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.'"
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
- 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).
Fyodor is not "retracting" the license. The GPL clearly states that if you want to redistribute any code that has been licensed under it then you need to accept the GPL in its entirety. SCO has said the GPL is invalid, so they must not be accepting the GPL, so they haven't accepted a license at all.
They're not retracting a license because there's nothing to retract. If SCO won't accept the GPL, they have no license to distribute the software and are legally liable for violating. If SCO thinks that the license is invalid, that's fine. But then somebody needs to sue Darl's pants off (on second thought..) for copyright violations because they're distributing unlicensed software.
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.
You're right though. Under the GPL, you can't explicitly deny anyone rights to distribute your code as long as they accept the GPL themselves. The problem is SCO has not accepted the GPL so they never had rights to distribute the code in the first place that could be revoked.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You would be surprised at the number of journalists that read slashdot, and the frequency of references it gets in the popular press...
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.
At first I was going to dismiss your comment by saying that you can't change the license to non-GPL, and SCO has broken the GPL and thus could not distribute a GPLd piece of code.
Upon reflection, I think they may only be violating the GPL license of the kernel. If this is so, then you are correct. Until they violate the GPL license of dhowells-map, it could be distributed by them.
The more I think about this, the more complex I see the licensing issues of a typical Linux distribution are. There are probably hundreds(thousands?) of different copyright holders on those distribution's disks. Breaking the license of any one, would not break the license of all the others. A nasty company could pick their battles and only violate the licenses of a few pieces of the distribution where they feel they can get away with it.
I wonder if a clause could/should be added to the GPL stating that violating a clause of the GPL of any licensor, violates the GPL of all GPL'd code? So if you broke the license for any one piece, the whole pie would be taken away.
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.
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! -