USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap

We live in interesting times.. by grub · 2004-02-27 01:56 · Score: 5, Informative

For those too lazy to look up Section 4 of the GPL:

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.

Now this gets interesting: if SCO continues to distributed NMAP will the FSF start filing lawsuits? This might be the "Big Test" everyone has been waiting for.

/me makes a bowl of popcorn and sits back to enjoy the show.. (as an aside, does anyone know what compiler SCO uses to generate their binaries?)

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:We live in interesting times.. by robslimo · 2004-02-27 02:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?
Re:We live in interesting times.. by autocracy · 2004-02-27 02:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by bhtooefr · 2004-02-27 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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).
Re:We live in interesting times.. by dnoyeb · 2004-02-27 02:08 · Score: 4, Funny

I suspect that after this next "Big Test," everyone will still be waiting on the "Big Test."
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Curtman · 2004-02-27 02:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Finally those capitalist bastards will pay for their crimes. 'Eh comrades? 'Eh?
Re:We live in interesting times.. by BJH · 2004-02-27 02:15 · Score: 5, Informative

No, the FSF will only generally defend the GPL for software where the copyright belongs to them (i.e. software written by the FSF or which has had its copyright assigned to the FSF by its author).

The simple reason is that only the copyright holder can sue someone for violating that copyright.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by OmniGeek · 2004-02-27 02:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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."
Re:We live in interesting times.. by iapetus · 2004-02-27 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2004-02-27 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Indeed comrade, SCO will be the fourth against the wall come the revolution!
Re:We live in interesting times.. by lone_marauder · 2004-02-27 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by rubberpaw · 2004-02-27 02:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Aha, but it's not a question of the GPL being invalid. They're not arguing that. Rather, they, as licensor of nmap, are revoking the license. The original licensor of the software has more power than redistributors. This is why some organizations are able to provide multiple licenses for their software.

If you were a judge, the question of the GPL would be less pertinent than the question of whether or not Nmap.org has the right to revoke the license. And the answer is: yes.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Curtman · 2004-02-27 02:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Shimbo · 2004-02-27 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by triptolemeus · 2004-02-27 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?

Samba is the first that comes to mind (and would have a major influence).

--
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by muckdog · 2004-02-27 02:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Geek+of+Tech · 2004-02-27 02:49 · Score: 4, Funny

No Austin, the Cold War's over.... we won....

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:We live in interesting times.. by alienw · 2004-02-27 02:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 03:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Of course they have the authority to do this. Let's take a look at each sentence of section 4 of the GPL, which is what USENIX invoked:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.

Okay, you have to play by the rules in this document. In particular, note the third thing you're not allowed to do -- you can't sublicense.

Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

So when SCO started saying "You need to use our license to use this GPL code", that sublicensing terminated their rights to use the code under the GPL.

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.

Anybody who previously received copies of the code from SCO is fine, as long as they didn't do any of the 4 things that this section says you aren't allowed to do.

IANAL, but USENIX's action seems to be in compliance with this section of the GPL.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Geek+of+Tech · 2004-02-27 03:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Eggplant62 · 2004-02-27 03:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

In my reading of copyright law, theres nothing that would allow a copyright holder to retract a license, and the GPL doesn't have anything specifically granting that (most licenses do). Are you aware of any case law that supports the idea that a copyright creator can arbitrarily revoke a license it has already granted? Fyodor can certainly add a special condition to his latest version, though that would make his license not-free and therefore conflict with the GPL :P

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??
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Vann_v2 · 2004-02-27 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by polin8 · 2004-02-27 03:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Unmentioned by relevant section of the GPL:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

SCO refuses to accept the GPL as valid. If the GPL is invalid the software does not become public domain, it reverts to traditional copyright - eg., specific, rather than general, permission from the (C) holder.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by B'Trey · 2004-02-27 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by larry+bagina · 2004-02-27 03:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

No he can't. He licensed and released the code under the GPL license. As long as you, I, SCO, Hitler, Osoma Bin Laden, Michael Landen, or joe sysadmin follows the terms of the GPL for that software, Fyodor can't do jack shit. SCO has claimed the GPL is illegal and/or unconstitutional, but that's irrelevant. What matters is if they will provide, for free/nominal cost, the source code for their version of nmap.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by autocracy · 2004-02-27 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

He doesn't have absolute control over the current existing state of his code because it contains other code that isn't copyrighted by him which has been contributed by other users of the software. This gets vague in a lot of ways. What happens when a project forks? Who is the owner of a project where the code has been contributed by 100 individuals?
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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by B'Trey · 2004-02-27 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by TheLinuxSRC · 2004-02-27 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Ripped straight from The GPL (emphasis mine)

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.

