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."

Comments

Of course they're consistent

[AKAImBatman]

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,"

From Groklaw:

In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:

"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:

"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."

The Eighth adds:

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.) ;-)

P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?

Re:Of course they're consistent

[njcoder]

Definately not pro SCO but don't see this as much of a story. Congrats to getting a somewhat intelligent first post but Linux is a type of Open Source/Free Software. Linux != Open Source/Free Software. The GPL is a type of Open Source License. GPL != All Open Source software. There is a whole world of Open Source outside of the GPL.

Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.

With the exception that they made anti GPL noises and not just anti Linux, I don't see the quote as completely innacurate.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[nurhussein]

The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law.

If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted. The GPL is the only license that allows redistribution of the Linux kernel. Attack the GPL and they're guilty of breaking copyright law.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[AKAImBatman]

Linux != Open Source/Free Software.

Agreed. But the SCO "consitency" issues raised in the article are related to the GPL in specific. Thus my response.

Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

It's interesting that they decided to bundle MySQL. Had they bundled PostGreSQL, they could have gotten away with a continued anti-GPL stance. (Although I imagine that they still distribute a lot of tools and utilities that are GPLed. Esp. GCC.)

It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.

It is important to note that I was mostly joking. SCO's position has *never* been consistent. My post merely makes levity of their latest attempt to claim such consistency.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[drakaan]

They say they have no beef with open-source software except for Open Source Software that has code in it that shouldn't be there. I'd say the same thing about *any* software. All Darl has to do is show what code is in those offending Open Source projects that he loathes that shouldn't be there, and we'll all be better off.

Well, Darl won't be better off if he can't come up with anything, but the rest of us will be better off.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[AKAImBatman]

If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.

That's why I said they're wrong. They're logic in the court case was extremely twisted, in that they claimed that an invalid GPL would still allow the source to be redistributable. They had to realize that they were spouting nonsense, but I think they hoped that most consumers wouldn't call them on it.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[eyegone]

Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law.

It doesn't work that way. In the absence of a license, distributing material whose copyright is owned by another party is copyright infringement. So if the GPL is invalid, SCO is committing copyright violation by distributing any software that is licensed under the GPL.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[UnknowingFool]

So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant.

Except that IBM has already pointed out a flaw in their logic in their counterclaim. SCO has used IBM products in their software under the GPL as a simple contract. If the GPL is invalid, SCO cannot be allowed to use it because the contract does not exist.

Suppose I lease a car for 2 years from a company. A stipulation of the lease is that I have to report the mileage each month. Later it was found that the car had been stolen, and leasing company had purchased it without knowing it was stolen. The rightful owner wants the car back. The leasing agreement I signed is not valid because the leasing company did not have rights to lease the car to me in the first place. I no longer have to report the mileage, but I cannot continue to use the car for 2 years either. I have to return the car.

So SCO has to choose. If the GPL is valid, they have breached the provisions. If it is not valid, they can't continue to use code that they licensed under its provisions.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[SolusSD]

FYI- All the software that the article mentions that was included in the SCO product IS GPL LICENSED OR GPL COMPATIBLE.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[cowscows]

I'm not very well versed in matters of law, but I do have one question. How can something like the GPL violate the U.S. Constitution?

The Constitution is designed to set up our government, and list what tasks the government can and can't do, and limits the types of laws that they can create. Does it really have any relevance for a voluntary license between two private parties? Perhaps you could find a reason why the US Government shouldn't create and release software under the GPL, but I fail to see how the constitution even comes into play in a debate between the various copyright holders of Linux and SCO.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[Al Dimond]

Their position is no less consistent than that of Windows users that believe the EULA is illegal or invalid. Those users may believe the EULA is illegal/invalid, but they for whatever reason need to use Windows so they agree to it anyway. SCO may believe that the GPL is wrong, but where are they going to get a good web browser without doing a lot of work or spending a lot of money without using GPL software?

Re:Of course they're consistent

[AKAImBatman]

How can something like the GPL violate the U.S. Constitution?

It doesn't. This is just posturing on SCO's part. The Constitution merely provides for something along the lines of copyright. The actual implementation is left up to Congress.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[phriedom]

I believe the arguement that they put forth once was that if you released your software under the unconstitutional and completely bogus GPL, then you accidentally made it public domain.

Yes, of course that is completely without merit, one can't accidentally lose one's copyright (it was here just a moment ago, now where did I put it?) But that was the garbage they were spewing for a while.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[swillden]

If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.

Except that within their twisted logic, the supposed unenforceability of the GPL meant that the only reasonable interpretation is to assume that software licensed under the GPL is effectively public domain, so they can do anything they like with it.

They have dropped that line of argument, though, because it was such utter crap that even their attorneys had a hard time saying it with a straight face.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[zurab]

I know what you are saying, but your example does not make sense under current law - UCC - which most, if not all, states have adopted. Under UCC, if the leasing company purchased the car in good faith without prior knowledge of it being stolen, then they cannot be required to return the car to the previous legal owner. The previous legal owner can go after the thief.

Re:Of course they're consistent

[Dwonis]

Um... Your point?

$ grep -c GPL /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
0

Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[lecithin]

"In an effort to turn around its dwindling Unix revenue, SCO introduced a new version of its OpenServer product Wednesday along with a new open-source-friendly attitude."

A bit too little and way too late?

Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[adrianbaugh]

Come on now, I think you're being unfair.

I think this story will be of great interest to both SCO's remaining users.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[Austerity Empowers]

Probably someone told them that certain pieces of open source software critical to unix servers. Apache comes way at the front of that list. Without it, I don't think any *nix would be under much scrutiny now, least of all anything SCO offers.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?

SCO

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[paitre]

YM User. Singular. HTH. :)

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[doublem]

SCO takes themselves seriously?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[FidelCatsro]

Come on Quit with the hyperbole ,Over-exagerating the lack of SCO users is just false information and FUD .
We all know there are 3 Users Remaining

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[tonyl]

Actually, there are still quite a few SCO users left. Most of those that aren't completely ignorant (though there are those) are either "stuck" because their app doesn't run on anything but SCO or because while they could switch to Linux, relicensing costs for their app are too high or redevelopment is too difficult.

I have been involved in quite a few switchovers for former SCO clients, and not all were particularly smooth, though all have been succesful. It's the stupid little stuff that bites you - slight syntax differences in shell scripts, path differences, that kind of thing. The easiest are the ones where all they have is one app and don't use it for anything else, but even those can have little gotchas.

I find that it's easiest to persuade a switch when the hardware and OS plainly have to be upgraded anyway, but I do constantly warn the SCO users that they need to be prepared to switch even if they don't want to - the funny thing is that those who take that advice and put up a Linux box "just for testing" have ended up switching more quickly than they or I thought they would.

Other folks are mired more deeply and would have to buy entirely new application software to move off SCO. Often these are people with marginal businesses or tight profit margins; they didn't move to better software years ago because they couldn't afford to. So they are very, very stuck: the cost of a switch is more than they could bear.

I suppose somewhere there may be some die hard person who really thinks they should stay with SCO because it's "better". I doubt there are many of those left, but once in a while I do hear someone wistfully comment on how "reliable" their SCO has been. But even those folks seem to understand that it's time to move on..

Interestingly, one of the holdouts who as recently as 90 days ago insisted on sticking it out called me this morning to discuss planning a transition. He *could* do Windows, but is adamantly opposed, so it will be Linux. One more down, but still plenty to go.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[Tesen]

Come on now, I think you're being unfair.
I think this story will be of great interest to both SCO's remaining users.

And I hope those five people are happy with their Unixware license ;)

Tes

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[KidWithTheSquid]

Oh, you mean just Bob. I stopped using SCO a couple weeks ago...

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[absinthminded64]

I would think not. The firm I used to work for just replaced it's taxidesk system which ran on SCO. I think quite a few people are following suite with anything SCO related. I have to wonder why SCO, or related investors, or anyone else never considered the ramifications of their claim. A name change or even another company purchasing their products wouldn't likely result in any profitable business in the future. Had they shown any tangible evidence in the beginning I being a reasonable person would have had to consider their claim. I would have thought they would have done this by now to save their core business. This, and investor's decision to retract their backing are the only reasons I give their case no merit. They've only given us wingdings, and very aggressive interactions with the OS community. Are they trying to make amends? Or is it just the fact that they don't have an http daemon, a database server, etc. I personally like the gcc readme file that I've seen when compiling my compiler. :)

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously?

