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.'"
Doesn't the GPL say you cannot discriminate against any group? Or is their license being revoked because they are in violation of the GPL?
It's good to see someone use the GPL back at $CO for what it is worth. If Fyodor hadn't, would anyone else?
I would hope so, but so far it doesn't seem to be happening. I can't wait for others to do the same. Maybe groups like Samba can muster up the courage to do the same to these guys. Since $CO seems to be touting integration with Windows networks, losing Samba would be one of the things that they couldn't afford to do.
SCO's time to put up or shut up. This could be interesting in a few ways. If SCO continues to distribute NMAP, will USENIX sue on GPL grounds? That would be a great case to watch.
Sig it.
It's free with the condition that you must stay within the provisions of the GPL.
Maybe you're thinking of BSD?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Sure it is. They didn't say users of SCO couldn't use it. They just said SCO can't distribute it. Althought, stopping support for SCO is another deal. Of course that doesn't mean someone else can't take the source and support SCO with it. As I noted though, all they have done is say SCO can't distribute it due to licensing infringements. (just as SCO said IBM did)
I don't think this will be the Big Test (how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?), but it may be the first of many similar actions that, collectively, might get something done.
Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?
I wonder if one could say SCO has actually violated the license. They've certainly made all the effort in the world to bastardize it, but have they broken it by going against any provisions from the license?
SIG: HUP
"it's about time" dept.
Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?
This guy is way out there
This is burning bridges, but I really can't see SCO coming to their senses, so their users should get a feeling for the kind of situation which SCO is asking for.
The sandbox may be free for everybody, but you're still getting kicked out if you keep hitting the other kiddies in the head with your plastic shovel.
SIG: HUP
I really appreciate his stand against SCO. Maybe a lot of other GPL projects (Gnome, KDE *hint* *hint*) may also decide to revoke SCO's right to use their software.
Picture this: a worldwide tribe of programmers, all saying to SCO that they can't use this or that program with OpenLinux, UnixWare and so on. If everyone sent $1 to the FSF to cover future litigation at the same time...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
God, root, what is difference ?
Actually, yes it is still free software. They have violated the existing GPL license, he is simply pointing out that after having violated that license, they no longer have any right to make use of the software. He isn't ammending the GPL, he's jsut making it obvious that they are violating it.
Forget about the SCO item in the 3.50 changelog... the bigger news about nmap is that it recently appeared in "HaXXXor Volume 1: No Longer Floppy".
Which, OK... is kinda weird, but how often to well respected tools link to cheasy porn sites? http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap_haxxxor.html
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Somehow, I doubt you can, and this may be something to address in the next iteration of the GPL. Too late for the pool of software out there, perhaps, but not for new versions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Hurray FyDoR! But nmap is one of many, many open source programs distributed by SCO. Why isn't the entire open source community tell SCO that their software can't be distrubted, things like KDE, Gnome, and the GNU projects tar, make et al? I belive that other open source projects should start demanding that SCO stop distributing them.
What to do with for enforcement? With so many pending legal battles against SCO, it would only be a matter of time before an IBM, Novel/Suse, or Redhat picks up the illegal acticity and uses it in court. Additionally it is an election year. I'm quite sure that if we as a community looked hard enough we could find a hungry DA.
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
When I checked out the NMAP link, I eventually clicky=clicky-clicky'ed overt to the insecure.org homepage and saw (about halfway down) that part of the source for NMAP was featured in the movie Battle Royale.
So, this got me thinking: Since NMAP source is GPL, does it's inclusion in Battle Royale make the movie a derivative work and therefore also subject to the GPL?
Just thought I'd ask, because I don't think that - other than the DeCSS - case, anyone's ever mentioned this possiblility.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Yes, SCO has violated the GPL by attempting to force users to buy licenses from them in addition to the GPL (note recent /. story on this one, I forget the link). They can sell copies, but trying to hang additional license terms on existing users is a violation.
For that matter, SCO's refusal to accept the terms of the GPL in and of itself disallows them from redistribution under it; it would be VERY hard for SCO to convincingly argue they haven't refused to accept the terms of a license they claim is "unconstitional".
Thus, they're hosed twofold.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
"Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side."
Yes, they have distributed Linux under a more restrictive license than the GPL. Therefore they are in violation.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
I am no license guru, what part of the GPL license did SCO violate?
Fyodor (or any author of GPL'ed work, for that matter) can only do this 'cause SCO is violating the terms of the license. No one can arbitrarily block an individual or group from using GPL'ed code if they comply with the license.
