USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap

Posted by michael on Friday February 27, 2004 @01:55AM from the tit-for-tat dept.

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.'"

64 of 846 comments (clear)

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,
1. 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?
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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?
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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!
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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!
15. 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??
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
22. 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.
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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?
26. 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.
27. 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...
28. 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
29. 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
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?
1. 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.
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
1. 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: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.
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: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: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
1. 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,
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.
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
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
1. 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
1. 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
2. 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
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."
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
1. 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)
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"
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
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)
1. 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.
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.
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.