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.

Thus it would seem that if you disagree with the GPL (which SCO has stated publicly on several occasions) you have no right to software licensed under the GPL. However I post to /. and thus IANAL.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by drewpc · 2004-02-27 03:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by tmasssey · 2004-02-27 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's the interesting thing about the law. IANAL, ...
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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Farce+Pest · 2004-02-27 03:46 · Score: 5, Funny

It's not a shotgun attack; it's the death of a thousand cuts. I like it, and I've been waiting for GPL'd projects to start doing this.

In other news, SCO's smoking gun
has finally been revealed.

--
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by tmasssey · 2004-02-27 03:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm arguing from the same point.
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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by B'Trey · 2004-02-27 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Permission+Denied · 2004-02-27 04:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Since SCO is distributing nmap, Fyodor can refuse to permit it, and revoke their distribution license.
This is absolutely incorrect and disinformative. The GPL explicitly prohibits this kind of action. From section four:
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.
And from section six:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
This means that the GPL explicitly forbids developers from choosing who can use and distribute the software. The only exception given in section nine dealing with patents, copyrights and geographical distribution exceptions.
When Fyodor licensed nmap under the GPL, he gave up certain rights, among those the right to choose who uses the software. Fyodor cannot "revoke" SCO's right to distribute nmap. He can only claim that SCO is violating the license and thus SCO's right to distribute is revoked.
This is not some technicality, but is rather fundamental the the FSF's idea of "Free software": the most important privilege the GPL attempts to protect is the privilege for anyone to use the software in any way. The license is absolutely clear on this.
In the past, certain developers licensed software with usage restrictions: for instance, one license I've seen said something akin to "anyone may use this software except members of the United States armed forces." The GPL prohibits these kinds of restrictions.
So the only way Fyodor can revoke SCO's right to use and distribute nmap if SCO is violating the license. He can change the licensing new versions but if SCO is not violating the GPL, SCO can continue distributing old versions of nmap and Fyodor has no recourse to stop them as the only way the GPL is revokable is in the case of non-compliance. This fact has been used to fork previously GPL'ed software when a company decides to commercialize the software and changes the license: the company still owns the copyright on their code which is part of the fork, but they have no right to say what people can do with their code as long as those actions remain in compliance with the GPL.
I'm surprised to see myself posting on licensing issues. I don't even agree with the all of FSF's ideology, but their license is very clear.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by johnnyb · 2004-02-27 04:09 · Score: 4, Informative

I think it's the statement that they have made publicly that the GPL is invalid. If they are redistributing nmap, and they don't believe the GPL is valid, then that means they haven't accepted the license and therefore cannot redistribute it.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate
Re:We live in interesting times.. by tmasssey · 2004-02-27 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

As the copyright holder, you can put your code under 42 licenses. A *lot* of projects dual-license GPL and a proprietary-friendly license. This way, they can do *exactly* what the GCC people did: sell a proprietary copy of their license.
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
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Trailer+Trash · 2004-02-27 04:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is very important IMHO. We need each and every GPL project being distributed by SCO to do this.

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?
Re:We live in interesting times.. by WNight · 2004-02-27 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Gadzinka · 2004-02-27 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

One of SCO's legal arguments AFAIR is that some court, after finding GPL illegal (however they want to achieve it) could use the ``next best thing'' doctrine (I don't remember the exact latin term).

Their reasoning is that court could declare all GPL programs Public Domain following the intention of author to distribute software free of charge, free to use, free to modify.

I know that it is very streched, very dificult and stupid. Anything new?

Robert

--
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Re:We live in interesting times.. by surprise_audit · 2004-02-27 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

I don't know about revoking a user's right, but clause 5 states that:
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.

