either now!
USENIX: And we're not supporting your platforms anymore either.
Misc: Us too!
--After SCO has only a logo left to distribute--
SCO: C'mon guys it's only business, We were playing. We like the GPL now we really do!
--- Lost Sig. Reward if found.
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
- 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.
how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?
This is very important IMHO. We need each and every GPL project being distributed by SCO to do this. Call it the shotgun attack if you like. The more times it is publicly made known that SCO is the one violating copyright, the better. It only helps show that its not the big bad Linux community who is in violation. As Eben Moglen said in his wonderful Harvard speech, it was not us who allegedly violated the AT&T contract, thats a matter of SCO vs IBM. If they want to smear us because of that, then they should suffer the wrath.
Eh? I'm lost. As you say, SCO can download a new license. That's not what's going on. USENIX has terminated SCO's distribution license of NMAP - completely. Even if SCO "downloads" a new license, they would be barred from distributing NMAP, since that's what USENIX's position is.
-- SegFault
"One day, some time ago, something important happened."
To what extent would Apache, Samba, and NMap explicitly preventing SCO from distributing those packages affect SCO customers?
If they took similar action to Fyodor, they would also pull *support* for the UNIXWare and OpenServer, which would definitely affect SCO customers.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
I don't believe, under the GPL, that USENIX has the legal power to do this. Sometimes sticking by your ideals sucks, because it means even shitty people like SCO get to use your code. Linux said something to this effect way back at the beginning.
Nope. SCO believe that all GPL'd software is really public domain, since the GPL is (allegedly) unconstitutional. And they think that, by getting the GPL ruled invalid, suddenly all this code will become public domain and fair game for anyone who wants it.
It's even more perverse than that. If they believed that, then (by distributing Linux) they would be putting their own code in the public domain. So what they are effectively arguing is: when *we* distribute GPLd code we keep all our rights. When you do it you lose yours.
You have to accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute the work. If they declare it invalid publicly, isn't that a clear cut way to state that you do not accept it? If they don't accept the license, then what right do they have to ship GPL software with their crappy OS?
If the license is invalid, then the work is still copyrighted, but without a license for anyone to use it. Therefore, if the GPL were held to be invalid, the right to distribute, make derivative works from, or make money from any software licensed by it would remain with the author, and only the author. IANAL, but this is pretty basic stuff.
There has never in the history of copyright been any legislation, precedent, or case law that would support a judge doing that. The only possible way for this to happen would be for the US government to invoke emminent domain and claim the copyright for itself, thus moving it into the public domain. And I don't really see that happening.
You need to read the 5th Section of the GPL and then re-read the 4th. Basically you have to accept the GPL. By not accepting the GPL, they do not have the rights to distrubute it as stated in the 4th section.
SCO haven't violated the GPL, they just haven't accepted it.
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.
I've just spotted something. What about dual-licensed software? For instance, I think Perl is available under the Artistic licence and the GPL. That isn't a problem for end-users. But what about distributors? The way I read this is that distributors can pick one and only one license to distribute under.
SCO distributed the program while declaring the GPL void. So, they did not distribute it under the GPL. That's a violation of the very first line of section 4.
Well first of all I doubt there are many judges that understand the amount of chaos it would cause, however even if their were it is a judges job to uphold the law not just do whatever they think is best. Such a ruling would automatically be appealed.
Interestingly enough if the judge were to rule the GPL invalid (wheither he ruled that the software would revert to copyright or to public-domain) you would see a strange alliance between proprietary and open source software makers. Any ruling that makes a software license void could probably be used to make others void to. The likes of MS certainly does not want that.
The Anti-Blog
cheers, Nils
-- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)
Well, as long as SCO sticks by there current tactics, they will continue to be in violation of the GPL. As long as they are in violation of the GPL, they do not have rights to distribute any GPLed software. They deserve to get sued.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Linus couldn't do that. He doesn't own the complete copyrights to the code in the kernel.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If Linus were the sole copyright holder of code in the Linux kernel or had the unanimous agreement of the contributors, yes, he could put the kernel under a different license. However, revoking a license to redistribute and changing the license under which software is redistributed are two different things. Your little id est doesn't hold.