BTW, Groklaw has an interesting thread where it is noted that any contract or license with discriminatory terms, (such as a hypothetical GPL clone that excluded SCO by name) is illegal under common law, as it would violate principles of general equitable conduct.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Ok, this has been brought up a lot on Slashdot in the past few years, and I really think everyone should read this speech by Eben Moglen on why there will never be a test of the GPL in court (and a bunch of other interesting stuff). Here's the relevant portion :
It's quite simple see. The GPL cannot be tested in court, because if it is found invalid, the defendant can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. If it is found valid, the defendant either has to abide by it's restrictions or can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. Do you understand the pattern here ? Anyone who tries to fight it will only lose. That's the beauty of it.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
IBM's already suing SCO for violating section 4 (and a few other sections, as well). The owner of NMAP's copyrights could sue in addition, and so could anyone who's contributed to Caldera linux, IMHO, though IANAL. (Yay, alphabet bingo!) I doubt that they'll be willing to spend the millions of dollars on lawyers that IBM is spending, though, so its not likely that it will be any more of a test.
As for the FSF and a GPL test - read Eben Moglen's speech transcript on Groklaw. He's not looking for a test, because he doesn't think they need one.
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
The SCO share is now well below $13. It hasnt been this low since august.
Seems like time is running out for our friends in Utah.
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.
Of course SCO is in a contract dispute with IBM over something that was released under the GPL. Regardless of their claims to the press and the public, in court they have claimed that IBM did not have the right to distribute the code under the GPL. That is not a claim that the GPL is invalid. It concerns the ownership of the intellectual property rights in the first place, not the validity of the license under which they were distributed.
That said, there is nothing wrong with putting SCO on notice that the only license that permits them to distribute many packages is the GPL. While they may be legally on safe ground now, if they contest any of the terms of the GPL in court, there is nothing preventing authors of GPL'ed code from simply saying that these are the terms that we will agree to, if you don't like them, you don't have to distribute our work. And in fact, since you won't accept them, we revoke your license. Goodbye, have a nice life.
Please explain how how downloading nmap a second time gives SCO a new license to NMAP. The GPL license is all or nothing. You don't have three license for SCO software like you would 3 licenses for Windows 98. The GPL states that if you violate the terms of the GPL license you (as in a legal entity, human or corporation) lose your license to distribute said GPLed software.
They did not need to terminate SCO's license. It was already terminated when they claimed the GPL was invalid.
They could have just put them on notice of violation. This gives people the false impression that you need to explicitly terminate the license of a violator. You don't. The license is 'automagically' terminated if they person/entity does not accept the license.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
You can't just revoke the GPL because you want to. It is automatically revoked if the licensee violates it, but the author has no power to revoke the license. Otherwise, someone could simply pay, for instance, Linus Torvalds a lot of money so he makes Linux proprietary (i.e. revokes its license). This should not be possible.
Franklin was a prolific inventor. He refused to patent his inventions. He maintained that there was nothing wrong with someone else copying his work and using it to earn a living.
He also opened the first lending library (file sharing anyone?)
It is too bad he didn't have the concept of freely sharing things codified in the US Constitution. What a difference that would have made.
On second thought, such a major backlash by the OSS community could absolutely destroy SCO's offerings, giving the impression that OSS software is dangerous to use as a core supplement to your products.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
If every open source project officially revokes SCO's license, they'd loose quite a bit. I think they would loose their TCP/IP support, if I recall correctly, because it is the BSD stack. Someone else already mentioned Apache yanking their licenses.
SCO also has a linux emulation API. At least at one point during this legal battle, SCO argued that the Linux API was embodied in Linux, and that this constituted an infringement on their copyright. However, SCO conveniently forgets about their Linux Kernel Personality. According to the SCO web site, "This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications." So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution. This could cause a major disruption in SCO's business, if properly executed.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries. The theory is that they could not have done this without viewing the code, and by doing so the code they've written is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Properly executed, this could kill SCO altogether. Wouldn't that be enjoyable to watch.
SCO has revoked it's own rights under the GPL by not accepting the GPL. The language in the GPL that states that you must accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute GPLed products is pretty clear.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What if a page from the Microsoft book is borrowed here.
/proc or somesuch; and report the program as unable to continue if a SCO operating system is found.
Let's produced updated versions of popular packages (Samba, Mozilla, gcc, etc.) that check the platform name via uname(),
This would at least prohibit SCO from circulating newer versions without making modification to the code themselves. Of course, if they did this they would have to do so publically or would themselves be in violation of GPL.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
What you're missing here is this:
SCO, with their silliness and shenanigans of trying to get the GPL rendered as invalid, along with attempting to extort additional licensing fees and conditions over Linux, has violated the GPL.