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.
Re:We live in interesting times.. by aaarrrgggh · 2004-02-27 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

You would be surprised at the number of journalists that read slashdot, and the frequency of references it gets in the popular press...
Re:We live in interesting times.. by red+floyd · 2004-02-27 04:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Samba has already made a statment about this. Go down to the "19th Aug, 2003" entry:
Because of this, we believe that the Samba Team must remain true to our principles and our code must be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.

Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:We live in interesting times.. by jmorris42 · 2004-02-27 05:01 · Score: 4, Informative

You are not required to accept the GPL to use GPL licensed software. Use is outside it's scope. Neither are you required to accept the Microsoft EULA, since it is just a shrink wrap license and isn't legally binding.

However if you wish to MODIFY and/or REDISTRIBUTE software licensed under the GPL you must accept the license, renegotiate a different license with the author or violate the author's Copyright. See the difference?

Btw, you also must accept the Microsoft EULA if you want rights over and above what the standard copyright license aquired at point of sale gives you. For example, tech support, updates, upgrade rights, etc.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:We live in interesting times.. by double-oh+three · 2004-02-27 05:51 · Score: 5, Informative

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/technology/02boo ble.html?ex=1076389200&en=fa84beea109b9d88&ei=5062 &partner=GOOGLE
Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/10778 53182.html
Computer Buissness Review:
http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/b69e c9e24cdfa eb480256e39003855ab
Chicago Daily Herald:
http://www.dailyherald.com/business/busin ess_story .asp?intid=3804089
Reuters Via San Diego Union-Tribune:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news /computing/20040 220-1336-tech-apple-pepsi.html
CNN Stories:
http://search.cnn.com/cnn/search?source= cnn&invoca tionType=search%2Ftop&sites=cnn&query=slashdot

So to sum it up, Yes; Slashdot is read by the news media and is in many, many stories.

--
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Re:We live in interesting times.. by shepd · 2004-02-27 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

On CNN?

In stories by the AP?

Business pages of the Sunday paper?

Answer? YES! :-)

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:We live in interesting times.. by Dastardly · 2004-02-27 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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?

This happens to be one of IBM's counter claims. Since, IBM has code in Linux that is under IBM's copyright, IBM has claimed that SCO is violating their copyright by attempting to sublicense IBM's code according to terms other than the GPL, and continuing to distribute Linux on its FTP site while claiming non-GPL rights.

I think this would explain why SCO has gone the GPL is invalid route, but they have not gone far enough. Let's assume SCO wins its claims. If one piece of code in Linux is copyright IBM, but not related to the System V contract, then IBM's counter claim also wins, since SCO has no rights to distibute, modify, or sublicense that IBM code except under the GPL. SCO actually needs to somehow claim that contributing code to Linux is contributing the code to the public domain, which I really can't see a judge going for, sinc copyrights can only be tranferred in writing, and it seems to me that a transfer to the public domain would also have to be in writing. IANAL

So, what happens if one party wins a breach of contract claim against another party that at the same time has won a copyright infringement claim against the first party?

ummm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Re:ummm.. by bhtooefr · 2004-02-27 02:05 · Score: 4, Informative

They're in violation of the GPL, by not fulfilling the terms necessary to be allowed to distribute the software under Section 4.
Re:ummm.. by fanatic · 2004-02-27 02:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

But they are NOT violating the GPL with respect to nmap, are they? So can Fyodor really do this? Is he himself not, in fact, violating the GPL, perhaps? Don't get me wrong - I despise the SCOundels. There needs to be some way top pressure them. But by releasing under GPL, then saying 'oh I changed my mind for you guys', is Fyodor not actually duplicating some aspects of SCO's conduct?

--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Re:ummm.. by radja · 2004-02-27 02:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

by not accepting the GPL's terms, they ARE violating with respect to nmap since they distribute nmap.

the licence itself is not accepted, hence the licence reverts to standard copyright, which does not allow distribution.

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587

About time someone did it by DarkMagician07 · 2004-02-27 01:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:About time someone did it by stevesliva · 2004-02-27 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:About time someone did it by BJH · 2004-02-27 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:About time someone did it by krumms · 2004-02-27 02:31 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Ah but grasshopper, you assume that SCO is in the software business.

If Samba falls in the woods and there are no Unixware servers installed, does anybody care?