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?
I don't believe, under the GPL, that USENIX has the legal power to do this. Sometimes sticking by your ideals sucks, because it means even shitty people like SCO get to use your code. Linux said something to this effect way back at the beginning.
First, USENIX has nothing to do with nmap. Two different stories.
Second, you'd be correct if the issue was simply one of an open source author saying "I don't like you, so you can't use my software. Nyaaa!!!"
However, that isn't the case here. There's a strong argument that SCO, by their actions of offering a paid license for their alleged intellectual property in Linux, has violated the GPL. That legally, ethically and morally terminates their right to the software under the GPL.
A neo-Nazi skinhead chapter of NAMBLA can use GPL'd software all day so long as they comply with the license. A combination orphanage and soup kitchen in the slums of the city that violates the GPL loses their right to use the software.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I thought I agreed with you (and even posted a comment to that end), but seeing your post has raised a question in my mind. When and where has SCO violated the GPL in regards to NMap?
Does violating the GPL in regards to one piece of software automatically justify removing your license to use any GPL'd software, or only that particular piece of software? In order for NMap to revoke their license from SCO, do they (or should they) have to show that SCO did or attempted to "...copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute..." NMap particularly and not just Linux in general?
IANAL either, but the issue seems legally troubling to me.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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.
Funny how anything happening in the USofA must be the first time in the World!
how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?
The legal weight of Fyodor is the same as of any other person, group or company in the same situation. That's the license for.
It is his political weight that will make the difference between a spark at daylight and a hellfire.
c
" 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."
It looks pretty clear to me that the GPL, since SCO has not accepted it, states that SCO can't MODIFY OR DISTRIBUTE the software, period. They can't "revoke" the license from SCO because SCO does not accept it. Therefore, SCO cannot modify or distribute nmap. They can still USE it, but can't distribute it.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Nope. This is the HUGE difference between GPL-style "copyleft" and a typical EULA-style "copyright". The GPL gives you EXTRA rights to do things that normally would be impermissible under generic copyright law, whereas EULAs try to TAKE AWAY generic freedoms via licensing.
So if either license is invalidated, you can use legally-acquired software any way you want (aka more free than EULA), but no redistribution is allowed (aka less free than GPL).Only if one violates the licence. This is true of any software. It should always be dangerous to violate the license. In fact, SCO's whole gripe is that IBM violated their licence -- so this attack has nothing to do with OSS and everything to do with breaking the law.
Cheers.
I'm not so sure about that. SCO is clearly violating the GPL, in fact going so far as to say it is unamerican and in violation of the consitution. I don't think ANY company would continue to do business with you if you pulled that against them.
License WMA from MS then launch a multifront effort to claim it as your own, discredit MS, and convince congress that they are dangerous to national security and see how long they let you use their software.
Finkployd
IANAL either, but it seems to me that "accept this License," in this context, means "comply with the terms of," and not "morally or ethically agree with." I strongly doubt that one can legally terminate a license because another vocally objects to it so long as they comply with the terms.
If Richard M Stallman were to purchase a copy of Windows (this is a theorectical example, folks. Work with me here!), could MS terminate his license because he's publicly said all software should be free?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
That has *nothing* to do with changing the license already granted to the code. It's no different from selling an item, or giving it away free with, say, a service contract. Just because you do one thing (charge for it) doesn't mean you can't do something else (give it away) under different circumstances. The two stances are incompatible, but perfectly legal.
It really boils down to this: show me where in the GPL it says that the copyright holder can alter or revoke the license? It says that, due to actions of the user the user may not be eligible to exercise the license, but there is absolutely no verbiage that says that the copyright holder can unilaterally revoke a user's rights.
