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.
How about their stagnant Unix that is wrapped in GPL software so that it is functional?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Well if IBM get their judgement this could be just about the best news for free software since GNU started.
It's certainkly worth the trauma of the last year to get the GPL publicly upheld in court.
Here's three cheers for IBM (and SCO;-).
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I only hope a difinitive judgement will be issued to answer the (legal) question of the GPL once and for all. IIRC, the question of the GPL has been brought up before but has always been settled out of court.
A major corporation using the legal system to enforce copyrights involved in a license the OSS movement agrees with?
What to do, what to DO...
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...
It stood up in court recently in Germany, AFAIK
The German GPL Order - Translated from GROKLAW
...I was reading this thing we had called slashdot, as was the style of the time, when we heard that the GPL was gonna get tested in court...
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
It has recently been tested in a German court. I think the story was on Slashdot, too (it was on Groklaw at least).
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!
Hell reported unusually warm weather patterns emerging from the Upper North-West (aka Lindon Utah) where it's rumored Lucifer SoT Morning was last seen residing...
Well, it looks like SCO has really messed up now. "Hey, everybody! The license that let's us use your code isn't valid!" What on earth were they thinking? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
We should put up something from the Open Source Community to thank IBM for standing up for us...they could have dropped us and ramped up AIX again. Or turned around and tried to get linux for itself... Instead, they are defending us. The problem is: What do you get a company that can afford everything?
Or else the copyright would have been signed over to the Free Software Foundation, and IBM wouldn't be defending it right now.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I suspect the judge will end up going along with this one, at least temporarily, though there's a strong likelihood it'll be permanent. Until the ownership issues of Linux are sorted out, the status quo is applicable, and the status quo in this case is Linux being distributed under the terms of the GPL. To that end, either SCO is ceding its ownership rights of the code by distributing it, or violating the GPL. Either way, given their current business model, it's pretty apparent that SCO is going to have to stop distributing the kernel.
After all, where would Microsoft be right now if it weren't for IBM letting good 'ol Billy G. use them like a cheap inflatable sheep? Its refreshing to see them standing up for Linux, which embodies scientific collaboration, the forward progress of technology and the good of humanity rather than greedy irresponsible corporatism in sheep's clothing.
Still... I'm suspicious enough to wonder what their long-term (10+ year) plan for linux really is...
In the end the big corporate winner of this story will be IBM. By first been a victim and then a defender and hero of the GPL they achieved the impossible: Removing the virtual big "EVIL" tattoo from their forehead and replacing it by the "GOOD KARMA" one.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Looks like even Wall Street sees where this is headed: SCOX
Speak before you think
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.
Look, it doesnt need to be. The GPL is based on copyright and it is a set of conditions that allow you to use someone's copyrighted work. It needs no testing in law because in law the copyright holder can set whatever (resonable) conditions to allow his / her work to be reproduced or used.
I cant see IBM loosing this one. i bet they can produce something SCO cant - evidence. This'll be good to watch
This is what the GPL is for. What difference does it make if it's IBM defending their GPL'd code or Linux?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As usual, M$ will spin it to something like:
You cannot use GPL because you will be sued in court like SCO. Use our OS, we would never sue you! As compliment we will offer you a free browser, media player and firewall! Yay!
IBM (the big evil, the microsoft of the 80's) defending the GPL (the move started to combat proprietary lockin like IBM's). Richard Stallman must be turning in his... oh, wait.
Golly gee, this is better than NASCAR! I was starting to get bored at first, but now that we're starting to see some interesting developments in this case, I'm able to stomach the two or three SCO stories every day... Almost... ;)
Bitching aside, it is nice to have a real OVC (Original Villainous Company - IBM) show these wanna-bes how it's done.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
" Man, this just isn't SCO's week. "
Amen.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
there'll be a lot of riots around the world.
but seriously, how it would be? there's code from lots of people from all around the world. So is everybody infringing the copyright of everybody?
First IBM embraces Linux, then they position it as the next logical step from AIX, now they're standing up to, and trying to put an end to, SCO's harrassment. Additionally, IBM is doing a LOT of marketing of Linux. Plenty of traditional magazine and television ads are all over, and they clearly spell out the message that not only is Linux good for your business but IBM is the company that can successfully get you up and running. When companies like IBM put out that kind of marketing message it builds mindshare for the entire Linux community.
Let's not forget that Sun is beginning to do this. There are now full-page magazine ads appearing that feature StarOffice. However, these are of lesser interest to the Linux community in that the ads primarily benefit Sun without the broader appeal of the IBM ads. Still, adoption of StarOffice and OpenOffice will eventually make it easier to switch to Linux.
Another question is, "what do you think professional marketing' will bring to the table that Linux doesn't already have?" For instance, who in the United States does *not* already equate RedHat with Linux? You're unlikely to increase vendor/product identification in this case through traditional marketing (and RedHat is quite happy to pay for their own marketing). What you *might* do is increase market acceptance of Linux as a product. But IBM is already doing that. If your competitors' ads are working for you, why spend the dollars?
All in all it adds up to one of the old/stuff tech GIANTS backing the fledgling OS that could, Linux. Thanks IBM, let me start repricing those t41 thinkpads now...
CB!
free ipod and free gmail!
oh man.. how long am I going to have to wait for the sequel to this post?
---
This question hinges on a lot of "ifs", but nonetheless, it must be asked:
If SCO loses the right to distribute Linux because they repudiated the GPL, would they then be open to lawsuit for distributing other products under the GPL or GPL-like licenses (GNU CC, etc.)?
If so, perhaps it would be useful to not only go for the jugular, as IBM has done, but to violate the corpse as well.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Good to see someone is finally putting the SmackDown on SCO.
like democracy, the problems with linux are solved by....more linux!
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
And the kernel is properly called "Linux" no matter what you think about the whole silly "GNU/Linux" argument.
