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.

Really...

[ch0p]

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

"friendly"

[bedroll]

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

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.

Does that mean

[joeflies]

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

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: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.

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? ;-)

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:McDonalds is a Customer

[Trollstoi]

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

So, you're out of money now?

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.

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.