[belmolis]

Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?

Jeff Merkey

Really...

[ch0p]

"In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO..." Just stop reading there.

Re:Really...

[Homology]

"In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO..." Just stop reading there.

OMG, if we, the savvy, sophisticated and informed /. readers should follow this in a consistent way, we would just about stop reading /. Hmh, is this why we have some dupes on the front page?

Wow, an operating system in the operating system!

[Speare]

I'm sure I'm not the only one to read that "OS" as something the author didn't intend. OS = Operating System, OSS = Open Source Software. SCO purports to sell an operating system already, so including an OS in their product seems a bit redundant.

"friendly"

[bedroll]

Using OSS isn't being friendly to it. It's just using it to enhance your product.

Re:"friendly"

[spun]

Well, they pet every open source program on the head and say, "Who's a good boy? You are! Yes you are, yes you! Give me a kiss." before they ship it.

Re:"friendly"

[SpecBear]

They're being very friendly to OSS. Just like they were friendly enough to help that sheep get over the fence...

Re:"friendly"

[spun]

"Now bend over. I just want to search you for proprietary code. Yes, that's my finger, I swear!"

Does this mean

[m50d]

that they acknowledge the GPL as a valid license? Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).

I know there was never much doubt, but IIRC one of SCO's arguments was that the GPL was invalid.

Re:Does this mean

[yamla]

SCO claims that not only is the GPL not a valid license but that this results in any software released under that license to be de-facto released to the public domain. This is pretty ahem imaginative, but it means that they feel they are free to distribute MySQL et al under any terms whatsoever that they wish.

Re:Does this mean

[freshman_a]

Samba is also released under GPL, which SCO has been including for a while.

I thought it was commendable for the Samba team to take the high road when they released a letter saying that even though Samba was being used "by rank hypocrites like SCO", they would still stick by their principles and make their software freely available to anyone.

It will be interesting to see if there are any reactions from the other OSS projects included with OpenServer 6.

Re:Does this mean

[silicon not in the v]

Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).

Instead of "unless they paid for it", I think you mean "unless they get permission from MySQL to distribute it".

Re:Does this mean

[ImaLamer]

I wonder about Firefox, being released under the "Mozilla Public License"...

Of course the only a few other companies outhere besides IBM with plenty of lawyers with nothing to do...

So I assume that SCO is taking on AOL/TimeWarner next?

Re:Does this mean

[m50d]

MySQL's policy is they only give you the non-gpl-licensed version if you pay them for it.

Re:Does this mean

[Chris Burke]

SCO at one time claimed the GPL was invalid, and even Unconstitutional. When they expressed this opinion in court, they were basically laughed at. Since then, the "GPL is invalid" claim hasn't shown up in any of their briefs. I think; I'm not tracking the case religiously, but I do remember reading on Groklaw that at one point SCO submitted a revised claims list that no longer included GPL invalid claims (or many of the other things they've tried).

SCO's court case has become ever more narrow. Now the only claim that is still standing is related to IBM continuing to ship AIX after SCO told them to stop because of the copyright infringement that they no longer claim occured.

So this is probably just them reacting to the reality of the GPL being a valid, enforceable license.

Re:Does this mean

[LWATCDR]

Actually it could be a lot more fun than you imagine.
MySQL is available under more then one license. There is the GPL one and not free one...
Makes me wonder if the MySQL could sue SCO?
I mean if the GPL is in valid then the other license takes effect. SCO is pirating at that point.
Or the GPL is valid and they are okay.
Of course this is all very logical so it will probably not stand up in a court of law.

Re:Does this mean

[mark-t]

Which is total bullshit.

The software is copyrighted.

The GPL merely outlines the terms that one must agree to in order to get permission to copy the work (just like any other copyrighted work, you need to get permission from the copyright holder before you can legally copy it).

It just so happens that the GPL's process of granting permission involves absolutely no paperwork unless special provisions are sought that are not themselves compatible with the GPL's terms. Nothing in the existing Copyright act requires there to be a paper trail for permission granting, so it would seem that the copyrights on GPL software would stand.

If I produce a copyrighted work and my terms for getting permission to copy it require that you give your firstborn child to me, those terms are completely invalid, even such terms as this would not actually cause outright forfeiture of ownership on the copyright. In such a case, alternative means would have to be sought for permission, if it was wanted. But the Copyright Act does not require that a copyright holder ever be willing to grant permission to copy to anyone else at _all_, let alone provide alternative means for obtaining such permission should one means prove non-viable. So *IF* the GPL is invalid, that means that GPL software is no longer freely copyable and distributable, _NOT_ that it falls into public domain (just because SCO is confused about something that might on the surface and to the unitiated appear to be public domain doesn't mean that's actually the case).

Re:Does this mean

[m50d]

SCO has never claimed the MPL is invalid

Re:Does this mean

[cdrudge]

I'm not tracking the case religiously, but I do remember reading on Groklaw that at one point SCO submitted a revised claims list that no longer included GPL invalid claims (or many of the other things they've tried).

SCO has argued pretty much both sides of every topic that they can. I think it's their strategy to shock and awe opposing counsel into wondering exactly what they are being sued over. So far, it has worked suprisingly well.

Re:Does this mean

[silicon not in the v]

MySQL's policy is they only give you the non-gpl-licensed version if you pay them for it.

I don't think that addresses the point. What are the conditions of the non-gpl license that people can pay for? It would probably not include re-distribution permission, right? SCO is re-distributing it, so that would have to be either in the terms of the license they use for it, or from direct permission of the copyright holders. "Pay" doesn't directly authorize re-distribution.

Re:Does this mean

[Alsee]

I mean if the GPL is in valid then the other license takes effect.

No, if we were to assume the ludacris SCO theory that using the GPL results in public domaining it, then you would have a choice of using it as public domain or as under the other license. The obvious choice is to ignore the other available license and do absolutely anything you like with the public domain code.

-

Re:Does this mean

[Alsee]

You and I certainly agree that the SCO arguments are... ahhhh.... full of manure.

However SCO *did* have a half-assed argument that would result in public domaining GPL code. They were arguing that since GPL code has an enormous number of copyright holders and that they were impossible to contact, that they were sort of... dead. And they then tried to use death-law for willed gifts that are then found to be legally invalid or impossible... which says the judge has to do the closest thing he can to complying with the deceased's intent and gift... that the judge had to pass on the "GPL gift" in the way closest as possible to the originally intended gift... and that the closest thing to the invalid GPL gift was to make it a public domain gift.

And no, don't bother wasting your breath yelling at me that SCO are evil and delusional and other choice adjectives. I already know all that :) I was merely explaining they *did* have *a* legal theory to claim GPL code might wind up public domain.

-

Re:Does this mean

[m50d]

I think it may allow redistributing as part of your product, or for a royalty each time. It's quite possible that there is no way to redistribute it other than the GPL, but since mysql does sell licenses I thought it was worth mentioning.

Does that mean

[joeflies]

that they've checked those projects for infriging intellectual property too and certify it's clean?

Re:Does that mean

[RealProgrammer]

>they've check those projects

You are suffering from backwards thinking. You see, since any misappropriated code would be The SCO Group's code anyway, they don't need to check it. They can use it at will.

The only problem they have (a minor inconvenience for them, really) is actually pointing to any code that belongs to them.

May I be the first to say

[terrencefw]

...what a fscking bunch of hypocritical bastards.

Re:May I be the first to say

[HermanAB]

No, no, you are being very unfair towards other fucking hypocritical bastards, by grouping them indiscriminately with SCO...

Not quite

[FatRatBastard]

In a bid to be friendly with Open Source...

They're not doing it to be friendly, they're doing it for their own economic advantage, period. The fact that they're hypocritical asshats just makes it unseemly.

Re:Not Quite

[DaHat]

The SCO organization is illegal? I seem to have missed that law. Oh wait... you mean they are acting illegally, ok.

Re:Not Quite

[jbolden]

you must accept GPL

I don't think American law allows for what you mean by "accept the GPL". I can believe a contract to be unenforcable, tell others I think it is unenforcable and that in no way has any impact on whether I can exercise rights under the contract. SCO has to specifically violate the GPL for a particular piece of software to get sued by the copyright holder for that software. Someone who wrote a GPLed piece of software needs to get a copy from SCO and then ask them for source.