The only fact applicable to an End User for GPL is the "Use for anything but No Warranty" part . Excepting the Freedom 0, there is no End User Licensing applicable to GPL and it is NOT CERTAINLY AN AGREEMENT for the end user as it has NO CONDITIONS to agree to for him , only a notice of Warranty which is present in almost every product on the market (absence or presence of warranty).
However a developer or distributer has to agree to the license and comply or not choose to distribute it. The point to be noted is that GPL is applicable for code that is distributed. I can take gcc/binutils and modify it for my own OS , keep it private and never release the source. I can even take it to a couple of trade shows and demo it out . But only if I give the binary to someone else without sources will I be violating the GPL.
You have to understand the twists in GPL to really appreciate RMS and FSF - they essentially built a strong moral , ethical , and legal foundation for GPL (V1 and V2).Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Irrespective of whether IBM has warm fuzzies about helping OSS, the OSS community can (try to) flex its muscle by supporting IBM.
How, exactly, I don't know -- one guy suggested recommending G5's.. word-of-mouth advertising is something of good value that a mob can offer.
And for companies that we don't like (Microsoft, SCO, and maybe IBM in 10 years), we can speak badly of them, boycott them, and encourage the opposition. I for one stopped buying and using M$ products sooner than I would have if it weren't for the OSS community influencing me, and I pass on influence of my own. Word of mouth, and apps I write will be portable to Linux/OSX, and I even plan to release a beta of a game for Linux users first, (I've even thought of a discount for the Linux/Mac version of the game.)
Things like this might not be much, but mindshare adds up and who knows how big of a mob we the OSS peeps can turn out to be.
The way things are going, M$ is losing it's edge and ability to lock-in customers. OOo is one example, as are WineX and Citrix, and more will follow. When CTO and lead IT guys start getting a choice between Linux and Windows (or IBM vs ???), they're going to obviously start choosing the one they love and scrap the one they hate.
As the playing field levels, general popular opinion starts to matter more. Companies like Microsoft do suffer in some ways right now for being "a soulless life-sucking entity that represents all that is evil in the world"... maybe negligibly compared to the billions they rake in, but the starry-eyed idealist in me hopes that karma as manifested in angering or pleasing we the consumers will start to matter someday.
So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.'
Welcome to the club, glad you could make it.
Sincerely, BSD License
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Don't forget, large corporations are amoral by nature, and any morality they display is either dictated by statute or is a side effect of their applying the profit motive. If IBM thought it made better business sense to side with SCO rather than mass against it, it would. Follow the money.
What you and other people with similar views seem to forget is that even very large companies are usually under the direction of a small handful of people - and sometimes the group is even smaller than that.
You paint IBM as a directionless ship, blowing where the wind will take it. But the very best companies do not just do what is strictly best for money's sake - instead they have some kind of vision and execute plans to take them there, even if they might leave a little money on the table in the process.
IBM has done exactly that. They have seen the big "Open Source" event horizion off in the distance, and they are placing themselves in the best position possible for a company to survicve (and thrive) in that kind of storm.
No matter how much money IBM might have made siding with SCO, they still would not have done so - because doing so is 180 degress aginst the vision they are going for. Companies that truly follow the money might be good for a short hop, but will never go the distance.
If you want examples of other companies that really act more as extensions of individuals (for good or ill) just look at Oracle, Sun, and even Microsoft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Years ago, my then boss remarked that operating system software should be like the sewage system: only noticed on the rare occasions it fails. The sewage system is, in effect, Open Source: anyone can read the rules for designing it, and anyone who follows the rules can connect to it. They will have to pay to dispose of waste through it, but that's another matter. What they pay in taxes is the cost of provision, not an IP tax to the person who designed the system in the first placed.
Equally, anyone can read the plumbing codes. I don't have to pay a fee for intellectual property to Home Depot every time I want to put a shower in, or connect two pipe lengths.
On the other hand, Home Depot makes good money, and highly skilled plumbers installing big shower rooms do very nicely, thank you.
So I think this is where IBM wants to be. IBM wants, in effect, to put in really big and impressive bathrooms. It's easier to do this if someone else, who hardly has to be thought about, is taking care of the water supply and the sewage. It makes sense to give away some of your knowledge of infrastructure, because others will build on it and make your life easier.
I apologise (a bit) for the extended metaphor, but I think my understanding of the basic economics is right. SCO builds high priced sewage pipes and charges a premium for knowing how to do it. They also want everybody else who digs holes in the ground to pay them a tax. In doing this, they are trying to backflow (sorry) against the entire trend of technology development. IBM, in classic Adam Smith mode, look to their own advantage but, without intending to, benefit everybody.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
And thus do a lot of people take the stance that since a corporation is intended to be profitable, it will automatically assume an immoral stance to protect said profits.
However, corporations in a sense are not so different from most people. Most people exist for personal profit, whether monentary or otherwise. We live to better our own situation, often regardless of consequences to others. Look at how we treat the environment, or abuse "the system" to the detriment of others for personal benefit. By and large most people aren't mother Terasas, but neither are we completely immoral.
Corporations are ruled by profit yes, but that in itself is ruled by their customers. It's a balance of morality (or at least in public image) VS profit. Get caught doing too many immoral things, and the public image suffers, and profit goes down.
The problem of image can be solved in several manners:
a) Don't get caught
b) Try to stay on the clean and narrow, or at least limit those that are aware of what you're doing when you do stray
c) Try and find a business model that satisfies the most people while still remaining profitable
Now, we all know that things that push the limit of morality (and often legality) can often be profitable. Drugs (illegal) are profitable, and many varieties of pornography while profitable and/or legal are often rather repugnant except to those that would pay large sums...
IBM is currently taking a stance that is satisfactory to customers as well as the generality of those in the technical/linux market. In the end, their morality is imposed by their customers and partners. And in this case, your typical slashdotter may embody both (if not directly the customer, then perhaps the technical personal for the customer company).