Good Job by Czmyt · 2004-02-27 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:free software - no more by C_Kode · 2004-02-27 02:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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)

From the by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · 2004-02-27 02:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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

Re:From the by grub · 2004-02-27 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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,
Re:From the by jdh-22 · 2004-02-27 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

If SCO really beleives that the GPL is against the consitution, what makes you think they are gonna let NMap tell them what they can redistribute?

This puts SCO in a bad position:
1. If they agree with NMap on the terms, then they have agreed to the GPL license, thus contradicting themselfs.
2. Still insist the GPL is against the consitution, and still distribute NMap. This opens them up to other cases in which they might be suied over the GPL, thus costing them more money.

--
Every Super Villan uses Linux.

Re:free software - no more by rtz · 2004-02-27 02:01 · Score: 5, Informative

RTFA, they are not changing the license. They are invoking a clause in the existing license.

Would someone from Samba and Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

please get on this bandwagon? Thanks.

Re:Would someone from Samba and Apache by Roofus · 2004-02-27 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Apache isn't distributed under the GPL though, it falls under the Apache License. I don't believe SCO has ever made any statement as to the validity of the Apache License, and as such the Apache Foundation probably can't do anything about it.

This could get interesting by GoMMiX · 2004-02-27 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!"

Re:Oops. by 26199 · 2004-02-27 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're allowed to discriminate against people who break the terms of the licence :-)

In fact you pretty much have to.

Re:free software - no more by autocracy · 2004-02-27 02:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's still free software in every sense. You need to consider that just as the folks from mplayer would still have mplayer be free software, the company that they're accusing of breaking the license by incorporating code from mplayer into a proprietary binary-only product would no longer have rights to mplayer.

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

Re:Oops. by Bob(TM) · 2004-02-27 02:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Slashdot backend code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:05 · Score: 5, Funny

if (SCO topic)
goto http://groklaw.net
else if (Gadget stuff)
goto http://arstechnica.com
else if (Linux stuff)
goto http://linuxtoday.com
else if (good journalism stuff)
goto http://theregister.co.uk
else
goto http://news.bbc.co.uk
fi

Re:Slashdot backend code by Jarnis · 2004-02-27 02:22 · Score: 4, Funny

You forgot couple of lines from there pointing randomly to new york times (free reg blaah blaah blaah...)

Re:free software - no more by steveit_is · 2004-02-27 02:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

From the changelog [OT] by atarola · 2004-02-27 02:06 · Score: 5, Funny

To emphasize the highly professional nature of Nmap, all instances of "fucked up" in error message text has been changed to "b0rked".

I wish i could do this kind of stuff in my programming, it's freaking hilarious.

Cheers,
atarola

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. --H L Mencken

Re:From the changelog [OT] by grub · 2004-02-27 02:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I wish i could do this kind of stuff in my programming, it's freaking hilarious.

man sed
;)

--
Trolling is a art,

One question. by Sheetrock · 2004-02-27 02:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you release software under the GPL and somebody you fundamentally disagree with (like SCO) starts to use it within the confines of the GPL, can you pull their right to use it?

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.

Re:One question. by flosofl · 2004-02-27 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Have you been paying attention at all?
Or do you just post without RTFA? (forgot - of course you do, it is /. after all)

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"

USENIX letter by howlatthemoon · 2004-02-27 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Great letter! Of course, it relies on congress seeing hypocrisy as a bad thing. Unfortunately, it is often par for the course.

Obligatory $699 Joke by AtariAmarok · 2004-02-27 02:08 · Score: 5, Funny

"Dear Mr McBride,
Please pay $699 for every installation of SCO Unix due to the presense of NMAP."

In USENIX Russia, Darl pays YOU $699!

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Bad move by steveit_is · 2004-02-27 02:09 · Score: 5, Informative

That is not what this is about, it is quit simply about Fyoder enforcing an already existing clause of the GPL (4). He's not ammending the thing to lock SCO out. He is just making it a little more clear that having violated section 4 they are no longer entiteled to make use of or distribute NMap.

Can you smell the shareholder value now? by scorp1us · 2004-02-27 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Oops. by bhtooefr · 2004-02-27 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative

SECTION 5 OF THE GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

I'd consider declaring it invalid is not accepting the license. Therefore, they're in violation of Section 5 (for distributing without agreeing to the license), and Section 4 (for distributing without being allowed to by the GPL, due to Section 5)

That's what the FSF is for by SuperKendall · 2004-02-27 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 Many Feet Does a SCO Have? by turgid · 2004-02-27 02:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Because surely it must have shot them all off by now.

