Slashdot Mirror
IBM Moves To Enforce GPL By Summary Judgement
gvc writes "So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.' IBM, in its third motion for summary judgement against SCO, is seeking a permanent injunction against SCO's distribution of Linux, on the grounds that SCO has renounced and violated the GPL, and therefore has no right to distribute the 700,000 lines of IBM-copyrighted code therein. As usual, Groklaw broke the story." We previously reported on another IBM summary judgement from earlier this week.
Since the GPL has never really been tested in court (that I know of) it will be interesting to see how it is disassembled and twisted by the SCO lawyers to become ineffective.
IBM has a decent case, it brings to mind the image of a kitten poking at a Rotty.
The GPL is well written enough, it should stand up in court, even against SCO.
At least, I hope it will, or else we have a whole new battle on our hands...
Remember, if the the court finds the GPL to be invalid, regular copyright law takes effect and IBM can sue SCO for copyright infringement over the IBM-written code in Linux. The court may not have a position on the GPL yet, but it certainly understands copyright.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
SCO said their code is in Linux, files motion (breaks GPL) and now it is found that SCO has been illegally distributing IBM's code without licence (as the GPL has been invalidated).
If IBM's motion is successful this would open the door for IBM to sue SCO for the breach!
Fortunately, because of the GPL, globalisation and the internet, GNU/Linux or some other functionally equivalent free OS will tend to survive, even if in the future IBM (for good business reasons) decides to change its stance.
How 'bout a name change: GNU/SCOUnix! GNU/Openserver Cool.
More seriously, I'm starting to think it should be called GNU/Linux not so much because of Stallman's contributions of lots of user mode software, but rather in honor of his brilliance of the GPL. No matter what people say about RMS, the GPL is beautiful.
Note that this IBM move wouldn't work with the BSD license. To a large extent I think the GPL is a big part of the reason why Linux seems to havae more momentum than BSD. Companies like RedHat, IBM, Tivo, Linksys etc seem far more likely to "give back" to Linux; meaning a bigger pool of contributors.
If this works, I'll switch from thinking GNU/Linux is a silly name to thinking RMS deserves it for his legal brilliance that he foresaw long before anyone thought it might be important.
Next time you are in the market for linux server, use IBM hardware. That's what my company has done. The IBM hardware is rock solid so you're doing yourself a favour at the same time.
Will.
It's not just Darl's mouth. They said in court that the GPL is not valid. That's very important. By actually filing papers in court disputing the validity of the GPL SCO (the corporation) put themselves into a bind. There are only two possibilities here.
1) GPL is valid. If this is the case then MS just wasted all the money they funneled to SCO.
2) GPL is not valid and therefore SCO has no right to distribute IBM code. If the judge rules that the GPL is not valid then this would in all likelyhood make all EULAS invalid and that would be a happy day indeed.
You notice I said IBM code not samba, gimp or whatever. IBM is suing about IBM code was released under the GPL.
The case seems pretty open and shut to me but then again IANAL. In fact the more learn about the US legal system more bewildered and disgusted I get. How long has this suit been going on and they haven't even held a trial yet.
evil is as evil does
If you read the MSJ closely, IBM is actually saying: (emphasis added)
So this isn't really about the GPL--it's a simple copyright infringement issue. They're saying to the judge, "we own this code and SCO is distributing it without permission, so stop them".
On the other hand, they do go on to add:
So if SCO is going to mount a defense to this MSJ, they'll have to argue for the GPL, essentially countering their own earlier claims that the GPL is invalid and forcing them to tell the judge "uh, we were wrong". This isn't about IBM "testing" the GPL, it's about them grabbing two big boulders and squishing SCO between them. (:
If the GPL did end up being ruled on by the judge, about the only ruling I could see is that the GPL is valid and therefore SCO has not infringed IBM's copyrights--but IANAL, so what do I know?
I more or less agree with the principle of what you've said, but I'm not sure if this is a great example. Even if you and your landlord have never been to court, chances are that the lease agreement is either a clone or a very close copy of a standard and legally scrutinised agreement. It's likely that a similar template agreement has been used in thousands or more lease agreements, and probably that template has been tested in court many many times already.
Although the GPL is clear, concise and (we would hope) very straightforward, it's still out on it's own to a large extent. It's quite a different way of doing things from any software agreements that came before it (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), and it hasn't been tested. There seems to be quite an incentive to have it tested in court, too, if only to silence the people who might publicly dispute its validity for their own reasons.
But "robust" doesn't mean what "vigorous" means. The latter just means they are trying hard (to counter-claim), but the former includes Forbes' judgment that the counter-claim is solid.
:)
And those are very different. Yes, the whole article was pretty neutral, but it was just poor word choice, Forbes should be more careful with the opening remarks (because those are what most people read/remember)...
But I find it sligthly difficult to accept your explanation, even though I'm not with the tinfoil hatters. Forbes must have considered SCO's response as "robust" (rugged, durable) and I can't understand how's that.
Ah well, nobody browses at "0" anyway so don't mind an AC challenging your view
The major distinctions being: EULAs are generally "compulsory", in that you must agree to them simply to use the software (using the software, by itself, is a fair use right, so your rights are immediately curtailed), and EULAs usually place limitations on how you can use the software and what you may do to back the software up, usually giving you less rights than you started with.
People read the GPL like it's an EULA, but it isn't. The GPL basically says "Ok, you weren't allowed to do this, that, and the other, but we're going to let you do this and that." An EULA reads more like "You were able to do this, that, and the other, but we don't like that, so from now on you can only do this and the other, not that, and even then, when you do the other, you can only do it like ...".
The point I'm making is that simply because a license might get legally enforced or struck down, doesn't mean that License Agreements will be likewise. I'd say the odds are in favour of the GPL being held up, because it would be an obvious restriction of an artist's rights if it wasn't, but EULA's are another matter because they impose upon consumers and take rights away, and that should, when coupled with basic "First Sale Doctrine" type precendents, make them invalid in most cases.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I do read Slashdot, and that's almost as good, right?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.