So you can't call a company moral or immoral, because we are in the end the ultimate arbitrators of morality. In the end, a company is often representative of both its customers and partners.
When they started trying to charge people $699 for using code they've been distributing themselves under the GPL for years, you don't think that was maybe a breach of some kind?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
From motion to hearing to decision, most of the rulings so far have taken 2-4 months.
For each motion, the other side gets to respond. Then the initiator of the motion gets to respond. A hearing is usually scheduled a few weeks to a month after the last response is due to be submitted, though when both parties stipulate for more time to work on the motions the last response can sometimes go in a day or two before the hearing. The hearing can also be re-scheduled.
I think we should all get behind IBM and support them. Does anyone know if they have a pay-pal account where we can make donations?
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?
..than the slashdot article (a previous article had the groklaw link). Read the pdf (it's pretty clear even though IANAL).
:
I do hope groklaw posts SCO's reply to this. It should be an entertaining read...
To sum up for the lazy
if gpl_invalid():
scoHasViolatedIBMCopyright = True
else:
scoHasViolatedGPL = True
if scoHas... OR scoHas..(elided):
HeadExplodes()
The GPL is not a EULA!!!
EULA = End User Liscense Agreement
The GPL is a liscense for distribution of copyrighted code, it has no bearing on End Users. It only matters to Red Hat, Debian, IBM, etc. A EULA is generally a set of conditions under which you are allowed to USE code ( or usually a work derived from code). EULA's are invalid.
In a word, profit.
They are ultimately doing all of this not for the community, but for their bottom line. At one time, they were the "evil ones", and Microsoft was the "savior" (horrors!).
Let us not forget this bit of computing history - lest IBM win, then turn around and bite us...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It turns out that in the Memorandum in Support, IBM does invoke part of the GPL--specifically, the part that says "no relicensing":
So while it's not the whole shebang, it looks like we can at least expect part of the GPL to be discussed.
Memorandum in support, pages 26-28. A must read!
IBM tried their best to stop clones. Eventually they were reverse-engineered, but they certainly didn't go willingly into the "IBM-compatible" era.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It is a license to distribute a copyrighted work, not a contract.
You either accept the license and get the right to distribute the work under its conditions.
Or you refuse the license and you do not distribute the work.
The courts have nothing to do with it, until the moment the copyright holder decides that his rights have been infringed, and sues. SCO cannot (and of course they know this, but they are playing stupid buggers) claim that "the license is invalid". WTF does that mean?
If I write a license that says: "you can distribute my copyrighted work if you dance the makossa twice a day", that's perfectly valid. Up to you to accept it or not.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
...but then they give a free download? What exaclty are they trying to say? It's free for them to give free downloads but knowbody else? Even if it is their source code they still end up looking goofy.
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
The GPL isn't really a license... it's mostly just an exception to copyright law
and copyright has been tested in court countless times. The name is bad... it
should be called the GNU Copyright Exception or something simliar but way more
clever. If I ask PJ to make a copy of one of her posts she has the option to say
yes, no, or only if you write it out with a quill pen using chicken blood. If I
choose to use cat blood then the deal's off and she can sue me for copyright
infringment.
I fail to understand why so many people don't understand this. I really didn't
and still don't understand why SCO's lawyers would try to invalidate the GPL
since it was their only defense for blatant and willfull copyright violations.
IBM's lawyers obviously got this though. If something happens and SCO doesn't
get kicked down hard it'll be the greatest travesty of justice ever.
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.
If they lose because they repudiated the GPL (i.e. if the fact that they publicly claimed it's unenforcible, void, unconstitutional, etc.), then perhaps so, because that would seem to apply to all their other uses of GPL'd code. Still, I think the "repudiation" argument is the weaker of IBM's arguments, and I'm not sure it'll fly in court.
:)
If they lose for violating the GPL, and, in particular, for trying to charge people per-CPU fees for Linux, and for asking them to sign licenses agreeing not to use or distribute the source, then the answer is no. That's a violation of the kernel license, which just happens to be the GPL. It's not a violation of the licenses of any other software that may happen to be under the GPL, since they haven't tried to charge for or restrict the distribution of that other software. On the other hand, the violation claims should be a slam-dunk for IBM.
It helps to think of the GPL as boilerplate. The kernel has a license, gcc has a license, emacs has a license, etc., and they all just happen to use exactly the same words. Ordinarily, you can't actually "violate the GPL"; all you can do is violate a particular license that happens to be the GPL. It takes some really unusual (and spectacularly stupid) behavior to end up in violation of all the licenses of all software everywhere that uses the GPL. Before SCO came along, I would have said it was impossible. Now...I'm still not convinced it's possible, but if there was ever a company with the proper combination of chutzpah and stupidity to pull it off, it's SCO!
According to SCO's interpretation of IBM's contract with AT&T, the minute IBM added this code to UNIX it became part of UNIX and therefore it now belongs to SCO, not IBM. (Obviously this isn't true, but it's what the've been arguing all along.) SCO's response is obvious: They will claim all rights to the code in question on the grounds (however false) that IBM gave them all rights to the code under the original contract with AT&T..
All of a sudden, Microsoft will be in the "unix"-business.... and has a dire need to protect "it's" IP.
This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
I think you're misunderstanding somewhat.
What IBM is arguing is that SCO's "GPL sucks" (and maybe other actions; have to wait for the full pleading to be sure exactly what they are saying) statements constitute a "renouncement" and a "disclaming" of the GPL and a statement that SCO is rejecting the terms therein. Without the permissions granted by the GPL, SCO has no rights to distribute the portions of IBM's code in Linux, apart from those granted by the fair use doctrine.
Furthermore, they are probably going to argue that SCO's addition of terms to the GPL (you can't distribute this) and failure to include the GPL with their distributions are a material breach of the GPL. They say this also means that they have rejected the GPL.