Re:Wow, an operating system in the operating syste

[justforaday]

Well, it could've been "SCO Includes OS Products In OS6 Product"

What a human waste

[MSBob]

I know, that those people from SCO at the front lines are only doing their jobs and whatnot but someone somewhere makes the actual decisions. Probably Darle McBride. I mean how low do you have to stoop to start behaving like this? Do those people have absolutely no honour whatsoever. I know that corps cater to their shareholders and whatnot but really, how low can a person go in the pursuit of (vanishing) profit? What a rat.

parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone else noted that the sco/caldera logo looks a lot like Pennicilliun mould growing on a blood-agar culture plate?

SCO - a LOW blood-sucking parasite!

McDonalds is a Customer

[Metzli]

Interesting, I wondered who would still be throwing money at SCO. I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds. I don't want to support a company that's still supporting SCO.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[codepunk]

Funny you should mention that, I drove out of my way a extra 5 miles last week to buy all the brake parts
for my truck from "Auto Zone". I had two other stores nearly in my back yard but I will not buy parts from anyone else unless Auto Zone does not stock it.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[Trollstoi]

I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds.

So, you're out of money now?

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[Homology]

Interesting, I wondered who would still be throwing money at SCO. I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds. I don't want to support a company that's still supporting SCO.

If you care about your health you should stay away from McDonalds, irrespective of their use of ancient SCO software.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[MartinG]

I wish I could boycott them as well. The trouble is I already don't eat there on account of the shit food.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[snorklewacker]

McDonalds is hardly giving SCO moral support. They were a customer before, it would cost them scads of cash to migrate, and they can probably bend SCO over a barrel to get whatever they want. I mean, they're not exactly going to bleed SCO for cash, but I don't think McD's is as big a cash cow for SCO as they'd like it to be.

That said, I'll continue getting burritos at Chipotle (owned by McDonalds). I haven't been able to stomach the godawful crap served up at the golden arches for more than 10 years now.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer

[stor]

Your body doesn't care for the reason but it thanks you anyway.

Cheers
Stor

Isn't it a little... late?

[Silverlancer]

Isn't it a bit late for them to try to be "friendly" with open source?

Curious

[augustz]

SCO has very publically disclaimed the GPL. Letters to congress, letters to fortune 1500, and in sworn statements in court.

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

Given this position, isn't there standing for a contributor to actually litigate the validity of the GPL? You've got a company that has disclaimed the GPL, but still uses the software.

That's not the way it works, you can't have it both ways. Either you agree to play fair, or you have to create your own software, not take others.

And of course, the PR spin on this being "consistent" is hillarious.

Re:Curious

[n54]

I absolutely agree.

Isn't this the perfect opportunity to open all the warchests in FSF, EFF, and others (or even set up a specific pool), and come down on SCO like a ton of bricks while in addition getting a legal verdict on the validity of the GPL?

If we (the F/OSS community) hurry we might even be able to win this before IBM crushes SCO totally (it would be fun if FSF/EFF got awarded all of SCO remaining assets in damage).

And no, I doubt there's a chance in hell SCO would win http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38151.htm:

"Recently, we had an unrelated copyright discussion on the Linux kernel discussion list (some people still want to have binary only modules and try to argue that the GPL doesn't ever cover them).

Anyway, that's beside the point, though it does show that some people want to take advantage of open source without giving anything back. But after the discussion, I ended up looking up the exact wording of the U.S. copyright law and guess what I found:

"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."

This is from U.S. Code Collection, Title 17 (copyrights), Chapter 1, Section 101: "Definitions." In short, this is from the very first section in copyright law -- the section that defines terms even before those terms are used. This is some pretty fundamental stuff when it comes to copyrights in the U.S.

Pertinent, if you will.

And note how copyright law expressly includes "the expectation of receipt" of anything of value, and expressly mentions "receipt of other copyrighted works" as such a thing of value. And that's the very definition of "financial gain," as far as U.S. copyright law is concerned.

Now guess what the GPL is all about?"

Re:Curious

[augustz]

I don't know about coming down like a ton of bricks. I think they key thing to resolve is if SCO disclaims the GPL or not. You just can't have it both way.

Re:Curious

[RealAlaskan]

SCO has very publically disclaimed the GPL

Yes, that's right.

Given this position, isn't there standing for a contributor to actually litigate the validity of the GPL? You've got a company that has disclaimed the GPL, but still uses the software.

I'm not sure that's grounds for litigation. Whatever SCO may say, as long as what they do complies with the GPL (i.e., offer source, et cetera), I suspect that there are no grounds for a copyright infringement suit. Merely expressing an unfavorable opinion of the GPL doesn't violate its terms. If I'm wrong, maybe a lawyer could explain why?

And of course, the PR spin on this being "consistent" is hillarious.

The FSF, and the rest of the world, agree that if the GPL is invalid, then we revert to the standard ``copyright, all rights reserved, no distribution'' situation. SCO's implicit position that if the GPL is invalid, then the program in question goes to the ``no copyright, in the public domain'' situation[1].

There are only two things that SCO has approached consistancy on: their deliberate misunderstanding of the GPL, and the essential stupidity of all their contradictory positions.

In SCO's dream world, when the GPL is found to be invalid, Linux (and probably everything else) is theirs. In their hallucinations, there is nothing inconsistant in distributing GPLed programs while rejecting the GPL.

[1] How offering additional rights beyond those allowed by copyright could negate the author's copyright is left as an exercise for the reader, since SCO has never shared that particular part of their hallucinations with us.

Re:Curious

[karnowski]

SCO only loses the ability to distribute GPLed software if they fail to comply with it's license.
By saying "the GPL is invalid" or writing to congress SCO isn't necessarily in violation of the GPL*.

*Note: That's not to say they've failed to comply with the GPL terms in other ways, like charging that "Linux Intellectual Property License" for example, I'm just saying that publicly saying the GPL is invalid is outrageous hypocracy but is not necessarily a violation of the GPL itself.

Re:Curious

[jackbird]

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.

Now, not being a lawyer, I don't know if their conduct counts as "not accepting" in the narrow legal sense, but there it is.

Section?

[m50d]

Any reason this is in apache? (apache is one of the programs, but wouldn't unix or YRO make more sense?) The colour scheme here makes IT look good.

for convenience, not cooperation

[Roadmaster]

They're not trying to show friendliness toward free software, they just realize their inferior product is doomed and they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that but well, SCO are the ones who don't give a damn about the GPL; the software authors do and recognize that since the software is free, SCO can do what they're doing. That's respect for you SCO.

SCO, a company without shame

[doublem]

Uhm, that's not "being friendly." That's taking advantage of the IP of programmers that they're trying to demonize.

It's not an attempt at bridge building. It's a reflection of their desperate need for Open Source in order to offer ANYTHING worth using with their OS.

It's a clear statement that they consider Open Source to be code that they can use for whatever they want, but no one else should be allowed to use.

It'd be like FedEx trying to keep UPS from using the US highway system.

It's not trying to be nice to Open Source. OSS doesn't need any boned from the SCO jackal. They're trying to continue to take advantage of Open Source even as they try every legal trick they can think of too hurt it.

In other news...

[ehaggis]

SCO announces it will include the Linux Kernel in their next release. "We will continue to support / sue the Open Source Community. We will also continue our therapy for schizophrenia."

Damage done

[Iriel]

SCO can bid all they want, but they've already made their stain in the technology world. Darl made himself the most hated man in tech faster than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer combined in a shorter period of time. I could say that it's nice to see OSS in a UNIX system, but the course of action they've taken is mostly impossible to reverse. It's as meaningless as M$ telling the world that they'll open source Windoze. I'm not really sure this does any good considering the audience they've already alienated and the server market that Linux is gathering for itself based on its merits rather than marketing and property rights.

Could this be good?

[mboos]

If they distribute this GPL'd software, that means that they won't be suing the developers for misappropriating their IP, right?

Oh dear

My interpretation

[Spy der Mann]

"We're trying to save money, OF COURSE we're consistent! What do you think we've been doing the last couple of...

Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)

Re:Woah

[Hope Thelps]

SCO actually sell something?

Technically, they offer stuff for sale. You're right that nobody's buying any of it.

Re:Woah

[AKAImBatman]

SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.

FWIW, OpenServer used to be a very serious product. You see, Microsoft did the original development back in the 80's under the name "Xenix". That product was considered by Microsoft to be to DOS what NT was to 9x. Unfortunately, the market shifted to focus on early GUIs such as VisOn and the Macintosh, resulting in a decision by Microsoft to sell OpenServer to the original SCO.

