Slashdot Mirror
Some Linux Users Violate Sarbanes-Oxley
Goyuix writes "According to the IT Observer, publicly owned companies who are using Linux, could be violating the federal securities laws as part of Sarbanes-Oxley. The article goes on to say that companies are required to "disclose ownership of intellectual property to their shareholders." How are these companies supposed to really list out all the IP owners if they were to install a full desktop or server environment - there could be literally thousands of parties listed! What are the current Fortune 500 companies doing, as many of those use Linux in one form or another?" update several people have pointed out that this is about companies who are violating the GPL, not everyone.
It appears that this would apply to any free software, not just Linux. It would apply to at least all GPL'd software, including gcc, etc.
Sigs cause cancer.
As long as something has been liscenced under GPL, the owner cannot assert additional restrictions, or revoke the liscense - therefore how is the owner relevant to the stockholders, if no such change can take place?
You have to distribute Linux outside of your organization in violation of the terms of the GPLv2 in order to have any licensing problems with Linux.
Mere use of Linux by a company cannot ever be a violation of the GPLv2 that Linux is licensed under.
This is FUD issued by a company that wants you to buy their BSD based embedded OS product.
how exactly using linux in violation of the gpl is a violation of sarbanes oxley? the article does an awful lot of handwaving but doesn't actually explain any of the hows or whys.
i'll have to read again, but it looks like this is f/oss trying its hand at the fud game.
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Did the OP even read the article he submitted? It says that if a company violates the GPL, that this might also be a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley if they claim that they still have a right to use Linux despite the GPL violation. There is nothing about listing the IP holders. On an aside, I didn't think there was any violation to the GPL that could stop you from being able to use Linux. A GPL violation would make you lose your right to distribute it, right?
Shockwave Flash movies are the greatest thing to happen to non-sequitur humor since Japan.
We're using Linux and treating it just like we do Solaris, HP-UX, and Windows, where we also can't identify everybody who wrote the OS.
The auditors don't seem to be having a problem with it. Wonder how much Microsoft paid IT Observer for that FUD?
Instead of "Might Linux Violate Sarbanes-Oxley?" which it doesn't, it should be "Non-compliance to terms of GPL might violate Sarbanes-Oxley".
Which makes sense.
I.e., if you claim to have the right to use Linux for your product, but you aren't complying with the license, you might be violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
according to a research published by Wasabi Systems.
The same Wasabi Systems that sells products based on NetBSD?
Yeah, no bias there.
In the past, such violators were merely required to release their code to the public
The article is also wrong in that it spreads the "forced open source" myth. GPL violators aren't required to release their source code. They FSF generally asks them stop infringing on the copyright of the GPL software.
One way to do that is to comply with the GPL, another is to stop using GPL software. They don't have to release any code they don't want to.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I think a lot of folks here have missed the point. The article's author is making an intellectual exercise in asking out loud and in public if companies that violate the GPL in their software are not also violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
This is because they are required to list what intellectual property the company owns to shareholders and if it is later found out that the company doesn't really own it, because it is based on a GPL'd software, then is that a Sarbanes-Oxley violation.
I'd have to say, it looks like one, but I'm no MBA, nor a JD.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Rather new at it, it's true, but so far if we find a company has a problem of this sort, it's generally not a very big deal especially if they rectify it before their fiscal year ends. This is just one little piece of the huge SOX pie and often there are other controls in place that mitigate the effect of a finding anyway. Now if the company practiced systemic licensing violations then that's a different matter.
12:50 - press return.
Come on people, let's pay attention to the article. Contrary to the poster's headline, nothing in it even hints that using Linux would violate Sarb-Ox. Sarb-Ox is supposed to make investing a bit safer by forcing companies to audit their practices and disclose potential problems.
If someone is building products on GPL code (like, say broadband router/NAT boxes based on Linux) then they are supposed to disclose that tidbit to their investors. The important part is that they don't own all of the intellectual property for that product and investors should know since that could change the company's value. If they fail to disclose the data, then they have violated Sarb-Ox.
Does he really think that Microsoft owns all the "intellectual property" in Windows? They sub-license a ton of stuff. For example, IE was based on licensed code from Spyglass. The "About" panel for IE also lists NCSA, UIUC, RSA, Independent JPEG Group, Intel, and Mainsoft. And that's just a single program within the OS. And what about all the submarine patents on the stuff in Windows? How about all the copyrighted stuff in all the malware that's probably running on some of their Windows systems? How about the BSD copyright on the TCP/IP code used by Windows? How are companies expected to find all that information?