So, in fact, IBM's complaint isn't so much that SCO has breached the GPL, it's that SCO is infringing IBM's copyrights. The issue of the GPL is actually only incidental to this claim, and brought up because IBM needs to show why it dosen't grant SCO the permission to do what it does.
Not true. They might charge $$$$$$$ for the binaries, but they still have to provide the source code for free,
The only thing the GPL does is grant people rights they otherwise would not have. Now, if SCO had FOLLOWED the GPL, and THEN IBM had sued them for copyright infringement, and the judge ruled that they had not violated the copyright due to the GPL, then that would be a GPL test case. Or, if one of SCO's "customers" was sued by SCO and the customer prevailed due to SCO having given them the code under the GPL, then that would also be a test case.
But this is just the usual "You can't copy copywritten code without permission." Nothing new to see here folks. (Well, aside from a good stomping.)
paintball
My first reaction was to disagree, and say that this is about the GPL, for several reasons. Some of those reasons have been articulated by others, but in particular, I remembered that IBM had a counterclaim specifically about the GPL. But when I checked the counterclaims, I saw that you are right! This is a motion for summary judgement on IBM's eighth counterclaim, which is "Copyright Infringement", not on their sixth counterclaim, which is "Breach of the GNU General Public License". Which means this is only going to get more interesting when IBM finally does get around to arguing counterclaim six. :)
"Unfortunately for us, when a corporation is publicly held, things don't always go according to the morals of the people in charge. In the end, they have to answer the shareholders, and their job is to please the shareholders, and the only way to do that is by making them money."
Wait, how is a publicly-held corporation any more responsible to its shareholders (or less accountible to the public) than a privately-held corporation? Whether the stock is publicly traded, over-the-counter, blue-chip, or family-owned, the same set of incentives, ethical rules, and governing principles apply. Most (by FAR) limited-liability corporations in the US are NOT publicly traded, and are owned entirely by an individual, a group of partners, or a small group of investors. Publicly-held or not has nothing to do with ownership incentives, but with rules about transparency.
And there are FAR more transparency, reporting, and accountibility requirements in place for publicy-traded corporations. Ever heard of the SEC? They only regulare public-traded and over-the-counter corps, not the closely-held LLCs that make up the bulk of the business environment, because all of their regulations stem from the fact that public outfits make public stock offerings. You can be a perfectly valid corporation and never make a public stock offering, and never really fall within the SEC's purview. When you do, and you become a "publicly held" corporation, you are watched more carefully and you have to tread more so, as well.
With that in mind, what exactly are you getting at? Are you talking about the mindsets of people in bureacratic organizations, or what?
It's the same reason everyone else is.
Because if they don't, they lose to the people who do. No company can develop and maintain a proprietary OS and remain cost-competitive with another company that uses an OS they only have to do a little development for (i.e. some extensions for their hardware).
Before there was a free OS, everyone could play the "My OS is better than their OS, and you should pay me for it." But now it's "This other company is giving me a free OS with their hardware, why should I pay you for yours?"
It's capitalism at work - what used to be a comparatively inefficent system (every vendor maintaining their own proprietary OS) has been replaced by a more efficient system - every vendor using a common OS.
It's not the free as in speech that's winning here, it's the free as in beer. (Altough it could be argued you'd be giving away bud light instead of guiness were it not for the free as in speech.)
paintball
t I am wary of them turning around someday with their huge patent portfolio.
If they beat the SCO with this GPL being valid, I found it hard that they could go back to court someday and say that the court was wrong and they don't have to follow rules of GPL.
About only thing they can do is drop their support for their products.
hitting it again on with their classical line "The SCO Group is the sole owner of the AT&T Unix System V software licensing agreement" http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157433/
SCOs lawyers and executives don't get paid for being right.
They get paid for being there.
You get paid more for conducting a few years of litigation you're going to lose than you do by just saying "Damn, nobody wants to buy our stuff." and closing up shop.
paintball
I should buy some cement.
It is most unlikely that the GPL will be tested in court, because it is unlikely that SCO will challenge it in court.
Things that get challenged in court are things that have some ambiguity or uncertainty to argue about. The reason the GPL has never been tested in court is that nobody has ever devised a legal attack on it that a judge might take seriously. FSF lawyers have written to many companies which tried to get away with violating the GPL. Faced with the credible threat of legal proceedings, all these companies gave in, presumably on the advice of their attorneys.
The only cases of ongoing GPL violation I am aware of (e.g. Kiss Technology's piracy of Mplayer code) continue because the violator is not faced with a credible threat of being taken to court. The main advantage of assigning one's copyrights to the FSF is that the FSF has the resources (money, lawyers) to sue the bad guys, and has a track record of success.
"A private corporation -- e.g. a small business owned by one person -- can make an anonymous donation to a homeless shelter just because the owner wants to. It is illegal for the CEO of a publicly held corporation to do the same thing."
First of all, a small business owned by one person (corporate or not) doesn't have any shareholders besides that one dude. THAT's why he can do whatever he wants--it has nothing to do with the corporate status of his business.
Second of all, corporate officers are compelled to act in the best interests of their shareholders, but there's not law that says they can't make philanthropic donations. When tornados wreck the Midwest, Budweiser sends beer trucks full of drinking water and emergency supplies to help out. They happen to get good PR out of it, but there's no law that says that they have to justify things this way. If Bud didn't have any marked trucks to make a photo-op, and their marketing department forgot to issue a press release, is the CEO suddenly a criminal?
Think about it this way: If all of your shareholders agree that you should make an anonymous donation to a homeless shelter, you'd be breaching your obligations if you DIDN'T make the donations--they own the business, so they decide what goes. It so happens that MOST shareholders want companies in which they're invested to just make money, and the shareholders make philanthropic decisions on their own. But nothing says it has to work like that, and it often doesn't.
After all, where would Microsoft be right now if it weren't for IBM letting good 'ol Billy G. use them like a cheap inflatable sheep?
That is a ******* horrible image.