SCO found themselves in the position of having the most advanced Unix ever developed for the x86 processor. (386BSD still needed work when it showed up, and the later Solaris/x86 partly gained its reputation as "Slowaris" on x86 hardware.) The result was that SCO was able to capture the early market for low end Unix boxes, below the market that even Sun targetted.

The later increase in x86 power, and the entry of Linux into the market brought more traditional Unix systems on a convergent path with SCO, thus causing their marketshare to evaporate. The original SCO moved on to greener pastures and sold OpenServer to Caldera. Caldera continued to market the product, but also inherited a large base of SCO salesmen. Guess who became the most troublesome individuals when OpenServer's sales tanked after the Linux suit? ;-)

Re:Woah

[ArielMT]

Well, it seems their litigation purse is getting a little light, so of course they'd have to sell something to refill it. :)

Jesus calls them....

[xmorg]

Woe to you hypocrites! Strain out a knat and swallow a camel, Those of you who profess open source with your mouth but deny it in your heart shall be judged!

NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[fiveRocketCars]

If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO, and any companies that SCO has ownership in, and any companies that have ownership in SCO from ever using the project's source code, binaries, trademarks, etc, in any way what so ever.

I might also prohibit any company, whose execuatives talk any smack against the GPL.

What is the saying....."love it" or "LEAVE IT!"

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[PaxTech]

If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO, and any companies that SCO has ownership in, and any companies that have ownership in SCO from ever using the project's source code, binaries, trademarks, etc, in any way what so ever.

If you did that, your project would no longer be considered open source. It's like how freedom of speech isn't just for people who say things you agree with.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[sjvn]

"If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO"

Nope, you can't do it. Open-source licenses are called open for a reason. Anyone can--and does--use it.

If Microsoft decides one day to release MS-Linux, and the boys from Redmond obey the GPL rules as they do it, well... there's going to be a lot of copies of MS-Linux in CompUSA and BestBuy.

Steven

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[fiveRocketCars]

Actually, the source would still be "open", and SCO could look at the code, just not touch it, or use it. And, it would still be FREE, just not to SCO, there would be no available way for SCO to use the projects code, even though they could drool over it.

I might consider changing the modified license so that any company that Darl McBride was affiliated with, would not be able to use the projects code. :-)

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[fiveRocketCars]

well, to each his own i guess. Now i have an incentive to get off my ass and create a project that is succesful enough to garner community support, even with the slightly non-free/non-SCO modification to the license.

There would be nothing stopping me from creating such a license, nor non-SCO folks from using the product. I just wouldn't be "in" with the purists i guess.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[AKAImBatman]

If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO,

That would be playing right into their hands. SCO *wants* to get OSS producers upset so that they'll do something stupid. SCO can then point to the event and say "See? They are being juvenile while we negotiate in good faith!"

Ignoring SCO (except for direct legal defense) has been, and will continue to be, the best defense. The only one who gets worked up in that situation is SCO. So guess who starts looking pretty stupid to the public? ;-)

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[PaxTech]

The source might be available, but you still wouldn't have an "Open Source" project. The OSI Open Source definition states in part 5, "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups".

You couldn't even restrict Nazis or Al Qaeda from using your software if you want it to be considered Open Source.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[fiveRocketCars]

i stand corrected. Maybe instead of going through all that effort, i could just send Darl and the following email content and be happy with that:

DD
A A
B B
C C
ABCDEFG ABCDEFGHI
B D F A
C D G B
DD C
EEE D
FFF

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[atari8]

The reason that software so licensed is not considered open source is that things change. Some people used to put restrictions in their open-source-style licenses to prevent the government of South Africa from using their software. At that time, the government of South Africa was repressing the majority of South Africans and was certainly more evil than SCO. Now that the government of South Africa has changed hands and is more inclusive and less repressive, it probably should be able to use open source software like everybody else. Nevertheless, those apartheid-era restrictions still single out South Africa, blocking them from using the software.

Not that I'm saying that SCO is likely to become a bunch of good guys, but the principle remains. Software licenses are pragmatic documents, not places to make perpetual stands against transitory political and social problems like Darl McBride and SCO.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[fiveRocketCars]

What if the GPL were to contain a mandatory item, requiring a company to have a publicly declared stance on the GPL.

And the license would forbid any company who's "current" stance was anti-GPL. Thus, all the company had to do, when the current management got a clue, or changed over, was publicly change its stance. There would be no perpetual'ality to the license provision, but any anti-GPL company would be liable for using GPL'd code, while it was in an anti-GPL stance (i.e. public statements by its execuatives.)

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[andreMA]

There would be nothing stopping me from creating such a license, nor non-SCO folks from using the product. I just wouldn't be "in" with the purists i guess.

I'd think long and hard before doing that. Consider the possibility that that is a secondary goal of SCO: to fragment open (and nearly open) licensing and use that fragmentation to their own advantage.

Machiavellian? Sure. But this is SCO we're talking about...

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[atari8]

How do you define "anti-GPL public statements by its executives"? Which ones of these would count? -Executive says to the employees: "GPL is valid, but it's a bad idea." -Executive says to journalist: "GPL is invalid, but we follow it anyway." -Executive gets drunk after work and tells people at the bar "GPL is stupid. Down with the GPL!" I can think of hundreds of other ambiguous possibilities. If you can't define "anti-GPL public statements by its executives" well enough to not be ambigious, then it doesn't belong in a software license. I think the current scheme, whereby a company either accepts the GPL and gets to use GPL code or does not accept the GPL and doesn't get to use GPL code, works well enough. Adding more provisions to a license isn't going to scare people who believe the license isn't valid to begin with.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[CowboyBob500]

True, but couldn't the authors of the software just put checks in their software to see if it's running on some SCO varient, and make it refuse to run. Thus the license stays intact, but SCO can't use it unless they patch it themselves.

Bob

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[jbolden]

There would be nothing stopping me from creating such a license, nor non-SCO folks from using the product.

It depends how self contained the product is. If it is just some app then it wouldn't matter. But there is quite a bit to stop non-SCO folks from using it many free licenses would be incompatable with your license so there would be substantial issues about combining, reusing, ....

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[powerlord]

I'm not sure where I would draw the line for something like this, but probably Press Releases and Legal Documents.

Take the case that is influencing this discussion.

SCO made the claim in court that the GPL is invalid. Okay, so, to solve the problem they should either make a legal document, or press release that says that they now consider the GPL to be valid.

It might not scare people, but it might be a basis to seek an injunction against use and/or distribution.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO

[PaxTech]

Yeah, you could do that and it wouldn't violate the GPL. It would be just like when Microsoft put checks in Windows For Workgroups 3.11 to make sure it wouldn't run under DR-DOS. In other words, it would be punitive, immature, and against everything the philosophy of open source stands for, but legal.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche

hipocrits

[wind_ice_flames]

So basically SCO says you can use "our" intellectual property to create programs we can use, but otherwise we will sue you. Hmm sounds a bit opportunistic to me..

Based on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0?

[CyricZ]

Indeed, it is interesting to see them basing OpenServer 6.0 on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0. And it will most likely be quite confusing, too. After the UnixWare -> OpenUNIX -> UnixWare naming shenanigans I thought they would have known better than to do something so misleading.

Not Quite

[WindBourne]

1. Under GPL rules, you must accept GPL and be willing to abide by the rules (distribute the source code, etc). to be able to distribute it.
2. A number of the developers of GPL software have requested SCO to not use their stuff iff GPL is proved invalid.
   
   So, if GPL is valid, then SCO is unwilling to accept it, then they are in violation of the contract. Likewise, assume that GPL is invalid. Then, the licensing reverts to the developers, and many have stated that they do NOT want SCO having anything to do with their stuff.
   
   SCO is clearly illegal (and immoral) no matter how you slice this.

MySQL AB et al

[mindaktiviti]

Shouldn't the people behind these open source products demand a licensing fee (say..$699 per copy) for SCO using their products? Because SCO does not believe in the GPL, but some of these products (like MySQL) have other licenses.

It seems only fair that SCO should fork over the cash, I'm sure their lawyers and accountants would understand.

Re:MySQL AB et al

[Matts]

Note that Samba and MySQL are the only GPL projects listed.