--
Stick Men

Why is the open source community taking so long? by cluge · 2004-02-27 02:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Dorky GPL question: by Asprin · 2004-02-27 02:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:Dorky GPL question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Since NMAP source is GPL, does it's inclusion in Battle Royale make the movie a derivative work and therefore also subject to the GPL?

Of course not. If, in a film, somebody walked past a bookshelf, and you saw the books on it, would that make the film a derivation of the books? It's the same sort of thing. NMAP in this instance is just a prop.

Uhhh... by Scarpux · 2004-02-27 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Uhhh... by scsirob · 2004-02-27 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

They explicitely mentioned that the GPL is not a valid license scheme. That being stated, the fallback is copyright. If the copyright owner doesn't allow SCO to distribute the copyrighted work, then SCO better comply...

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Re:Uhhh... by l3pYr · 2004-02-27 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Quoted directly from the GPL
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
I would say that SCO's declaration of the GPL as unconstitutional and illegal would be equivalent to not fully accepting the terms of the license. And because distributing programs under the GPL is prohibited unless you accept the GPL (see above), SCO has no legal right to distribute GPL'd code.

--
RTFA and cite your sources or prepare to get pwnd
Re:Uhhh... by wfberg · 2004-02-27 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes they have said that the GPL is invalid.
However with respect to NMap and SAMBA they appear to be in compliance with their obligations.

I doubt that their statements would constitute a breach of the GPL under the law. However, IANAL.

When it comes to testing the GPL, it will have to happen in court. What would happen in court is that SCO would argue that they accepted the GPL in nmap's and SAMBA's case. Then, Fyodor's councel would call shenanigans, or as it's legally known estoppel. What the doctrine of estoppel says, is that you can't claim one thing to benefit from it, and then turn around to claim the exact opposite, which is what SCO would be doing; they claim the GPL is invalid as it applies to the kernel, then suddenly valid for nmap. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Besides, the GPL is not a contract; it's a license. SCO doesn't have to agree with it, they just have to abide by it. If they don't abide by it, fine, then get another license; many authors dual-license their code, as the GPL is a non-exclusive license anyway.

But the case gets even more twisted; you see, SCO is distributing the kernel, but at the same time, claims that it has rights to stuff that's in there, that they will not license under the terms of the GPL. Now, it's fine to claim some one stole your stuff. But the only right SCO has to then go and distribute the kernel is the GPL, which says, if distribute stuff tied into our stuff, you can't put any additional restraints or conditions on whomever you distribute it to.

SCO might claim that it's "no fair" to make people who distribute the kernel, or a derivative work, can't apply more restrictions. But that's certainly not true. But, it it were true, then the entire GPL would be invalid, since the principal reason of the GPL is to do precisely this. Yes, there's a "if any portion is found to be invalid, the balance shall apply", but the balance of the license is exactly the open source bit! So, no license for SCO. Again, can't have your cake and eat it; estoppel 101.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty

Re:Bad move by 10Ghz · 2004-02-27 02:18 · Score: 4, Informative

I, for one didn't realise that owners could block companies from using their code and don't like it one little bit.

GPL (or any other license for that matter) basically says that "You may use/distribute this software as long as you agree to these terms". If you do not agree to those terms, then you lose the rights the license gives you. SCO disagrees with the terms of the GPL, therefore they lose the rights the license gives them.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

More from press release by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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."

Nope. by OmniGeek · 2004-02-27 02:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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."

The GPL cannot be tested in court. by RedK · 2004-02-27 02:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 :

Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."
At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."
One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."
But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason that lies behind the statement you have heard -- Mr. McBride made it here some weeks ago -- that there has never been a court test of the GPL.

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

Re:The GPL cannot be tested in court. by nilsjuergens · 2004-02-27 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
This proves one thing. RMS and his fellows at FSF are true hackers indeed. They even hacked the legal system to make it work for them. The GPL is so clever it brings tears to my eyes :)
cheers, Nils

--
-- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)

SCO shares slowly drops... by Zo0ok · 2004-02-27 02:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

"Disagree with" != "doesn't accept license" by mik · 2004-02-27 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not exactly rigorousm, but:

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.