Humour aside, I don't think IBM wanted, or "let" Microsoft do anything.
Compaq saw a niche in the market and a hole in IBM's PC armour (i.e. relying on the BIOS- and their reputation(??) to stop clones). They exploited that to produce their own PC clone.
Bill Gates (who may be many things, but is also a shrewd businessman) then filled the OS gap.
I don't have all the details, but I assume that MS retained rights to MS-DOS. Since MS released versions of DOS for non-PC-compatibles before the clones arrived, I assume that IBM missed the threat because they only considered the possibility of DOS running on non-PC machines (in which they were correct in assuming there was no serious threat).
Obviously, they didn't think hard enough, but to say that they let "good 'ol Billy G. use them like a cheap inflatable sheep" is misleading. If anything, IBM were the behemoth circa 1981, and in dealing with them, Gates was the more likely of the pair to be used as an inflatable sex-toy.
Now, I'm not going to claim that Gates was smart enough to have planned the PC market this way from scratch. But, when the opportunities arose, he was astute enough to exploit them to the full.
If IBM were the inflatable sheep, they were a very arrogant 20m-high inflatable sheep that didn't see the danger signs until it was slightly too late.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Did you read Neil Gaiman's Sandman? Do you remember the bit when, in Dream's mansion, a guest renounced Dream's hospitality and protection? You remember how Dream then kicked the ex-guest's sorry insubstantial derriere all over the place?
So does IBM.
SCO will attempt to argue that OSS is effectively the same as public domain software (e.g. IBM lost rights to software when it released the source to the wild), that the GPL isn't valid and therefore they have the right to do whatever they wish with the code.
I have heard this too often out of that little wart of an outfit. Of course it won't work, but it could complicate the matter enough to trump the summary judgement.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Yes, of course! You say this as if it's contrary to my argument.
When the philanthropic donation is contrary to the public corporation's interest, of course there is. My point is not that companies can't make donations; it's that they only do it if and when it makes good business sense. I'm presenting this in opposition to your assertion that the officials of public corporations "often" turn down money-making opportunities just because they're decent and moral people. (That's what you said in your original post. You're now saying that corporate executives have to do what the shareholders want, but the shareholders want decent and moral behaviour from the company more than they want a financial return. That would be nice, but it's a fallacy.)
Bud's marketing department forgetting to issue a press release is not the same as the Bud CEO deliberately spending company money on something he knows will never generate a return, so that's a pointless example.
I completely agree with all of that except the last phrase, which is completely wrong. I mean, if you can name an instance when the shareholders of a major public corporation voted in favour of an action that they knew would lose them money, please do, but I've never heard of anything like that happening, ever. Or, for example, a CEO announcing at the AGM, "Our profit was significantly down on last quarter, but you'll be pleased to hear we built several playgrounds in underprivileged areas of New York." The fact is, close enough to 100% of investors in any major public company are there because they want their investment to increase in value, and every corporate official knows that. These officials are, for the most part, good and decent people, and they know that their companies must be (or appear to be) ethical in order to remain profitable, but they are not allowed to spend shareholders' money on secret donations. Thus, the reality is that every major public corporation is profit-driven first, and ethics comes second.
I should buy some cement.
Please take notes. This is how real lawyers do it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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 .
Does this mean that if SCO violates the GPL for one program (Linux) they have also violated GPL for any other programs they may want to distribute ?
>>SCO only said "GPL sucks" and IBM is trying to turn this into a GPL breach? This is very weak.
Scox said a lot more than that. For example, scox said the GPL was unconstitutional, and wrote the US congress about it.
You didn't read the article, right?
It's not so much about what Darl said but the fact that SCO lost its license to distribute GPL'ed Linux code when they tried to collect fees for Linux.
Collecting Fees (except for physical distribution) is prohibited under the GPL, thus SCO lost its license to distribute the GPL'ed code they where trying to charge for. IBM submitted lots of code to Linux under the GPL. Thus, SCO distributed IBM's code without a license.
BTW, a possible defense for SCO might be to say that tex only tried to collect fees for *their* code, not IBM's and that each little bit of Linux has to be viewed independently.
IBM spent millions (at least) for the code that IBM contributed to Linux. IBM has spent millions more defending Linux in court.
So what if IBM manages to make some money from their investment/contributions?
The motion for dismissal starts with "Linux is a computer operating system". All SCO needs to do is subpoena RMS and he will testify as an expert that the assertion is false, since Linux is NOT an operating system, it's just the kernel of an OS. Therefore, the motion for dismissal is based on untrue statements, according to an expert witness, and should be thrown out of court.
It's only good when it's dirty. REALLY dirty. And the faster you can get it really dirty, the better it will be for everyone involved; including the neighbors who are listening.
What we need, now, is more internal e-mails. Those are always dirty. And we need to find some kind of a link to one of Dary Mcbride's other wives, and get polygamy into the case. Also, we need to find some links to terrorists and Colombian drug cartels.
And then we need some racism. Racism always helps things. It's like the icing on the cake.
If IBM wins:
The GPL is ruled valid in court.
SCO is crushed
IBM invests another Billion in Linux
Sounds good to me!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Has SCO just tried to implement a method of breaking copy protection. in this case the protection to copy.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
In accusing IBM of copyright infringment, while being extremly sketchy on what was being infringed, SCO is now accused of infringing on IBM's copyrights. The only difference is IBM can pinpoint the code they own.
Who the hell at SCO _ever_ thought this would be anything but a disaster?
In case you didn't read the document from IBM, it can be summed up as:
WTF?
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Now the question: Who decides what a later version of the GPL is? And what if RMS writes a version 12 saying that "all this code belongs to RMS"?
RMS can then take any GPL'd software including the statement above and put it under his new version 12 license.