I think the problem may be that the author of TFA hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I suspect that the law says that companies have to disclose what "intellectual property" they own, not what they use. Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and it's Congress that hasn't a clue; that's a distinct possibility. But even then, I'm sure it would follow the spirit of the law to worry about what the company owns, instead of what they use.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Have any of you looked at the list of licenses that are included in major packages? In any commercial OS? Pick your favorite app, click Help-About, and many times you'll get a nauseating list of patents, copyrights, and other licenses for technologies that make the app work. If disclosing IP in the apps in an office is required, using OSS isn't going to be any harder to document than trying to find the IP in some commercial product.
Basically, this is FUD from a BSD vendor who wants to hurt linux and promote BSD by Fudding the GPL.
Although started by some really bright netBSD folks, they've ejected all of their really bright founding engineers and are resorting to scare-tactics and other garbage like this to try to gain market share.
Stupid tricks like this hurt free software in general. I hope Wasabi garners enough ill-will from this stunt to hurt their business in a serious way.
That is a great news...
Take the example of a random company, let's say... Linksys, a publicaly traded company, owned by Cisco.
They release an appliance with Linux in it... They don't release the source code. It is GPL. They are in violation of Sarbannes Oxley. It's a big deal if this is discovered, could put them into trouble. It is probably the best way to force a company to comply with the GPL.
Now it is too bad it only applies to publicaly traded companies...
I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture by not asking the question:
"WHAT is the main reason and who are the authors behind the SOX wording" about this disclosure requirement.
It COULD be a specious attempt by lobbyists on the part of their supporters to FORCE the companies using GPL/FLOSS/Linux to disclose themselves so that ms and their henchmen can start targetting the companies that (public or private) are using Linux/free/free software. It has the 'beneficial' effect of causing their competitiveness or chance of success to be diminished or at least perceived as rogue, reckless, uninformed...
Moreover, it indirectly helps ms by causing the commercial (non- or anti-Linux/GPL/FLOSS) companies/developers to target and entice those companies 'back into' the fold if they have escaped or managed to get one foot out of the field.
This isn't to say that employees don't talk. Of course employees talk, whether complaining or bragging about their companies. BUT, by forcing companies to list that they are anti-ms or unwilling to be 100% in ms' farm, then the shareholders who WANT to be in ms' fold (for stock/portfolio reasons) just MIGHT call for the necks of the IT managers.
Just one jaded/cynical/scary thought...
Anyone else can add to or refine my ideas here...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
> Modification can also trigger copyright protections.
That's a nonsensical statement. Copyright protection does not need any triggering.
> The FSF has said they don't care about modifications that you don't
> distribute, but legally the GPL does apply to you if you merely
> modify without distributing, since it is the only license that
> grants you rights that you would not normally have under copyright
> law.
A distinction without a difference. Modifying without distribution does not require anything of you.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The study indicates that dozens of companies are discovered each year to have violated the terms of GPL, and if they are public companies, they are violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
The article said that if you violate the GPL, you violate SOx. This would therefore be A Good Thing (TM) as it would give even more power to the FSF to clear up abuses.
Misinterpreting articles in this way sends the wrong message to managers, however, who might think they're better off with M$. And no, managers don't read the article.
IMHO, the same company would be violating SOx as much if they bundled any M$ or other proprietary DLL/EXE/bitmap image into their software without explicitly mentioning it.
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
The title of the post is pure FUD, "Some Linux Users Violate Sarbanes-Oxley!!! TFA is only slightly better...
Why stop at Linux, or free software in general? If a company makes an embedded device that uses a pirated copy of a proprietary RTOS, that would violate the Sarbanes-Oxley law too.
This seems to me a fundamentally good law (at least this provision): companies must not claim to have rights to use or distribute software, unless they actually do have those rights!
So why is anyone linking this provision to Linux?????? The only reason is because it's easy to get Linux for free, so incompetent people think they can do whatever they want with it. No one would make the same mistake with Microsoft software, simply because it's wrapped in a menacing 10 page EULA.
My bicyles
Copyright law says nothing about modification. It does not prevent it, and therefore the GPL does not, either. Go ahead and modify all you want.
By the same token;
What IP is in Windows?
We already know Microsoft has been caught stealing code many times, what is still lurking?
Without a full source to any OS how can anyone know whose IP they are using?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
The author, who has an obvious agenda, ignores the fact that violating *any* software license (including Wasabi's) can get you into trouble.
Although you would never know it from the title, the article refers exclusively to people who *violate* the GPL. It's like saying that people who drive cars may face jail terms for DUI.
Take a look at Wasabi Systems website: "Wasabi Certified BSD, a certified, tested, and optimized version of the BSD operating system, offers the rich functionality of BSD Unix without Linux's troublesome GPL License." In other words Wasabi is a direct competitor with GPL'd software. Right on the front page of Wasabi's web-site they are bashing the GPL. Nothing like an unbiased "study" I always say. I wonder who wrote the article, no mention of that. Hmmm.
"If companies are violating the GPL, they dont have the right to use that software."
Is that even acurate? My understand of the GPL is that it does not restrict, only distribution.