QED

Of 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).

Re:And SCO Cares cause? by the_mad_poster · 2004-02-27 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Couldn't resist... by CaptainAlbert · 2004-02-27 02:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Legolas: Ai! Ai! A Darlrog! A Darlrog is come!

Gimli: Calderin's Bane! (hides face)

Lindalf: Alas! A Darlrog. And I am already weary.
(to others) Fly! Over the bridge! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way.
(to Darlrog) You cannot pass! I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the Flame of Finlandssvenskar. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Utah. Go back to the shadow! You cannot pass.

--
These sigs are more interesting tha

Anyone else notice this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 02:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Also part of their press release:

To emphasize the highly professional nature of Nmap, all instances of "fucked up" in error message text has been changed to "b0rked".

License already terminated by minkwe · 2004-02-27 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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."

Open Source started with Ben Franklin by bdsesq · 2004-02-27 02:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

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... by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-27 02:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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)

Re:On second thought... by localman · 2004-02-27 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:On second thought... by finkployd · 2004-02-27 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:On second thought... by unixbob · 2004-02-27 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

If I understand this correctly, Fyodor is stopping SCO from distributing Nmap as a binary release. Although he is no longer explicitly supporting it, there is nothing stopping an end user from downloading the Nmap source and trying to compile their own binary (although there's no guarantee it will work because Fyodor isn't coding for the SCO platform anymore).

As an ISP this doesn't bother me (much). I don't wait for my vendor (Redhat / Sun Microsystems) to release versions of Apache for my webservers. I compile my own build and deploy that across all my servers.

This is also no different from Closed Source software. Vendors pick and choose which platforms they wish to support. Oracle support RedHat and Suse Linux but not Debian (IIRC). Closed source vendors constantly pick and choose which platforms to support; sometimes market forces dictate this, sometimes technical issues dictate this. OSS should be no different

--
The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
Re:On second thought... by Ryan+Amos · 2004-02-27 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:On second thought... by BubbaTheBarbarian · 2004-02-27 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Good idea by GreatBallsOfFire · 2004-02-27 02:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

wrong by Ender+Ryan · 2004-02-27 03:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

SCO distributes NMap. NMap is licensed under the GPL. SCO has stated it does not accept the GPL license. Not accepting the license prevents you from being allowed to distribute a GPLed work. SCO certainly is violating the GPL with regards to NMap, and any other GPL software they distribute.

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

Very interesting play. by Ironica · 2004-02-27 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Re:hmm by radja · 2004-02-27 03:15 · Score: 4, Informative

GPL is not a free for all: you have to actively accept it, and stick to the requirements. by claiming the entire GPL as invalid, SCO does not accept the terms of the GPL, so the software reverts to normal copyright, which does not allow distribution and (in europe) does not even allow use (not sure if this also goes in the US. in european copytight law for software it is recognized that in order to run a program, you have to first make a copy of it in memory which counts as duplication)

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587

SCO is estopped from raising the GPL as a defense by Frater+219 · 2004-02-27 03:18 · Score: 5, Informative

the licence itself is not accepted, hence the licence reverts to standard copyright, which does not allow distribution.

The GPL isn't a contract, which has to be "accepted" by the receiving party to be effective. It is a straight copyright license. So that argument would not fly -- except for one thing: equitable estoppel.

"Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than they did at an earlier time if another party would be harmed by the change[d] position." -- Wikipedia

In other words: You can't argue in a custody suit that you're the child's father and then argue in the following child-support suit that you aren't.

The GPL, as Eben Moglen points out, is a distributor's defense when accused of copyright infringement by an author: "I'm not infringing -- because this author granted me permission to copy, under this here license." However, SCO have argued elsewhere that the GPL is invalid. Therefore, even though the GPL is a valid license, and would be a valid license for SCO's use of nmap, SCO is estopped from raising it in court as a defense.

another great part of the release notes for nmap by little+alfalfa · 2004-02-27 03:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. >:|

HATS OFF!! by dentar · 2004-02-27 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

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!