Why do I get the strange feeling that some lawyer in IBM just discovered grocklaw? Or perhaps they knew about it all along and were just checking the facts on the idea before using it. They ARE very thorough, those IBM lawyers...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Arrgh. Those bastards. They still can't get it through their dumb heads that 'AT&T Unix System V' is not Linux, nor does it contain Linux code. They on the other hand are selling GPL'd Linux code for $699 a pop, violating the crap out of the GPL. Hopefully a judge will see how stupid they are and who's at fault.
The way I read IBM's latest move, it's going like this:
If that isn't a test of the GPL, what is?
It'll be hard to pitch that idea to the boss.
"Yeah, I recommend we spend thousands more on hardware, tens of thousands more on software, hundreds of thousands more in retraining our IT, and an unspecified amount in migration costs so that we can support the $100 billion IBM in their holy war against the $20 million SCO. Please put down that letter opener."
No, I said that you should CONSIDER them as a Vendor.
If in the past you priced out Dell and HP, next time price out Dell, HP, and IBM. How many small/mid-zied business EVER consider IBM when getting prices.
That's all I'm suggesting.
Alex
I like IBM's strategy to counter sue--they're trying the break SCO's bank and drive away their investors (the rats from a sinking ship). The legal costs of maintaining a legal Mexican standoff are going to exhaust SCO before they'll hurt IBM. It will be interesting to see what SCO's lawyers try to pull out of their magic legal hat next.
This strange little courtroom scneario played in my head:
Daryl: "Oh, yeah...we'll, you're like, using 3 letters in your name like us to try to, uh, steal....our..uh...trademark...."
Darly's Lawyer: (whispering) "Sir, they've been IBM since before you were born..."
Daryl: "Yeah, well...Big Blue is a stupid name! Nah nah nee nah!"
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Most of the time, corporations behave "morally" because that's the best long-term strategy (see tit-for-tat). If you have to deal with the same actors repeatedly, or if the actors can share information about you, your reputation as a fair dealer becomes more valuable than the profit you make off one raw deal.
Where morals come into play is when tit-for-tat doesn't apply - one of the dealers is much bigger than the other, or has an opportunity to crush the other without repercussions. Microsoft (to pick a random example) screws its partners primarily because it can.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Concerns like that is why some authors don't include that clause in their copyright notices. Not that they expect RMS to go off the rails, but that there may be clauses in later versions of the GPL that they don't agree with.
The reason the FSF wants authors to include it is that IF there is a legal issue (such as an unfavorable decision or opinion) that requires a change to the GPL they don't have to wait for every author to update their releases to use the new license.
It's unlikely that RMS could do anything so extreme even if he wanted to, though. Remember, this is an "or" clause, so if he put onerous restrictions on later versions of the GPL they wouldn't automatically apply to existing releases.
This is for all the mouthbreathers on here who have tried to come up with some assinine pseudo-legal reason as to why a breach of the GPL doesn't give way to copyright claims against the breacher. I have argued time and again on here that breaching the GPL simply opens somebody- like SCO- up to statutory damages for willful copyright infringement.
Well, you don't have to argue with me about it anymore, argue with IBM's lawyers:
Any questions?
Do you have ESP?
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157433
Capitalism needn't be so amoral or selfish. Indeed isn't one perspective of capitalism that of service?
The happier my customers are with my efforts, the more money I get. The amount of money I receive then can be used as a metric to determine how well I serve my customers and how pleased they are.
So while it may be that some corporations only see business as usual as profit taking, some corporations I think see business as actually serving customers, and in doing so a side effect is wealth. Think of restaurants that love their customers, or stores that love their shoppers. There are businesses out there that seem to have some kind of positive karma.
GPL Deconstructed
... remember when SCO claimed Linux violated their IP citing millions of LOCs "stolen" from their code that was licensed to IBM? Actually they claimed that the stuff IBM wrote for AIX wasn't really IBM's but SCO's under SCO's (viral) licence. I don't remember where this spectacular claim was driven to the ground but anyway here IBM is basing their undisputed facts on Copyright statements filed and assigned to them (legally approved and therefore factual proof)
Well, IBM is thowing at SCO the same argument: there's our code in your product, you claim it's yours where in fact it's ours.
SCO claimed IBM wasn't allowed to leak their AIX code to Linux because of some ridiculous viral license and breached.
Now IBM says SCO is distributing some IBM Linux code they aren't allowed to because they're breaching the license (GPL) under which it was released.
There's even a summary of all the evidence complete of line counts and package names (unlike SCO's mistery NDA'd evidence).
Gawd, I never thought lawyers could have a sense of humor!
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
This District Court order on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the MySQL case mentions the GPL. The validity of the GPL was not an issue raised by the parties. The court assumed the GPL was valid and enforcable and ruled based on other issues.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Distribution is only legal if you accept. TSG have repeatedly rejected the GPL, declared it invalid - including in court. If they lied, they're guilty of perjury, and they've also distributed any code they're claiming to own under the GPL, so GPL use of it (such as by including it in Linux) is perfectly legal. If they told the truth, they're guilty of copyright violation. As someone in the thread said, there is no outcome which is good for TSG.
This is all completely independent of the issue of whether any code used in Linux was actually tainted, of which, of course, we've seen zero lines so far.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
My guess is that proponents of free software should be delighted (I certainly am).
It is very encouraing that many companies are seeing sofware as what it should be: ideas to be shared on top of which businesses can be grown.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How many more years of "The GPL is not a license" FUD will we have to hear before moderators realize it's just not true? I mean, this is /., where we should all know better by now.
why is it evil to make money?
when you accept money in payment for your effort, you do it because you are exchanging the result of your hard work for the result of the hard work of others. money has value because of the work people do. that value is made possible only by people who produce. value is never created by people who take it by force or by moochers. money is one of the purest and best symbols of virtue.
"an honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.."
(ayn rand)
Can we please apply some comon sense to this discussion? When I release a program under the GPL, I indicate that everybody have the right to modify and distribute the program. They can't take away their own right to do so, just by disagreeing with the GPL. I don't care if they disagree or not, they have my permission anyway.