Read it again:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
By attempting to get users of Linux to cough up fees for SCO's extra license for Linux, GNU, and Fyodor's NMAP program as one of many other GPL'd program distributed with Linux and SCO's own product offerings, SCO is in violation of the GPL. Fyodor is well within his rights to terminate SCO's license to use the software. Once upon a time, Caldera very happily distributed GNU/Linux and Nmap for free, with all the conditions intact to remain in compliance with the GPL. By attempting to charge an additional licensing fee and dictating conditions that are not in line with the GPL's own, they are in violation.
Clear as mud, right??
Hey Darl! I like this part of the Usenix open letter:
"Inventors who find they can't compete against lower-cot or free substitutes are compelled to find other things to sell".
I have a few suggestions for you:
1. You could always sell your sharky legal dept. and probably make loads more money than this whole fiasco will provide you with
2. Since you seem to know so much about where to get a good tan, you could get with the Queer Eye guys and open a chain. Of course, they might not want to have anything to do with you.
3. After you get out of prison, you could peddle your body to the highest bidder.
Just a few suggestions anyway you twerp.
(Oh my. What's Poor widdle Darl gonna do now? Sned his gang of wolves after me now?)
Un-news
Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side. >:|
I think it is only by the binding of all these project through common licensing that the licensing will actually work - and hence why the GPL's chance is both in careful wording that already exists as well as the common public usuage of it. In this manner, breaking the terms of the license invalidates your use of code licensed under it. Otherwise, we risk invalidation of code snippets, and that gets really ugly. Even then, this argument can be debated up, down, and through the mud.
SIG: HUP
They cannot change the license for software they have already distributed unless the license lets them do so, or the license is not valid for this case.
Unless they are using a modified GPL, they cannot "revoke" a license. The new software released could have a "everyone but SCO" license.
If, however, SCO, by stating that the GPL is invalid, has disagreed to the terms of it, then the softwares authors can simply declare that SCO has no legitimate rights to use their software.
Isn't the Linux kernel distributed under the GPL? Can't SCO's license to distribute the Linux kernel be revoked? That would mean they couldn't sell any distributions of Linux and, subsequently, couldn't force people to buy licenses from them...right?
-- Get your free Mini Mac http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=14209873
You can work under two incompatible view of the facts. While SCO can argue until its blue in the face that the GPL is invalid, it can still take advantage of the GPL until it is proven to be invalid.
There is nothing that prevents a company from fighting against a law/license/etc. and simultaneously using the exact same law to their advantage. This happens *all* the time. The DMCA comes to mind. There's nothing in the law that says a company's policy or position needs to be internally harmonious...
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Finally! Fyodor does what the Samba team SHOULD HAVE done. Hats off to Fyodor for getting the ball rolling. Let's hope that all the authors whose packages are on the skunkware CDs will have the wisdom to revoke from SCO the right to distribute them, since SCO does not accept the GPL.
Without skunkware, a SCO server is barely usable.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Could the FSF take the lead in a class action suit, where the class consists of all GPL code owners that have products redistributed by SCO?
I'll probably get modded down for this and told to take off the tin-foil hat, but...
It seems like Darl is doing someone else's lobbying for them.
There's a lot at stake here for a certain software monopolist. And most of Darl's arguments benefit that Redmond company more than SCO.
Why would it benefit SCO to lobby Congress against open source? It really doesn't. The more open source goes on, the more companies that SCO can sue. On the other hand, it does benefit a certain software company that actually SELLS software, and is currently suffering from open source competition.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy-theorist. I think this is the best indication we've had yet that Microsoft is doing some under the table bankrolling of Darl's Misadventures (in addition to the above-table money they have already given SCO)... where there's smoke, there's fire.
By you licensing a project under the GPL and by me redistributing it, you and I have entered into a contract. Actually, you have given me terms for license, and I have agreed to follow them. You can't unilaterally change it. Licenses and contracts *cannot* be revoked if the contract doesn't say it can be. If it could be, there'd be no SCO v. IBM: SCO's case would be open-and-shut.
You can't argue both ways: either both SCO and nmap can revoke their license, or they can't. Neither contract (arguably) has a revocation clause, so the standards for one should be the same for the other.