So, there is only one question: is SCO in compliance with the license? The feelings of the copyright holder are meaningless, except that the copyright holder is the one that may or may not institute legal proceedings in the defense of their copyright. However, SCO does not have to agree with their interpretation: that's for a court to decide.
In other words, the nmap people saying that they're "revoking" SCO's right to use the code under clause 4 is no more or less legally binding than the GPL itself. Again, SCO is allowed to argue both sides: take advantage of the GPL with nmap, while saying that it's unconstitutional with IBM. Isn't justice grand?
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Since SCO has stated that they consider the GPL null and void as well as in voilation of the consitution, copyright law and whatnot, SCO has effectively said they will not comply with the terms of the GPL.
Since the GPL is the only permission they have for distributing the software--since it's not in the public domain--they are no longer allowed to distribute any software that has been released under that license unless permission has been specifically sought and granted.
Like principles, licenses are not things you can disregard just because you don't like them.
Or it will tell people "If you want to use OSS, you have to play by the rules." That way we don't get asshats like Darl McBride trying to make their own up like a 5 year old who loses a game of hide and seek.
Yes, but SCO claims ownership of the Linux kernel (being that it's half their code, etc). If you tried to take away their right to distribute it they'd tie you up in court with the same lawsuit. Yes, it's what "we" should be doing, but it wouldn't produce easy results.
On the other hand, SCO has no hand in making Samba, or Apache, etc. These programs are pretty clearly seperate from any claim on the UNIX codebase. Ownership is a given and that makes for a much simpler court case.
Remember that Microsoft gave SCO a big chunk of cash, they intend to use every dollar to drag this out.
I'm not picking on you but I needed to interject somewhere.
Far too many people are getting this wrong. SCO is hooped,
They have explicitly, in public, disavowed the validity of the GPL. Thus they have explicitly not agreed to the GPL. No matter what they say afterwards can save them. You can't pick and choose. You can't decide that the GPL doesn't apply for the linux kernel but it does for Nmap. So no matter if SCO has violated any other aspect of the GPL, they have violated the most fundamental property, they explicitly do not accept it!
Thus they have none,notta,0,zilch rights to distribute Nmap, they can use it in-house but they can't distribute it(the GPL is about distribution not use). Hell, SCO is automatically in violation of copyright law if they distribute ANY GPL'd software. Public statements disavowing the very license that gave them rights to distribute the software are a clear indication they don't agree to the license and thus they have no right to distribute other people's copywritten works.
Furthermore, the copyright holder of the work has explicitly disavowed a specific individual the "right" to distribute. Any further distribution of the work is a copyright violation no ifs,ands or buts about it. This is especially ironic for SCO since it's the GPL alone that would have given them the right to redistribute but since they don't agree to the GPL they have no other rights. I would just love to see this go to court.
Judge: "So you don't agree with the license?"
SCO: "No."
Judge: "What are you? Idiots? Summary finding
for Plaintif!"
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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.
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.
I don't know about revoking a user's right, but clause 5 states that:
So, by publically asserting that the GPL is invalid, SCO leaves themselves wide open to copyright infringement lawsuits. Perhaps Fyodor should have used simpler wording: "Dear SCO, by not accepting the GPL you are illegally distributing a copyrighted work. Cease and desist immediately. Failure to do so will result in legal action."
Though I don't suppose the threat of legal action would frighten them at all. Perhaps siezure of all assets containing infringing material would get their attention. But then again, if nobody's buying SCO products, that probably won't frighten them much either.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Please note the part about "the Program". Notice that it isn't plural, nor does it make mention of any other GPL licensed program. It's about this program.
I could violate the GPL with regard to nmap, but be free and clear to use, modify and redistribute any other GPL'd software I choose to live up to the GPL. Fortunately, the GPL was designed to be a defensive shield, not an offensive weapon.