If they actually violate the GPL, which I firmly believe SCO has done, it's a whole different matter.
Wow. Just browsing around at +4 takes my breath away.
Linus was my hero for a long time and is now just as much as ever.
But the reasons have changed. Or more lilely I am just now realizing what those reasons were all along. Linus is an awsome coder but more so he is a great manager. What else is there?
I never thought much of RMS one way or another. He was just another one of those geeks with acronym status who can't sing.
RMS deserves the credit for making Linus's success even possible. RMS is one of those great visionaries that will always be remembered, and I hope he reads this.
I think it's high time for every kernel, service library, and utilty developer to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO, along with an Intent to Sue letter in regards to the copyright infringments. My Magic-Eight-Balls predicts that SCO is going to face the Class-Action-from Hell; imagine 30,000-50,000 developers sueing at $50,000 each that's $1,500,000,000.00 - 2,500,000,000.00!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Somewhere, deep in the bowels of the SCO battlecruiser, the SCO equivalent of Admiral Akbar is yelling, "It's a trap!" as the now fully-operational IBM LawyerStar looms in the background.
Weirdly, I'm cheering for the Evil Empire this time.
IBM makes generally good quality stuff. You can't really go wrong with their old AIX servers (don't know about the new ones but the RS6000 is so solid it is silly) but they have the kind of price card that makes you go "Yea! GODS, why don't you just ask for my soul and be done with it."
If you can afford it then it is worth it but no-one can ever claim IBM is cheap. You don't need silly licensing and software taxes when you sell your stuff with markups that would make Steve Jobs gag.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It sounds like IBM's argument is "since SCO's arguments reject the legality
of the GPL, they cannot protect themselves from it on other products; therefore
they do not have permission to copy IBM's copyrightten material."
While that is an interesting argument, it is not really testing the terms of the
GPL per se. The motion doesn't say SCO is violating the GPL, it is only saying
they are no longer protected by it.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
MOD THE CHILD UP!
IBM deliberately pulled open source advocates into this fight as part of their retaliation against SCO. All SCO was doing originally was claiming that IBM had violated a contract agreement with IBM. They did not start actually pursuing open source until after their open source market dried up. It was IBM advocates (e.g. Eric S Raymond) who pointed out that SCO's claims could be extended against open source. Until Microsoft paid them, they said that they weren't going to do so (in particular, SCO originally claimed not to know of any copyright infringement by Linux). Without these actions by IBM (and Microsoft), SCO would have never gone after Linux users, AutoZone, or Daimler Chrysler.
Overall, this has been a masterful PR campaign by IBM. Not only did they get open source to do a lot of their dirty work for them, they now have people spinning it that IBM was doing things for open source.
Actually, you're once again missing the point about SCO's claim to ownership of all derivative works. Let me go through this step by step.
Please try to imagine you're smoking the same stuff as Darl & Co. just for a second, and you'll see that under SCO's interpretation of the original contract all of IBM's points are completely irrelevant.
SCO claims to own UNIX and all derivative works.
IBM adds JFS code to AIX.
--SCO then claims to own JFS, since in their mind it is a derived work.
IBM then adds JFS code to Linux.
--SCO then claims to own Linux, since they now consider it to be a work derived from AIX, which they claim to own.
IBM contributes MWAVE code.
--SCO sees "Linux with MWAVE code", which is obviously a derivative of SCO's "Linux" property. This makes MWAVE code SCO's property as well due to SCO's interpretation of the original AT&T contract.
From SCO's standpoint, this would mean they have done nothing wrong, while IBM has violated both the original AT&T contract as well as the GPL.
Since SCO claims full ownership of all the code in Linux, they can then distribute it under any license they feel is appropriate.
Now, you and I both know that all of SCO's claims are bogus since everything hinges upon their interpretation of the AT&T contract, and both of the parties originally involved in that contract have refuted SCO's claims on that point.
However, SCO will not concede this point, ever. It's the same argument they used to start this three-ring circus in the first place, and admitting they're bullshitting on this one issue would basically be the same as telling the court "We've known for 15 months that we were just wasting your time."
Presumably, the judge would not react favorably to that, and SCO could conceivably be in more trouble than if they pretended they had legitimate claims to the very end.
"Oh, I don't think anyone was *that* stupid (No, not even Darl)."
:-)
You Sir, have never listened to Darl talk!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I think SCO has argued that since the GPL is invalid, when people release software under the GPL, they are releasing it to the public domain.
That is the only way they can free themselves of both the GPL and Copyright at the same time.
And I can't imagine how the courts could agree with them. Can you see them saying "You didn't mean to give up your copyright, but you did because it would be inconvenient for businesses to have to repect it." No? Me neither.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
You notice I said IBM code not samba, gimp or whatever. IBM is suing about IBM code was released under the GPL."
The great part is that ANYONE who wrote even one line of code that has been distributed by SCO after they violated the GPL has grounds to sue.
It is possible that SCO may have to defend itself from thousands of copyright infringement cases!
Gottal love it!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well, in a sense, yes: the platform that allowed Linus to create a free Unix kernal was the IBM PC and its (stay with me here) clones... IBM, at least in part, created the programming entity known as Linus.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
It's the attack of the TLAs! Run for your lives, the acronyms will conquer us all!
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Court Confirms GPL Valid in Germany (posted on 23/07/2004)
The German GPL Order - Translated (posted on 25/07/2004)
It's just not tested in the US court. Or, more specific: only in the German court.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Of all the people surprised at IBM's strategy and foresight....
Remember -- IBM is very good at playing Chess.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
Violating the GPL is not itself illegal. However commiting copyright infringment *is* illegal. Distributing someone else's work without any valid licence is infringment, thus illegal.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So, the P2P users who state "Share or you will be banned" are inciting infringment as well as violating copyright?
Charging peopel a license fee to continue using Linux (SCO Source License - remember that ISP is TX) IS a direct violation - and not Darl spewing his mouth out. Not to mention its not just Darl, its in court documents, etc. Read the IBM filing.