How MS will quote you

[doublem]

they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that

Dear Sir / Madame,

Than you for your recent comments on Open Source software. We're very excited by your comments and plan to use them in an upcoming update to Microsoft's "Get the Facts about Linux" campaign.

Below is a sample of you your quote will look:

they ... bundle ... free software ... and I think they should rot in hell for that
-- Roadmaster

Re:Woah

[__aaclcg7560]

Their ability to strong arm... uh, acquire... protection money... hmmm, licenses... from dipstick... you know, fearful... companies must be hitting skid row. They have to make money to pay the lawyers, even if that mean sleeping with the enemy.

Why do they even have a license?

[tjstork]

Clearly, the copywrite holders of Apache or MySQL could be revoking their license, now that SCO tried to cut their throats.

If they don't have a problem with Open Source...

[borgheron]

If they don't have a problem with Open Source, why are the alleging in federal court that the GPL is unconstitutional?? I mean we all know that this is total and complete bullshit, but still.

Don't bald face lie to us, Mr. Stowell. As you've no doubt realized, the FLOSS community is tireless in it's pursuit of what's right, relentless in it's pursuit of the truth, and has virtually unlimited resources with which to make it happen.

Later, GJC

Re:Woah

[zr-rifle]

> SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.

If you've got $699 to spare, yes...

What a relief

[digidave]

*whew*

Now I can start liking SCO again. I'm off to the SCO Store to buy some of whatever it is they try to sell.

Re:What a relief

[jcuervo]

I'm off to the SCO Store to buy some of whatever it is they try to sell.

Burgers?

Well. Maybe not yet.

Re:What a relief

[Alsee]

That would be stock.

Last I checked all of the insiders were steadily selling their stock each month.

-

Heck

[ImaLamer]

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

I say that I have a problem with intellectual property that includes open-source technology it shouldn't!

Joking aside. As others have and will point out: They don't belive the GPL is Constitutional or enforceable - and because of this they have no rights under the license. I wonder how long it takes for GPL code to enter their software?

It's a little to late to try and save face

[dbfruth]

You blew it SCO. No amount of PR can save you from your death spiral.

Force them to pay up!

[SnarfQuest]

In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products

I think these groups sould get together and force SCO to pay them $100/copy for each of their products sold. They could also give them a $1.00 discount for bulk purchase (i.e. total of $699.00/copy).

SCO has no credibility in the Open Source arena

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

at least among Open Source advocates. The beauty of OSS, and SCO has better thank their lucky stars, is that OSS is forgiving. It doesn't matter that SCO has been a bunch of dicks in the pst, they can still redeem themselves.... maybe

In fact, just thinking about this...

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[Richard_at_work]

Accepting the GPL for one project does not mean universally accepting the GPL in all cases. The GPL isnt an all or nothing license, one project has no power over another even tho both are GPLed so you can not accept the GPL in one case but abide by it in another.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[WindBourne]

Actually, I believe that is universal.

you either do accept it or you do not. Why would you accept the legality of it for one project, but state that it is illegal when another is using it?

You may disagree with its useage WRT to a particular project, but that is not the same as saying that the license is illegal, which is exactly what SCO is saying.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[Richard_at_work]

The GPL is not universal - each instance of the license is on its own merits.

you either do accept it or you do not. Why would you accept the legality of it for one project, but state that it is illegal when another is using it?

Easy - the project you dont accept the GPL for may itself contain illegally copied code, and thus you are quite right to not accept it for that project, but that doesnt affect other projects. Note that I hold no stance one way or the other in the SCO case, I havent been following it.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[Paul Jakma]

But SCO's has presented arguments in court specifically claiming the GPL itself to be invalid.

Completely seperate from their claims of infringment in the linux kernel.

If they believe the GPL is invalid, then they cant accept to be bound by it, hence they have no right to distribute GPL licenced software. Simple. MySQL should sue them, using their own SCOvsIBM arguments as evidence.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Accepting the GPL for one project does not mean universally accepting the GPL in all cases. The GPL isnt an all or nothing license, one project has no power over another even tho both are GPLed so you can not accept the GPL in one case but abide by it in another.

Their position wasn't against the GPL in regard to a certain product, it was that the GPL is a null contract in every situation. Because of that, the fact that they willingly license something under the GPL would seem to undermine that position.

The interesting bit here is that if they do *not* accept the GPL, they have no choice but to pay MySQL lots of money.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[WhiteWolf666]

Flip it the other way around.

Imagine if SCO had brought forth a lawsuit against a copyright holder arguing that the 'notion' of copyright itself was bunk, and that they could do whatever they wanted with the 'copyrighted' work, and sought a pre-emptive injunction against legal action.

Simultaneously, SCO would pursue thousands of individuals for violating their copyrights.

See the tension there? You can't argue in one court that other people are infringing your copyrights if you argue that copyrights don't exist.

SCO is doing this very thing; GPL=copyright! One of their arguments against IBM is that they are *not* bound by the GPL, because even though they released Linux themselves (when they were called Caldera), the GPL is not a valid or enforceable contract.

At the same time, they knowingly distribute products, and their *only* permission to distribute these products are permissions granted under the GPL.

Samba (and MySQL) should really step up to the plate and say 'you don't accept our license, and as such, you have no right to distribute our software. Pull it'. Not necessarily in court, but definitely as a registered letter.

SCO will then be left in the position of defending the GPL. This screws SCO.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this...

[Dwonis]

SCO is already thoroughly screwed, although it would be funny.

danger will robinson, danger!

[chasingporsches]

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.

i argue, "you might want to watch your use of 'he said'", i said.

Do they use GCC?

[CyricZ]

Do they use GCC, or their older, proprietary C compiler along with their cfront-based C++ compiler?

Indeed, GCC has had the following in the README.SCO file in the main GCC source distribution:

The GCC team has been urged to drop support for SCO Unix from GCC, as a protest against SCO's irresponsible aggression against free software and GNU/Linux. We have decided to take no action at this time, as we no longer believe that SCO is a serious threat.

For more on the FSF's position regarding SCO's attacks on free software, please read:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/

If SCO is using GCC as their native C compiler, then perhaps this will prove the impetus needed for the GCC Steering Committee to remove support for SCO from GCC.

Re:Do they use GCC?

[Skiron]

Yes, I read that too ages ago.

The question is though, does it matter? What Company in their right mind would buy an SCO Unix system now?

Surely the only hope SCO has is to *try* to keep whatever Customer base it has - they certainly haven't a winning edge now on new ground as they have made themselves the end point of what not to touch with a bargepole.

Congratulations SCO

[Progman3K]

When I think of you, I feel fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I wouldn't touch your products with a ten-foot pole.

I think I'll use this Linux thing I've heard about instead.

Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source..

[zoomba]

Here's how they could play the fact that they call the GPL unconstitutional along side of including GPL code and products in their system...

1. GPL is unconstitutional.
2. GPL is therefore null and void
3. Thus GPL code has no copyright protection as it has no license or terms
4. CODE IS FREE! (100%) They can take it and use it however they want
5. Profit!

RTFA

[Thuktun]

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.

Re:RTFA

[Chris Burke]

Yes, well, SCO's "The GPL is Unenforceable and even, verily, Un-Constitutional and thus Un-American, like Comminuism" theory had its day in court and died and abrupt death as was predicted. They've since dropped all claims that the GPL is invalid.

So they're almost certainly distributing Samba and MySQL in compliance with the GPL.

Alternatives?

[gamlidek]

I hope folks aren't seriously flocking to buy SCO products still.. seems like with all the alternatives available SCO should be suffering. /gam/

Re: estopped[sic]

[InfiniteWisdom]

Estopped is not a spelling mistake, it's a legal term.

estop

sendmail, bind

[ThrobbingGristle]

SCO has always included OSS in their OpenServer products, as do most all UNIX vendors. sendmail and bind are two obvious examples, but I could probably find others if I tried.

I think the ftpd in OpenServer 5.0.5 might be wu-ftpd, originally as well although I'm not sure of that.

I think SCO just finally recognized that without a bunch of free software, SCO OpenServer was not only severely deficient but a pain to use.

Alternate story title...

[Shads]

... "SCO pulls more inane bullshit out of their ass"

What a bunch of hypocrits.

What would be nice....

[GoMMiX]

Is if the FSF would sue SCO and force them to remove all GPL'd software from their products.

Like the FOSS community gives a crap if SCO distributes their stuff with SCO-UNIX. The only people who benefit from that are SCO and it's customers - who merely serve to fund SCO'd litigation machine.