The question is, is SCO in agreement with the license? Clause 4 says they lose their license if they do not obey the restrictions of the license. Has SCO not included the nmap source code? Has SCO prevented anyone from redistributing the nmap code, in source or binary? It is not illegal to charge for GPL code, so that is not a problem. Assuming the other items are true (and nmap is not claiming that they're not), SCO is arguably in compliance; therefore, they cannot have lost their license.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see SCO lose their license to *all* GPL code. I'd love to see a GPL 2.1 expressly forbidding SCO, and all GPL projects to adopt it. But it wouldn't prevent them from distributing whatever code was previously released under the GPL 2.0.
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
This isn't really that complicated.
Fyodor says that they will license their software for distribution under the GPL (and only the GPL). SCO continues to do this after saying the GPL is bunk. If SCO isn't following the GPL (because they don't believe in it), then they have no license to distribute this software.
That's all.
If one legally declares a contract to *not* be valid, one cannot follow it's terms [logical contradition].
Yeah, great, so all the journalists who read through the nmap release notes or read slashdot will know all about it.
Hint: No journalists do either of those things.
Instead of putting witty comments in release notes, we need someone who'll back it up with a lawsuit. I'll chip in $100 to help them file a suit against SCO. It shouldn't be too difficult to win; they're very publicly infringing.
Do you have ESP?
Let's leave that aside for the moment, and suppose the argument for some mysterious reason does not apply to most other services but does apply to software. Then marketplace competition will drive prices down, as I understand the theory. How low can they go, in SCO's view, before they become unconstitutional?
Suppose that someone comes up with a brilliant new software package called ninunec ("Ninunec Is Not Unix, Nor Even Close"). Suppose that person wants to give away ninunec, perhaps with the intention of proving his worth to scare up venture capital for an even more ambitious plan he has.
Under the theory that SCO is presenting to congress, he should not be allowed contribute his work into the public domain! since this constitutes "dumping". I'm sure this raises free speech questions, but let's leave that aside, too. What is the lowest constitutionally permitted cost, under SCO's argument. so that our genius can promote his wares and himself. Let's say he keeps a conventional copyright and charges a penny per source download.
As long as the cost remains low enough, the evil consequences that SCO attributes to open source remain. You haven't solved the alleged problem that SCO proposes by mandating that software cannot be free. It therefore becomes necessary under SCO's arguments to mandate a minimum price for ninunec, and for every other piece of software (and every other service that falls under the SCO guidelines) that ever enters the marketplace! (Good luck with that one.)
SCO's letters, aside from their usual dubious claims about ownership of code, make claims that amount to mandating a profit for their industry by preventing contributions from a volunteer sector. The only meaningful way to implement that position into law is 1) to create an exhaustive list of activities that are constitutionally impermissible without charging a fee and 2) to have a government body set mandated minimum prices in all those activities.
That's not the free enterprise model I've heard so much about. I think we should reconsider which position is the subversive one!
mt
Except... GPL software is not "free of charge".
And people that use the GPL don't intend for it to be "free of charge". They just aren't charging money for it.
It has a cost. If you are not willing to pay the cost, you may not use the software.
What gets SCO in a tizzy is that the cost is not an amount of dollars... it is a behavior requirement.
And, we all know how good they are at behaving.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
For TrollTech, if you were developing GPL'ed software, you could use their toolkit, but if you were doing proprietary software, you had to buy some sort of license.
IANALJAP (IANAL, just a programmer), but what would stop Fyodor from doing the same thing? This software is offered under two licenses: the GPL if you are anybody but The SCO Group, or the No License if you are The SCO Group. This way, we don't have to have these long arguments about section 4 or 5 of the GPL, and life is good. I realize that this may be against the spirit of the GPL, but, according to section 2:
So, is this legit? Personally, I'd really like to see the SAMBA or GCC folks do something like this (no offense to Fyodor, but losing the rights to distribute SAMBA would hurt SCO a LOT more than losing the rights to distribute NMap.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
After rereading the submission and copy of nmap's release notes, I see that Fyodor isn't revoking SCO's license to nmap because he doesn't like them, he's accusing them of violating the GPL and telling them their license to use nmap is revoked as a result.
On that thought, I think Fyodor is missing a bet here; IIRC, the penalties for intentional copyright infringement can be quite large. (After all, isn't that what SCO originally accused IBM of?) He should talk to a lawyer and get them to draft a "cease and desist" letter to SCO.
If they want to use his code for free under the GPL, they have to abide by it. Otherwise, if they want to license it separately, they should have to pay $$$ just like a "real, Constitutional" license agreement.
Jay (=
(Maybe there should be a slew of copyright registation requests sent to the Library of Congress for source code...)
Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side.
Emphasis mine.
My karma is not a Chameleon.