Lead a class action by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:Lead a class action by canajin56 · 2004-02-27 06:55 · Score: 4, Informative

No, SCO is breaking Section 2b of the GPL by charging for the kernel, as they are NOT licencing their code in it free of charge to all third parties. You will note that this Section also states that putting two programs on the same CD/distrubution package does NOT put them under the same licence. So you can break the licence of one without touching the other, since they are NOT under the same licence. (This also means that you can include proprietary code without any problems)

Since they are breaking 2B., then under Section 4, their licence is void, and they may not redistribute at all. However, if they go up to a company running Redhat, and demand a fee, they have not violated the GPL at all: The GPL is only void if they sell copies of Linux complete with a licence to use the code. Of course, it is illegal to demand compensation for something you don't own, but unless they are charging it for their OWN copy, the GPL has nothing to do with it.

Further more, they are only charging for the Linux kernel. They are not charging for NMap, grep, gcc, Samba, perl, or anything else that may or may not be in a particular GNU/Linux distribution. As such, they have not violated the licence on these pieces of software. If the authors try to revoke SCO's right to this code, THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties. SCO's right to the kernel is void by their actions (If they are selling licences to the kernel that they are distributing, and the licence sold is a condition of said distribution) but not their right to anything else.

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Lead a class action by mark-t · 2004-02-27 10:08 · Score: 4, Informative

If the authors try to revoke SCO's right to this code, THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties
Show me where in the GPL it says this.
I think you are mistaken about what the GPL is.
First of all, it is impossible for the copyright owner to violate the GPL on the software that he himself wrote. He _owns_ the copyright, after all. The GPL does not take ownership of copyright away from the author.
Secondly, standard copyright law _always_ applies to any copyrighted work: permission to copy and distribute a copyrighted work is categorically forbidden without the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of GPL'd software, the GPL outlines the terms and conditions that one must simply agree to in order to obtain said permission. Where more conventional copyrighted works require express written permission from either the copyright owner or those explicitly authorized by him (such as a publisher), the GPL simply defaults to having given you permission that can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time should you fail to comply with the terms of the license.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

who's behind this? by spiritraveller · 2004-02-27 03:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Is One Penny Source OK with SCO? by uncadonna · 2004-02-27 04:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's hypothesize that SCO is correct and that free distribution of software should be considered subversive. I note that babysitting by grandmothers would also be considered subversive under the same argument (giving things away is communist). Grandma, after all, is interfering with the viability of the day care service industry! Che Guevara would be proud!

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

Right idea, wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-27 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Nitpick by Sxooter · 2004-02-27 04:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Sorry, but this isn't the playground, and apache can't just take their ball and go home. Unless SCO has violated the apache software license, the apache foundation cannot just suddenly remove the rights of SCO under that license because it "feels like it."

SCO has violated the GPL. Companies that distribute their software under the GPL have a right to withdraw the licensing of SCO because the GPL gives them that right due to the violation.

No such clause exists in the apache software license that if you violate the GPL they can pull your rights.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.

Other tools that could be pulled by raider_red · 2004-02-27 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Fyodor's decleration considered IRRELEVANT by naarok · 2004-02-27 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Why didn't Fyodor just dual license? by ValentineMSmith · 2004-02-27 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

After reading the press release (and several of the comments here), it almost looks like Fyodor was trying to do what TrollTech did with the QT libraries a while back: do a dual license scheme.

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:

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

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

*doh* Brain cramp, ignore the above... by TrentC · 2004-02-27 07:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...)

SCOs letter regarding copyright, copyleft by killmeplease · 2004-02-27 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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! -

SCO rejected the GPL absolutely by Xtifr · 2004-02-27 10:15 · Score: 4, Informative

SCO has filed a statement with the court (in response to IBM's counterclaims) saying that the GPL is (among other things) "unenforcable", "void and/or voidable", and "unconstitional". This could be read as prima facie evidence that they do not accept the terms of the GPL, which is a requirement for distributing any GPL'd software.

If they'd confined themselves to press releases questioning the legality of the GPL, then I think you might have a point. But they've basically stated in open court that they do not accept the GPL at all, therefore they're in violation of section 5 of the GPL with respect to any and all GPL'd programs. (Thanks to the smart folks at Groklaw for pointing this out.)

Slashdot Mirror

USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap

127 of 846 comments (clear)