Probably because IBM is currently suing them for violating the GPL, and IBM has a hellava lot more resources than the FSF.
You would be surprised at the number of journalists that read slashdot, and the frequency of references it gets in the popular press...
But why would violating their license to redistribute Linux have any impact on their license to redistribute Nmap?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
As far as I understand it, the "SCO cannot distribute" clause in the nmap licence does nothing since SCO is technically already banned from distributing GPL'd software by their breaches of (several hundred) GPL licences. All this does is makes the illegality of SCO distributing it more obvious. Either way, all the authors of GPL software that SCO is distributing could sue SCO for breach of licence.
SCO's defense is that they believe the GPL is void, however even if this is the case it doesn't help them since if GPL is void then noone has any rights to distribute the software - the copyright still belongs to the author. So they're basically damned if it's valid and damned if it's invalid.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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;
True Apache can't stop SCO from using past or present versions of Apache (license changes aren't retroactive), but they can keep them from using future versions.
But I'd love to see GPL software agressively come down on SCO. SCO needs to be voted off the island.
SCO has not violated the BSD or Apache licenses, so their license to this code could not be revoked.
So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution.
This is true, although again only GPL'd code could be revoked. Anything under other licenses would have to remain. Newer versions could be released under a license with a specific `No use by SCO' clause, but this would violate the FSF's definition of a free license.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries.
You can't copyright an API, so there would be no case.
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
No, they could have implemented this by looking at the kernel documentation, or even by compiling small programs which call kernel functions using a Linux-targeting compiler and comparing the output with the source. This would be a really bed precedent to set, since if they won this then MS could sue the WINE project on the basis that `No one could implement the Windows API/ABI without having stolen and read the Windows source code.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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!
If they have illegally commingled code, the proper remedy is for the base code of Unix (not the legitimate extensions put in by licencees such as Sun, HP or IBM) to be GPL'd. End of problem. End of SCO. End of McFraud. Of course, if he had the merest glimmer of intelligence, he would have seen that it was essential to licence only the lines of SCO code for $699 or whatever he was asking, he failed to do that and demanded payment for the whole package, GPL code and all (and likely some BSD code, but that is OK legally, the BSD licence is very weak.)
But, coming back to the present issue, if they have attempted to restrict anyone's rights to use nmap under any of the conditions of the GPL, they have violated the GPL and can no longer distribute nmap. That is automatic, and can be enforced by the copyright holder very easily indeed. If the copyright holder can not afford a team of schysters, he can transfer his copyright to someone who can. That is his legal right. He can even sell the copyright for a nominal dollar, or cent, just to help make the transaction valid. But no-one, not even the author, can take the code out of GPL, so there is no way known, even if McFraud paid millions, that he could ever again legally use nmap or any other GPL software in his Linux distribution. Every copy of SCO from now on breaks the law. He has dug himself into a deep hole, with no escape possible. SCO can no longer distribute any GPL code. Bye, bye, Darl.
It is utterly pointless of McFraud and his schysters waiting 18 months for the trial, they are in deep trouble now. In many countries distributing GPL software in non-compliance with the licence, a clearly demonstrable breach of simple copyright law in every country signatory to the relevant conventions, is a criminal offence, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. (The fact that SCO is sold for profit, not given away, makes it a matter for criminal law in the UK, for example). This is no longer a matter for the civil courts, it is a matter for the law enforcement authorities in every civilised country. Added to which, I will be very surprised if, when he goes after someone in the UK for licence fees, the UK part of SCO is not immediately charged with barratry. These guys are committing serious criminal offences right,left and centre. I know they will get away with it in the US, after all the DOJ did not even deal with the vile scumbags in Redmond properly, but SCO have already been fined in Germany. If McFraud wants to keep out of jail, he needs to start making some grovelling apologies to all the relevant copyright holders, just maybe, if they are feeling generous, they might not testify against him in court.
