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.

Comments

GPL violators are at risk

[crumley]

The synopsis above is misleading. Its is GPL violators, not simply GPL users who are at risk. From the article:

"Linux is a powerful operating system," says Jay Michaelson, an author of the study and Wasabi Systems' General Counsel. "But if companies violate the license, the consequences can be more severe than they think. If companies are violating the GPL, they don't have the right to use that software. And if they don't have the right to use the software, they're violating federal law if they claim that they do."

Article Title Misleading

[hattig]

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.

Re:Ownership != utilization

[bedroll]

There's a big difference between ownership and utilization. For example, if McDonalds employs the use of WinXP workstations in their facilities, that does not mean that they own, but instead license Microsoft's IP.

I completely agree. Just to expand on that, it should also be noted that the GPL does not transfer ownership of IP unto you, it merely gives you license to modify and reuse it. A company would then have to disclose their IP after they changed that code.

Reading the article, it appears that the author is a little confused. The second sentence talks about violating the GPL. You don't violate the GPL by simply using Linux. So maybe the real issue is with companies that release GPLed software without proper attribution and GPL compliance, but that's not the way the article reads.

Re:Not just Linux

[Hal_Porter]

As a certified Internet Lawyer I can advise you that it doesn't apply to FreeBSD. That's right, use Linux and go a federal pound me in the ass prison, or use FreeBSD and stay, well Free.

Hence the name.

Here's an Operating System fud^H^H^Hfact sheet

1) Windows. Expensive. Not FreeBSD. You may BURN in HELL forever if you use it.
2) Linux. Free Unix type OS, unquantifiable risk of prison rape. No strlcat.
3) NetBSD. Let's face it do you really need all those platforms? Why not concentrate on optimising for today's mainstream hardware. My friend Bob installed it on his new box, and it caught fire and burned down his house.
4) OpenBSD. Kick ass security. Theo seems a bit odd. Lags a bit feature and driver wise. There are reports that OpenBSD users may die of untreatable brain cancer.
5) MacOs. Slick. Good for clients. Expensive. You may have to grow a goatee, wear black polo necks. Mac OS users won't accept you as one of them, they will mock your dress sense behind your back.

Face it, FreeBSD is the best choice for every person in the world. Fact.