Better title

[bad_outlook]

Wouldn't this had been a better title for the article?

SCO Includes GPL Products In OpenServer 6

I assume these are the only GPL apps they distribute with their OS, right?

Sections

[Espectr0]

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.

Re:Sections

[lscotte]

OS is known as Operative System most of the time.

Except when it's known as Operating System.

Huh?

[failure-man]

SCO has a product and engineers to develop it? I thought they were just a crew of ninja attack lawyers and seven-figure art history majors that hung out in a Taco Bell and watched their stock price.

Re: estopped[sic]

[AKAImBatman]

Thanks, I figured it probably was something like that. I put the [sic] in there just to make sure that it was understood that it was in the original document and not a typo I introduced. :-)

Obligatory "what he really meant" post

[mcc]

'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.'

Re:Obligatory "what he really meant" post

[hackstraw]

'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.'

Open source software is not in the marketplace for making money off of lawsuits and stock scams (at least not universally).

What did you "really" mean?

Re:Obligatory "what he really meant" post

[jrumney]

Or "We don't have issues with profiting off open source, we just have an issue with all the open source we're not profiting off."

Re:Obligatory "what he really meant" post

[frkiii]

Blake: "We at (new)SCO do not necessarily have issues with being weasels, we just have an issue with being weasals with the F/OSS community calling us out on that fact".

Or...

Blake: "We at (new)SCO do not necessarily have issues with being complete fscking customer (and previous customer) suing scumbags, we just have an issue with many people making our true identity easily seen by millions, thereby depriving us of untold ba-zillins in SCOSOURCE license fees. Pay up you hippie commie Linux zealots!"

most are dual licensed

[sum.zero]

gpl + other oss license

sum.zero

I find it hard to believe...

[schon]

Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)

Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Blake would refer to Darl that way. :o)

Icon

[phorm]

I wonder what the icon for that would be? A frothing mug (free, as in beer)? Maybe we could take suggestions/submissions.

Why is this news

[jbolden]

SCO has supported open source products in their Unix for years skunkware. I don't see what is news here at all.

Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source..

[eyegone]

How does #3 follow from #2?

IP Protection?

[Mr Pippin]

So.... are they going to provide legal protection to their customers if it later turns out that Apache, Samba, etc. include IP some other vendor CLAIMS exists in their code?

OH, THE IRONY!!!

no GPL = no license at all

[cahiha]

SCO can argue that the GPL is "unenforceable" and "voidable" if they like. So, what remains if the GPL is "unenforcable" and "voidable"? A large piece of copyrighted software to which they have no license at all. Meaning, that if their assertion is true, they are wilfully violating multiple copyrights.

Look at that...

[gabe]

Of course, you really mean a two faced cat.

SCO's memory going bad

[Quila]

We don't necessarily have issues with open source

SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. -- Darl McBride, open letter to Congress, December 4, 2003.

Not just the GPL it validates

[capedgirardeau]

MySQL and Samba are the only GPL'ed software.

Every other package listed uses various other OSS licenses: BSD, APL, MPL, and a custom OSS license.

However, I think they clearly violate the GLPv2, specifically:

"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 think SCO has made it clear they do not accept the GPL and as such have no license to distribute this software.

invalid license != public domain

[cahiha]

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.

Re:invalid license != public domain

[cahiha]

how, in fact, do so many of these comments saying "if sco says the licence is invalid, then they cant use it..."

My posting didn't say that; you are simply a sloppy reader.

that still doesnt mean that they cant abide by it, until they do

Quite right: as long as SCO complies with the terms of the GPL, they can keep shipping GPL'ed software. I was merely pointing out that their position is inconsistent: on the one hand, they claim the GPL is invalid, on the other hand, they are relying on the validity of the GPL to ship software.

If SCO actually were to prevail in court with their argument, then they would have to stop shipping GPL'ed software, and they might actually be guilty of wilfull copyright infringement for the GPL'ed software they have shipped in the past.

Note that SCO is making these hare-brained arguments against the GPL simply because without them, their case would collapse before it even started: under the GPL, by shipping Linux, SCO has already given everybody a license to their intellectual property in the Linux kernel.

Once upon a time people wouldnt just mod crap up cause it agreed with their "SCO SUCKS" attitude, but because it was actually intelligent. Well, I dont read slashdot so much anymore.

Actually, what sucks is people like you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:invalid license != public domain

[swillden]

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.

Well, you have to follow their twisted logic all the way.

See, SCO's argument was that the GPL is invalid, unenforceable, illegal and unconstitutional. So, given that, it would be wrong and unfair to say "Sorry, you can't use this license to distribute your software, so all of you have to stop" to all of those open source developers that want so badly to distribute their work to the world.

Simply declaring the GPL null and void and allowing copyright to apply in full force would frustrate the intent of all of those poor, foolish developers, you see. Instead, the court should find a way to ensure that the core intent of those developers is upheld, even if it can't be done in exactly the way they wanted. Since that intent was clearly to allow the software to be distributed freely, without constraints imposed by copyright law, the kind-hearted, reasonable, sensitive and fair thing for the judge to do is to declare that software licensed under the GPL is effectively in the public domain. That way the developers can continue doing what they're doing, and everyone will be happy.

Except maybe in the case of Linux, which belongs mostly to SCO anyway. Maybe the judge should just rule that Linux belongs to SCO. That way SCO can make sure that Linux continues to be distributed far and wide, to satisfy the developers that their efforts were not in vain.

Re:invalid license != public domain

[cahiha]

See, SCO's argument was that the GPL is invalid, unenforceable, illegal and unconstitutional. So, given that, it would be wrong and unfair to say "Sorry, you can't use this license to distribute your software, so all of you have to stop" to all of those open source developers that want so badly to distribute their work to the world.

I don't think SCO has standing to ask the court to decide what should happen to other licensees of other people's copyrighted software. Furthermore, the existence of dual-licensed GPL software also makes that a hard argument to make.

Except maybe in the case of Linux, which belongs mostly to SCO anyway.

And that's why SCO really has to argue that the GPL is not valid: if it is valid, then SCO has already given all the people they ever distributed Linux to an implicit license to all their applicable intellectual property and their case falls apart. (Of course, if it isn't valid, they have committed, and are continuing to commit, massive copyright violations.)

Re:invalid license != public domain

[swillden]

I don't think SCO has standing to ask the court to decide what should happen to other licensees of other people's copyrighted software.

SCO is not one to be deterred by such trivialities.

And that's why SCO really has to argue that the GPL is not valid: if it is valid, then SCO has already given all the people they ever distributed Linux to an implicit license to all their applicable intellectual property and their case falls apart.

No, I think you're wrong here. Amid all of their laughable arguments, I think they did make a few good ones, and one of those is that merely distributing GPL'd code that contains your code doesn't automatically mean that you license your code under the GPL. Licensing your copyrighted material, under any license, must be a concious act.

Of course, if SCO didn't license their code under the GPL (we're presuming here that there is some SCO code in Linux, which I find very dubious at this point), and SCO continued distributing after finding out that it was in there, then SCO is between a rock and a hard place. If they didn't choose to licence their code under the GPL, then they're guilty of copyright infringement. If they did choose to license under the GPL, then no one else is guilty. They get to say which it is, but neither option is what they want.

They have now dropped all copyright infringement claims and stopped trying to fight the GPL (and want to get IBM to drop all of its copyright claims, but that ain't happinging) because they've realized it's an impossible argument.

Re: estopped[sic]

[sjf]

There are better definitions available: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2 coff=1&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1151&q=define%3A+e stoppel&btnG=Search

Amusingly enough, the gist of estoppel, is that you can't encourage or permit someone to take certain actions, and then bring suit against them on the basis that that action was illegal or in breach of contract.

consistency and fiction

[jhcarnelian]

SCO is arguing that the GPL is invalid. Real world: "We don't have a valid license for the software, therefore we can't use it." SCO fictional universe: "We don't have a valid license for the software, therefore we can do with it whatever we like." Fact is: SCO is highly inconsistent. If they argue that the GPL is invalid, then they can't ship any GPL'ed software at all because they don't have a license.

In a bid to be friendly with animals ...

[njchick]

... I eat them every day

Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source..

[zoomba]

I'm just following the logic THEY'RE evidently using. And what they'll probably say if they get really pressed on the issue.

Let's put SCO on the spot.

