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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.

Really...

[ch0p]

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

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.

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

[m50d]

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

Does that mean

[joeflies]

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

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

[Trollstoi]

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

So, you're out of money now?

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

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?"

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."

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

[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? ;-)

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: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.

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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.

Re: estopped[sic]

[InfiniteWisdom]

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

estop

Alternate story title...

[Shads]

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

What a bunch of hypocrits.

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.

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.'

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.