Whatever happens now should be up to the police or other appropriate law enforcement agency in every country where SCO Unix is sold. It is not a matter for the civil courts. It is in fact racketeering, others have frequently commented on stock manipulation and the other probable things taht are going on. AFAIK, if the scumbag of Redmond is, as we mostly suspect, the paymaster in all this, it makes the whole thing a criminal conspiracy in most civilised countries.
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.
Yes, but now SCO must either:
1. Claim that the GPL is valid, and that they are following it.
or
2. Claim that the GPL is invalid, and that they have no rights to distribute nmap.
Even if not in court, SCO will have to either look stupid or look stupid. If in court, SCO will either loose their entire case against the GPL; or will loose all rights to all GPL software.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Actually I think the opposite could happen since the 'next best thing' if the GPL is illegal is for normal copyright law to apply and this would forbids anyone from using or distributing the previously GPL'd materials without express permission.
The court shouldn't care that the author wanted to distribute freely, because it is clear that they were distributing under a restricted license that allows free use only if certain conditions are met and that if those rules aren't followed then free sharing privelege is revoked. This makes it clear that the original authors intent wasn't to just give everything away and completely throw out their copyright rights.
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.
But perception is going to be the name of the game. This is the very reason that SCO gets as much press as it does. it would be far beeter to have five to ten big projects get together and pull the license then to declare open warfare.
If OSS acts in coordination and is organized about this, then it would work, otherwise it has that angry mob feel that we need to avoid.
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.
NO!
Look this is real easy. Let's say SCO is correct and the GPL is unconstitutional. Than SCO(and everybody else distributing GPL'd software) is committing copyright infringement since nothing else gives you the right to modify or distribute the code, nothing! In the case of SCO it is worse because they supposedly actually believe their arguement so in their case they are knowningly committing copyright infringement(at least in their distorted world) and thus they should be held to the strictest rulings of the law.
So if SCO actually believes their own arguement(I highly doubt they do, their slimy but not that dumb) than what makes me believe they must let the Nmap author tell them what to do is copyright law. Absence any modifications by contract that's the only law that holds. Disavowing the GPL says there is no other contract in force, ipso-facto copyright law applies and bingo the Nmap author gets to say "piss off, further distribution of my copyrighted work by you is a clear copyright violation and you WILL be sued."
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
GPL is not dependant on what you believe.
Well, it is in a way. You have to accept the terms of the license to be able to redistribute the software. SCO doesn't believe that the license is legitimate, and is therefore redistributing it under it's own license. This redistribution is what bars them from use, but I don't see how you can have that without first believing that the license is invalid.
Fyodor does what the Samba team SHOULD HAVE done.
No. This is stupid. By claiming to revoke any particular user's right based on political reasons is not consistent with the ideals of the Free Software movement. The nmap people are no better than SCO in this respect. This is precisely the kind of ammunition that the SCO Group can use to lend creedence to their claims. It can be used as just another split-hair to make it look like their being defensive.
The problem is by changing the license Fydor's code is no longer GPL'd. Instead it is similar to GPL.
They aren't changing the license. They're just attempting to enforce the license. SCO says it doesn't accept the GPL, therefore they have no license to distribute nmap, therefore insecure.org can file suit to make them stop.
The court will have to decide whether or not SCO's public statements against the GPL really constitute non-acceptance of the license, even though SCO may be complying with the terms.
Having to talk about this in open court is a real minefield for SCO, though, which is what's nifty about it.
Fydor has every right to license the software as he sees fit. However by adding the "except SCO" clause
He added no such clause. Read the statement again.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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! -
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
IANAL, but I'm pretty damn sure this is completely impossible.
The court can not just take away your copyright because of some flaw with your license. They can invalidate the license, sure. But think about it for a second.. for the court to "declare" your GPL program public domain, they literally have to take your copyright away from you.
Taking your copyright away from you for a problem with your license? Yeah, right - good luck, Darl. *rolls eyes*