[dmaxwell]

Someone will surely have to upgrade to this in the course of their job. I have no doubt that their are SCO users who don't particularly like the company but have legacy apps that they are locked into.

What is needed is for a SCO upgrade customer to ask for the source code to Samba, GCC, MySQL and whatever other (L)/GPL code is in their OS. If they refuse or even worse get snarky with those contracts that you use against people then feed their Nazgul pecked rear ends to MySQL AB and the FSF.

Get in line

[FunWithHeadlines]

"MySql has the abilty to deliver a death knell to them"

MySql will have to get in line behind IBM, Red Hat, AutoZone, Chrylser, and SCO's own hand now forcfully grinding its knife into its own body.

Okay, Mr. Stoolwell...

[the saltydog]

Tell us what in Linux "includes intellectual property it shouldn't", where THE SCO GROUP is the copyright holder of that IP, the transfer documents, approved by the court, that show the explicit transfer of that IP to THE SCO GROUP, and then tell us when all the other Linux distributions will be sued for the same IP violations.

Fucking evil bastard assholes; that's all The SCO Group is now. I absolutely cannot wait until they are crushed into the ground.

Your conclusion is wrong

[GodWasAnAlien]

If the GPL is invalid, then they have no right to copy the code.

So your concusion should read:

"If the GPL is invalid, then they CANNOT take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law."

Re:Your conclusion is wrong

[AKAImBatman]

That's not my conclusion, that's their conclusion. It was the nonsense they were spouting some few months ago. As I said, they're wrong, but (joke)at least they're consistent(/joke). :-)

Re:Your conclusion is wrong

[NemosomeN]

Unfortunately, there's a chance that if the GPL is invalid that it can be found in court that, although the restrictions are invalid, the existence of the license itself shows intent of the author to allow use and distribution of the software. Say for example that a contract allowed you to use a car, and somewhere in small type there was a clause that required you to sacrifice a kindergartener each month. The contract would be invalid, but the owner wouldn't be able to sue the other person for illegaly using his car. IAAL (No I'm not.)

Re:Your conclusion is wrong

[bstone]

"somewhere in small type"?

The redistribution rights under the GPL aren't exactly hidden. If you sign a contract saying you will "kill a kindergartener each month" in return for the use of a car, I'm pretty sure that the entire contract would be invalid and you wouldn't get to keep the car.

In this case, SCO clearly knows about and understands the rights and obligations covered by the GPL. They have claimed that the contract is invalid and illegal in court.

NOW they are distributing software that REQUIRES them to agree to the terms they publically claim are invalid, in return for the rights to use and distribute that software. Any copyright owner of the GPL'ed code they are distributing could probably get a court order prohibiting them from distributing copyright code without a license to do so.

Re:Your conclusion is wrong

[NemosomeN]

The size of the text is irrelevant, why the hell are you even arguing it? I just said "in small type" because who would sign it if they saw that? The main thing is, that if a contract is invalid, it may still be used to show intent. If you want to argue with me, then argue with one of my points, not something I added as filler.

Besides, just because you say something, doesn't mean you have to follow it. Welcome to the real world.

p.s. I almost forgot to call you an asshat.

p.p.s. Asshat.

Issues with open source?

[paulsomm]

"We don't necessarily have issues with open source"

Of course they don't. Why pay for R&D when you can funnel that money into lawsuits and just use someone else's work.

Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source..

[borgheron]

I don't care that they've included the stuff. I'm addressing the "we've got no problem with Open Source". This after the whole "GPL is unconstitutional" and "Communist" shit they've been throwing around.

GJC

Would it be legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be legal to have a provision in such licenses barring a specific company such as, oh, let's say SCO, from being able to use a product without paying a $699 per-license fee?

I mean hypothetically, of course.

PostgreSQL is not GPL

[0x000000]

PostgreSQL is under the BSD license. They can take it and do with it what they want.

Just say no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since SCO is on record in various court-filed documents as NOT believing the GPL to be valid, one has to wonder how they go about distributing software that's licensed under the GPL.

If the software is GPL'd, but they don't believe the license to be valid - then how do they go about distributing someone else's code w/o any license? It's my understanding that the code is automatically copyrighted by the author unless the author grants some other rights to users, such as under the GPL; so that should mean that if they don't accept the license that the author released it under (GPL) that it's still copyrighted by the author, and SCO would have to go to the author for a license to distribute.

Given the trouble they've caused everyone with their temper-tantrums over the past few years, if I were mySQL - I'd say "ummm, no thanks. We'll pass on allowing you to distribute our stuff if you don't want to do it under the GPL. And by the way, we need you to sign a document under penalty of perjury that you accept the license we offer (GPL) in it's entireity, and agree not to dispute any portion of it in perpetuity, and to indenify, protect, and defend us against any and all claims as may come relating to said license..."...

basically toss it right back at 'em...

And finally - can we get rid of this half-assed "confirm you're not a script" crap... most of them are an absolute bitch to make out.

Oh GREAT!

[vmfedor]

So now I have to figure out whether OS means "Operating System" or "Open Source?" ;P

OS or OSS?

[lullabud]

I read it that way too. They should've used OSS in place of OS when referring to Open Source. It makes grammatic sense and also uses the correct acronyms for what the intended meaning is. It's frustrating when people modify acronyms on the fly when the result overlaps with pre-existing acronyms for completely different stuff.

Auto-Zone?

[lullabud]

I'm curious how that relates to this thread. Does Auto-Zone support FOSS and openly oppose SCO or something?

Re:Auto-Zone?

[squiggleslash]

At one point, SCO was suing AutoZone for supposedly violating its license, by switching from SCO Unix to GNU/Linux.

The whole thing was a little wierd, and never fully explained. Initially, SCO gave everyone the impression this was the first of their "$699" lawsuits, but over time it became apparent this was some kind of contract dispute, though one that was still a little shakey.

Chipotle

[lullabud]

Mmmmm... Chipotle. :) Their Margarita's are surprisingly good with a good price too. But damn, they make their "steamed" rice with vegetable oil, making it high in fat. WTF?

Is that so?

[lullabud]

If only I could believe that... I really want to, I really do. I loathe SCO's underhanded business model and all the crap associated with it, but man, these guys have a way of sticking around... MS funding them certainly helps out.

Now we can update the kernel

[drsmack1]

with all that SCO googdness. This must be what was holding up the 2.8 tree...

OS = Operating System, OSS = Open Source Software.

[bettlebrox]

SCO has included 7 OS products in their Unix product.

SCO UNIX is an operating system (OS). The tools mentioned that SCO UNIX is including are Open Source Software (OSS).

Come on lads get your acronyms correct, RTFM! :) And where's the story in this, I thought SCO had included OSS with their (poxy) OS previously?

Good point

[lullabud]

I hadn't thought of it like that but yeah, I think you're totally right. I can't believe they'd pull some shizz like this... anybody who actually does business with these guys is insane. How do they even make money?? ...or maybe they don't.

Re:Good point

[Alsee]

How do they even make money?

Well Microsoft bought a license from SCO for about twelve million dollars. Later Microsoft gave them another five million dollars to expand those rights. Nearly seventeen million dollars. And SUN bought a SCO licence for almost ten million. Rather interestingly SUN appears to have needed that license because of the two billion dollar deal Microsoft did with SUN. Then there was the fifty million dollar BayStar Capital investment in SCO. Oh, by the way... a BayStar Capital representitive is on the record stating "Yes, Microsoft did introduce BayStar to SCO".

To quote SCO chief Darl McBride:
"A year ago we had $6 million. Now we have $60 million, with $50 million of that coming in through the investment. We have a war chest to defend our rights, to fight our claims in the courtroom"

Even without any litigation expenses, SCO was RAPIDLY on the way to bankruptcy. SCO was deeply in the red, hemorraging cash. With that six million they only had a matter of months to live. The influx of money saved them from bankruptcy, provided them with a "warchest" for litigation, and sent their stock price soaring from probably under two dollars to well over twenty dollars. SCO insiders made a FORTUNE selling the newly inflated stock.

Oh, and one more point. Microsoft spent almost seventeen million for the software licenses from SCO. Well the market stock price of THE ENTIRE COMPANY at the time was less than double that. Why rent a gallon of milk for one dollar when you can buy the entire cow for less than two dollars? Especially when pretty well know SUN is going to come along and pay that second dollar to you anyway? Hell, Microsoft could have just waited a few more months for SCO to hit bankruptcy and snatched everything up for next to nothing at auction.

No, Microsoft did *not* want to own SCO... and there is serious question whether Microsoft had any actual need for a SCO license at all.

anybody who actually does business with [SCO] is insane.

'Insane' isn't exactly the first word to come to my mind here. I have quite a few other choice words... none of them pretty.

-

No we won't.

[lullabud]

Yes we will.

Samba...?

[argent]

Don't their buddies at Microsoft have problems with Samba?

Re:Samba...?

[Cheeze]

probably, but what alternatives are there for SMB/CIFS on unix?

Re:Samba...?

[argent]

what alternatives are there for SMB/CIFS on unix?

HTTP NFS AFS(Apple) AFS(Andrew) RFS FTP Alex (FTP-NFS gateway) iSCSI Clusters Gnome-VFS VFS and carrying floppies from desk to desk...

Re:Samba...?

[Cheeze]

too bad none of those talk SMB/CIFS or your reply would be relevant.

Re:Samba...?

[argent]

Yes, it's such a shame that there's absolutely no way for a Windows box to communicate except through SMB/CIFS.

Read the GPL

[mcc]

SCO has to accept the GPL for it to be valid

Uh...

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.

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.

Re:Read the GPL

[UrgleHoth]

Except maybe to any of their stockholders curious about why they were lied to.

Indeed. I talked to the other stockholder and we are both curious about this.

Do they realize the IBM patents they're now using?

[tlambert]

Do they realize the IBM patents they're now using?

I worked at a company that was acquired by IBM (Whistle Communications). During the acquisition, the product currently under development used an Open Source package as a non-integrated, but essential component.

In order to close the deal and sell the company to IBM, we had to remove that package from the product under development because IBM knew it infringed four IBM patents, and if we were to ship a GPL'ed product based on that code, then after the acquisition, IBM would be knowingly granting royalty free licenses to use those patents (under U.S. Commerce rules, anyone else could then use the patents for the same fee, or a lesser fee, if a lesser one was negotiated).

Mr. Foot, meet Mr. Bullet...

-- Terry

Read the par. fully.

[WindBourne]

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.

So what?

[davmoo]

McBride and the entire SCO corporation are so full of shit they slosh when they walk. And this latest announcement from them doesn't change that fact. They should start a fertilizer factory. No one I've seen can spread shit faster or thicker.

They are not a friend to open source, and are instead the perfect example of the enemy...they want the benefits of open source, they want to make money using open source, but they do not want to recognize the validity of the open source licenses on the software they distribute.

As for IP, if anyone at SCO had an original idea it would be like matter meeting anti-matter and the world would spontaneously implode.

They should be squashed like the diseased insects that they are.

GPLv2

[WhiteWolf666]

"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."

Given then large degree of two-faced bullshit coming out of SCO, I cannot imagine it would be difficult for either the Samba team or the MySQL team to convice a judge that SCO has chosen to 'not accept' "This License", considering their sworn statements/testimony in court.

As such, they would not have a license to distribute either package. As such, it should not be of great difficulty to get an injunction against shipping these packages, nor should it be difficult to seek damages, along the lines of $100,000 per violation.

Knowing, willfull infringement is a felony.

What MySql can do

[phriedom]

The way I see it, MySql can either

1)Spend their time and money going after SCO for copyright violation.

2)Focus on their own business

Since IBM seems to have the will and means to win the fight that they started quite some time ago, I think MySql should opt for #2. There just doesn't seem like much to gain in option #1. SCO is already dead, it is just a matter of time now, and I don't think there is anything MySql can do to speed it up.

Now if there are some cheap, easy ways to fight SCO, well, maybe. I mean, I sure would enjoy the irony of using the DMCA against SCO. But it is probably better to just stay out of the fray and let IBM handle it. Attacking SCO now just gives them more publicity.

Dear god

[CAIMLAS]

Why isn't the IBM & SCO case over yet, for crying out loud?

And, considering the "if you modify or distribute GPL software, you agree to the GPL" clause of the GPL, doesn't this also invalidate most of SCOs arguments for the last, oh, 2 years or whatever?

Re:Just say no... Interesting question

[snakecoder]

"If the software is GPL'd, but they don't believe the license to be valid - then how do they go about distributing someone else's code w/o any license?"

I wonder what the legal test will end up being for GPL license "Compliance" My guess is that you won't win a court case if you try and say you were damaged by someone who fully complied with GPL but then turned around and said "GPL is not valid". I'm guessing the courts would want to see a material violation.

Re:Wow, an operating system in the operating syste

[Frit Mock]

"I'm sure I'm not the only one to read that "OS" as something the author didn't intend. OS = Operating System, OSS = Open Source Software. SCO purports to sell an operating system already, so including an OS in their product seems a bit redundant."

They need this redundancy ... one is in reserve, if the other one infriges some copyrights.

No problem with something for free huh?

[minion]

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."

Yeah, he's got no problem with something that cost his company nothing, and actually makes their POS OS actually do something.

Fuck them...

[msimm]

Does anyone even use SCO? We use Sun at my shop but its only as a stop-gap before we convert more systems over to Linux. Even the shops I know of that don't use Linux are quite happy with BSD. Besides, whats so great about SCO using open source projects anyway? Its just free software to them (software their customers, assuming they still have any, would have been complaining about not having anyway).

I hardly see how that would be considered friendly, it may show contempt.

Intent of GPL

[GodWasAnAlien]

"intent of the author to allow use and distribution of the software"

You are missing the essential part of the GPL.

Microsoft intends for you to use software too. That does not make it public domain if their license agreement is invalid.

The intent of author as derived from the GPL is to allow use and distribution of the software such that modified versions of the software are also made freely available to be used and distributed.

If you say that this essential "such that ..." part is invalid, the intent of the author would be invalid, and you could only renegotiate new terms with the author in order to use the software.

Re:Intent of GPL

[NemosomeN]

It means that if the license is invalid, MS can't sue you for using unlicensed software. Their intent has been made obvious. I think it's being missed that I'm saying what might be decided by a judge, not what I agree with, or what is right, just what is possible (Maybe even likely). It's not a huge stretch. Look at it from the point of view of someone who has never really looked into OSS mor coded anything. Might see that as a minor detail.

Re:Intent of GPL

[GodWasAnAlien]

If such a question did arise, the original authors of the software in question could be put on the stand and asked directly what the intended purpose of using the GPL was.

Not that any of this would/should ever come up.

Re:Intent of GPL

[NemosomeN]

None of it should, but you're naïve to think that it never would. Imagine if MS's EULAs were found illegal. Do you think if Bill Gates said on the stand that he never intended Windows to be used that it would mean anything?

Re:Intent of GPL

[GodWasAnAlien]

That is quite different as mr gates has financial interests, did not write the EULA or the software. But some clarification (along with historical eviden ce concerning intent of licence) from Microsoft may be admissible.

Of course, if as you said the said, the EULA were found to be entirely illegal, then the Restrictions of the EULA would not apply, and the software would be only protected by standard Copyright law.

The same would be true for GPL. if found not legal/valid, then it would fall back to standard copyright protections alone.

The MS EULA only specifies additional
Restrictions.

The GPL specifies some addional Freedoms that allowed only if additional Restrictions are accepted.

It would make no sense to invalidate the restrictions without invalidating the freedoms that depend on those restrictions.

Over and Out.

Re:Intent of GPL

[NemosomeN]

"It would make no sense..." I see you are unfamiliar with the American legal system.

Their OS always was garbage

[newsblaze]

I sold a few copies of it in the 90s until I realised it was disgustingly horrible.

They are like the bully who beats the crap out of anyone they can, then they realise they have no friends left, so they try bribery.

No chance SCO, you've hurt too many people with long memories.

SCO insistent, persistent not consistent

[harvey the nerd]

Anyone who is familiar with the cons/frauds that often pass for many lawyers or managers in the US today, recognizes this. Deny, deny, deny - insist, persist until (a) the complainer fades away in exhaustion or disgust, (b) the problem is over shadowed by another problem, (c) a miracle happens, say a clueless good Samaritan genuis fixes it or a government emergency clears it, etc, or (d) "something bad happens" - jail, termination, retirement or liquidation. SCO mgmt is obviously delaying (d) as long as possible. Another day is another expense account, another pay check and hoping for a miracle to bail out. Most of all another day of NOT reckoning.