Slashdot Mirror
SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6
William Robinson writes "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products in their Unix product. Among the included packages are MySQL, PostgreSQL, Samba, Apache, Tomcat, and FireFox. SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't' he said."
Using OSS isn't being friendly to it. It's just using it to enhance your product.
MySql has the abilty to deliver a death knell to them. They are under a dual license (GPL and Commercial). SCO has to accept the GPL for it to be valid. Since they clearly do not do so, then the only license available to them is the commercial one. Therefore they MUST start paying mysql the approiate money. It will probably run in the millions. If they accept the GPL, I think that opens them up to all sorts of issues WRT to their law suits against IBM, Redhat, and Novell.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.
Quoth the TFA, "Among the included open-source packages are Samba and MySQL, which are released under the GPL [...]"
If "the General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable" is true, then it follows that SCO does not have license to use those products under the GPL. Either the GPL is not void and is in effect, or they don't have license to use those products.
We definitely need a "Open Source Software" (OSS) section on slashdot, to avoid using weird sections like Apache for these types of stories (yeah, apache is one of the oss in the story but still)
The subject should read OSS Products instead of OS. OS is known as Operative System most of the time.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that competes with and beats us in the marketplace.'
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
A deeper problem with SCO's position is the following. SCO seems to assume that if the GPL is invalid, they can do with the software whatever they want.
But that's not the way it works. The software is copyrighted, GPL or no GPL. The GPL is the agreement that permits people to copy the software under certain limited conditions. If the GPL isn't valid, it just means that everything returns to the situation without the GPL and SCO can't ship any GPL'ed software at all.
By analogy, assume you pay for a license to Microsoft Windows with a check. Then, your check bounces and your license becomes invalid. Does that mean that Microsoft Windows is all of a sudden public domain? No, it means that you can't use it.
Uh...
From the GPL:
The GPL's stance on things would appear to be somewhat closer to, the act of distributing GPLed content constitutes accepting the GPL by itself, which would mean SCO's public statements are irrelivant. Except maybe to any of their stockholders curious about why they were lied to.
Meanwhile, I have difficulty seeing how any of SCO's actions concerning their GPL license to distribute mysql could have anything to do with SCO's actions considering GPL licenses to distribute Linux.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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. Basically, you do not have permission to modify or distribute the work if you do not accept the license.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.