If you'd bought SCOX 2 years ago you'd have made 150% profit compared to IBM 0%. With good timinging you;d have made over 2000% per year which is a good return.
Of course if we limit the view to the immediate present and the future then SCOX is dying, but surviving was never part of Darl's strategy. He threy the company in the fire, got a big blaze that attracted attention, made some people big money and lost some people big money and at the end leaves just ashes.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
When they started trying to charge people $699 for using code they've been distributing themselves under the GPL for years, you don't think that was maybe a breach of some kind?
SCO are a bunch of assholes, their case is pure fantasy, and they have violated the GPL in repeated ways, however SCO has pulled off quite a neat trick in that thier SCOSource licences are not actually a violation of the GPL.
Lets play along with the SCO fantasy for a second and see why. First lets assume that SCO is not distributing Linux and has never distributed Linux (of couse they HAVE done so and are going to get sued into oblivion based on that, but lets pretend they hadn't). Next lets pretend there really were SCO code in Linux (isn't make-believe fun?). Further assume SCO had no idea it happened at the time. SCO now "discovers" this and informs everyone that there is non-GPL code inside linux, and that it's distribution is restricted by copyright law.
So at this point we have a bunch of people discovering that they are in possession of Linux which they cannot distribute under the GPL. The GPL prohibts anyone from distributing it, but people are already in possession of it.
Now lets take another peice of fantasy - that you cannot legally run the code you possess without violating the copyright on that code. It's fantasy because under US copyright law section 117 it is not infringment to install and run the code you got, that no licence is required at all. Just like you don't need a licence to read a book you were given, even if the book contains a copyright infringment.
So we are pretending that you are in possession of Linux with SCO's code, that it would be infringment to run it, and that SCO is not distributing Linux and not using the GPL themselves at all.
Well, there's absolutely no reason SCO can't sell you a license to use their "IP" to be able to run the code you already have.
What the GPL prohibits is distributing code with restrictions. If SCO sells these licenses without distributing any product along with it then the GPL doesn't come into the picture.
Essentially everything SCO says is a load of crap and full of holes, but I have to admit on this single point they have pulled off a rather impressive stunt. It only works if someone has already commited infringment and it also requires that no one ever be permitted to distribute anything ever again, but it is (sort of) valid. And it would terminate any expansion of Linux, at least until all infringing code was removed/replaced (about 48 hours chuckle).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
IANAL and I haven't tried to plow through the GPL's language, but I thought that the notable penalties involved in violations of (non-GPL) copyright were damage awards connected to lost revenue-- any idea how damages can be assessed in a GPL violation case?
Assuming the GPL does stand up in court, what then is the actual risk involved in violating it?
Unless notable damages can be calculated in a GPL violation, it would seem to me that going after a violator could cost the infringee more than the violator-- you violate the GPL, someone sues, you stop distributing and pay a cheap lawyer to plead guilty. BFD. Looks to me the only risk is that someone may tell you you have to stop...
so here is the meaning...
Satan has taken residency in Lindon along side darl.
-cheers
... the most beautiful logic trap I have EVER seen in my life. SCO can only win the counterclaim by validating the GPL... which destroys their rights to even file their original suit.
If they lose the counterclaim, however, they are in violation of IBM copyrights and are basically fucked... heheheh... it's absolutely delicious ;-)
Bravo IBM law team ... heh
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
You forget where SCO has come from.
They started to make a lot of noise in the hope that IBM would buy them. IBM called the bluff, so SCO felt they needed to up the ante and here we are. SCO painted themselves into a corner. They cannot back down without basically being destroyed as company. Their only option is to press on.
SCO's original decision was a high risk, but potential high gain decision. Remember that when making decisions you factor in Risk and Gain, not just risk.
meh
I very much appreciate the response. I was a bit harsh, but since I disagree that the GPL is not a license, and this is something I've seen for years, I get a bit tired of it. Glad to know you weren't trying to FUD the issue. A disagreement I can handle a whole lot better, and I respect well-reasoned dialog.
And hurry up and get to the part about the turnips and the onion on your belt (which was the style at the time).
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Filling in additional details could matter, but in general you haven't done anything wrong and you're not commiting copyright infringment.
In copyright/trademark law there are some specific provisions to seize and destroy stocks od infringing goods or even the hardware used to produce them, but I'm pretty sure that is does not apply to items no longer in the infringer's possession. If a record store produces infringing copies that you wind up buying, it's not your fault or responsibility that they infringed. The infringer is responsible to the copyright holder for damages to compensate for the creation of those copies.
I have heard tales of people having copies of software and music confiscated regardless of whether they were copies given by somebody else
Confiscated by whom? And on what grounds? If Wal-Mart was selling CD's made through infringment are the police supposed to raid the homes of all the innocent Wal-Mart customers and destroy their property?
The innocent customer gets left out of it and keeps his property, the infringer gets punished with cash damages (and maybe even prison), and the copyright holder gets the money he deserves. Justice is served for everyone.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"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 ...".
actualy MS made its investment very lucrative, it just saved enouth time to dalay a massive switch over Linux.
1) XP SP2 is still delayed
2) Longhorn is noware near ready
3) NT and 98 Life cycle just ended recently
imagine the amout of switch over linux if there was no FUD around SCO a few years ago.
and NT/98 to Linux is a real improvement, now they just bought enouth time to enhace the security and maybe though a few gizmos to makes it more cute which linux lacks
(On vacation for weeks, sorry for the long response)
You're contradicting yourself. In the second quote above, you're making the point that IBM is positioning itself to make money in the long term out of Open Source. The fact the Open Source is more ideologically pure has nothing to do with it.
By "Best" I did not mean most ethical or ideologically pure though - by "money's sake" I really meant "not customers sake". That leads to more STABLE money long-term, instead of the largest pile.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley