I think I see what this Heise guy (SCO's lawyer) might be saying, and it's possible that he actually has a semi-valid point, well semi-valid enough that perhaps it can stand a comment.
1. I have read in several places today that every valid software license must allow you to make one copy for backup purposes. If the license does not allow this, it is not valid. Assume this is true for a moment.
2. The GPL says that if you do not adhere to the license, you have no license to copy.
Could his argument be that because in some circumstances you have no right to copy, then the license does not conform to point 1 above and therefore is not valid?
I think this argument fails if the GPL is a distribution license. However, it might (in the hands of a clever trial lawyer) be a problem if the GPL is a license to use. Which I don't think it is.
A second reason that the argument might fail is because the authorization to copy applies unless you break the license. It would be difficult to argue that a person breaking the license causes the license to become invalid.
I guess that Michael needs to learn to review previous stories - this story, complete with the details about FSF approving but not recommending it, was covered in an article three days ago.
In any case, I can't really imagine the FSF recommending any license other than their very own GPL, now the darling of IBM and the open source movement in general. Not that it isn't deserving of this adoration, as it may have saved Linux from SCO.
Redmond, WA - August 6, 2003 - Lycoris revealed today that its flagship product, Desktop/LX, is based on Caldera OpenLinux, which Lycoris has a license to develop and distribute directly from SCO. The terms of this previous agreement lock in Lycoris's ability to alter the source code of the Caldera OpenLinux product, which it has done extensively and release the results as Open Source to the public.
Now, as I understand it, Linux is just the kernel that is distributed ONLY under the GPL. So if Lycoris has purchased a license from SCO that covers Linux and is more restrictive than the GPL, then haven't SCO just lost the right to distribute Linux (as IBM suggests)? More to the point, doesn't that also mean that Lycoris have also lost the right to distribute Linux under the GPL? But Linux can't be distributed except under the GPL, so isn't Lycoris sorta screwed?
I expect I'll get modded down for this. It seems that IBM is relying quite a bit on the GPL for their defense and counter-suit against SCO. There seems little doubt that SCO are trying hard to kill Linux, and their motivation is obviously suspect.
I have to wonder how Richard Stallman is reacting to these latest events. Egan Moglen also. It's starting to look like the FSF (who created the GPL, as I understand it) may be a savior for Linux.
Over the years I have watched RMS being reviled in/. and elsewhere for his views and his methods. It has often seemed that people believe that he is doing this out of a personal need. That may be true, or it may not. I can't tell as I have never met the man and I have no reasonable basis to make a judgment one way or the other.
However, at this point, it does seem that his work is paying huge dividends in protecting Linux as well as GNU. Of course, his detractors aren't very likely to admit that this is the case and may point out that his aim wasn't to protect Linux.
That doesn't matter. RMS and the FSF were working to ensure that free software was free from exactly the sort of problem that SCO has created. They have been diligent to the extreme about licensing and this may may well be the ONLY reason that Linux will not be encumbered with a $1399 tax paid to SCO. The fact that IBM is relying heavily on the GPL in their defense speaks volumes about their work, and about the need for to protect open source from attacks of this sort in the future. I suspect that most of us are a lot more familiar with the GPL than we were six months ago, and we are all taking a lot more interest in ensuring that the open source code we write is protected appropriately.
Egan Moglen, RMS, everyone at the FSF, thank you. A donation will be on its way today.
Do you honestly think the world revolves around the type of open source license that people use, and that this news merits a place on Apple's home page? Of course Apple won't make a big splash about this -- it's simply isn't relevant to the vast, vast majority of people who go to the Apple web site looking for information about the company and their products. It's interesting only to programming geeks like us, and even then only to a limited subset of Apple interested geeks.
Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
SCO is presumed to know what it does with its own property. It isn't like a person who can say "I forgot" or "I didn't realize". A company can't sell a product and then say "oops, we didn't mean to include xxx, so please pay us for those bits we didn't intend to include." That is equivalent to saying "we were negligent, and because of that you owe us money." It won't fly.
SCO can't profit from it's own negligence, whether it be their lack of knowledge of what they were selling, their lack of understanding of the GPL, or anything else that the court deems they should have known.
Just as there are many types of medical experts so there are many types of lawyer. A professor of law such as Eben Moglen is very different from a trial lawyer.
Which would I rather have? It depends, just as with medicine. If I've just been diagnosed with cancer I'd like to see an oncologist, if I've just had an axe embedded in my head I'd rather see a trauma specialist.
Eben Moglen is an expert in his field and works quietly (and by all accounts very effectively) behind the scenes to ensure that the best possible legal framework is in place to protect the FSF code. You will note that no FSF code has not been attacked by SCO. A professor of law would definitely be best for drawing up licenses and covering all the bases.
On the other hand, a trial lawyer would be a far better person to have if you are about to accuse someone of breaking a license or have to defend such an action.
Both have their place. Being a professor of law doesn't mean he has to win court cases, it means he understands the law, can interpret the law, and can protect his clients appropriately. You will also note that SCO have not attacked the GPL, they just claim that their release of "protected" code was inadvertant and therefore not covered by the GPL.
You must be new here. And a little ignorant to boot.
The author of the article (Egen Moglen) is an extremely well known IP lawyer. He has been the general counsel of the FSF for about 10 years. He has contributed more the Open Software movement than it's likely you ever will, and by several magnitudes. Go listen to him talk sometime, you may find it educational, he's a Very Neat Person.
The typo you complained about was made by the guy who alerted/. to the article, not by the author of the article referenced as you appear to believe.
I just spent two weeks in Britain. Nothing happened to my iTunes purchased files, they were not deleted, they were not changed in any way, and I had no problem playing anything. This story is completely false.
The story is based on an email (not an article) by Shawn Yeager, a guy who has worked for Microsoft and has developed a competitive product named MusicDirect. So either this guy was very confused or he was deliberately trying to hurt his competitor.
If it was the latter, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, thanks to Slashdot running this on the main page. It seems that the best thing to do is:
1. Write inflamatory email 2. Alert SlashDot to the existance of said email 3. Wait until SlashDot posts it on front page 4. Profit!!!
This was not responsible reporting by SlashDot. Mud sticks, regardless of whether it should have been thrown, and by its irresponsible reporting SlashDot was being used to throw FUD around. This is the sort of thing I expect from SCO, not from SlashDot.
If I received a notice tomorrow saying that Linux (the kernel) was compromised legally and couldn't be used, I'd start planning to move people to another OS (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MacOSX, Solaris, etc.)
If I received a similar notice about GNU code, I'd panic. In truth, the FSF and GNU are vastly more important to companies running non-Windows systems than the Linux folks. I'm not running down Linux, but I am very, very thankful that the FSF does own the copyrights and has made a good faith effort prevent their code being polluted.
Other World Computing made this allegation in a press release but AFAIK they have never produced any emails, letters, or other documentation to support it. I haven't heard of any other company that has alleged that Apple is using the DMCA.
Surely a huge company like OWC wouldn't stretch things slightly because they are pissed at Apple and allege something that they know that many people would find outrageous. Na, they would never do that...
This is not the first time that Proclus (aka Dr. Michael Love) has taken issue with Apple. Last year he put a large headline on the gnu-darwin web site stating Apple was using the DMCA - with the implication that this is a heinous thing to do (which it might be if it is true). That headline is still on the site.
What happened is that Other World Computing alleged that Apple had threatened them under the DMCA (although they never offered any proof such as emails or letters) to prevent OWC including a piece of software with their DVD writer that circumvented a restriction on the use of third party hardware with Apple's iDVD software. OWC were naturally unhappy at this and stated that Apple had threatened them with action under the DMCA.
Proclus took this and ran with it. He ignored the issue that this was an unsupported allegation, and he blasted Apple for using the DMCA and said some very harsh words about Apple on his site. I wrote to him pointing out that that in fact Apple was entitled to prevent others using their copyrighted programs in ways they don't approve of, that the DMCA is not required to prevent this type of issue, and that the use of the DMCA (a very loaded term) was an allegation without any published evidence. Proclus wrote back to me saying that that the onus was on Apple to show they had NOT used the DMCA as OWC had alleged they had. I guess Proclus' docterate isn't in law....
From his emails I gained the distinct impression that that this is a man with an axe to grind. I can't help thinking this latest issue is just more of the same. I also have to wonder why he is so involved with gnu-darwin since he seems to dislike Apple so much. Perhaps he will learn some day not to bite the hand that feeds him, or maybe he should have found a different area to focus his energies.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, fanboys? If it isn't true, explain to me why what are free utilities for Windows machines are $20-$30 extortionware for the Mac.
ummm, well, that's a new one. I live daily in a mixed world of Windows, Macs, and Unix systems. Yes, you might be able to find the occasional product that is free under Windows and not free on the Mac, but honestly I would place the likelihood somewhere around the same level as pigs flying out of my arse every Saturday evening at 11pm.
I suggest you install Windows XP and place a DVD in your player. Then read the dialog telling you about companies that will sell you a suitable product to play that DVD thoughtfully provided by Microsoft. Of course, on a Mac, Apple just provided the application to play it.
The general rule is for everything to be shareware or a product on Windows. I have come across approximately zero free products that I would want to use. I daily use half a dozen products that people have written and made freely available on the Mac, or have been provided with the Mac operating system and are extra cost items under Windows. And let's not forget that the Mac OS is a lot less expensive than Windows XP despite providing more capabilities.
Are you saying that Mac users are in some way more ignorant than users of other systems of the fact that programmers are needed, or that Mac users are more ignorant of programming than other other computer users, or....?
Are you saying that users need to know about programming to run their systems? Do I need to know how my car engine works to drive?
On the face of it, your comment appears to make little sense.
Yes, there are a number of runtime architectures. There is one standard executable (Mach-O) and a number of legacy architectures that needed to be supported to allow for easier migration. Yes, the file system stuff can be messy if you (as a developer) don't take the time to read a page or two in the documentation - and not obscure pages at that. Overall, it's a whole lot less messy than when MicroSoft changed from a 16 bit to a 32 bit architecture or modifying an app from Windows 95 to NT, and it's a lot easier to develop for Mac OS X than for multiple Linux and Unix standards.
Quartz is a resource hog, it goes with the territory. Features have a cost, particularly when the featureset includes items like translucency. I do wish we could switch off some of the bells and whistles... However, Jaguar is much improved over previous versions, and I've no doubt that things will continue to get better.
Nothing is perfect, but at least Apple seems to have a vision of where it wants the OS to go, and it's getting there.
As far as GUI's are concerned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many people don't like standard Aqua, including me, which is why I run the Silverfox theme. And I run a three button mouse with a wheel, and it worked out of the box. And telling any non-computer user how to use any application on any OS over the phone is an exercise in frustration. Trust me on this point:-)
The Mac is about DOING WORK, not worrying about recompiling your kernel or wondering why that last install caused three other apps to become unstable. It's for users more than geeks. The Unix stuff is all there, all very accessible and with lots of opportunity to play geek, but Apple correctly realizes that this is not where it will make money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I see what this Heise guy (SCO's lawyer) might be saying, and it's possible that he actually has a semi-valid point, well semi-valid enough that perhaps it can stand a comment.
1. I have read in several places today that every valid software license must allow you to make one copy for backup purposes. If the license does not allow this, it is not valid. Assume this is true for a moment.
2. The GPL says that if you do not adhere to the license, you have no license to copy.
Could his argument be that because in some circumstances you have no right to copy, then the license does not conform to point 1 above and therefore is not valid?
I think this argument fails if the GPL is a distribution license. However, it might (in the hands of a clever trial lawyer) be a problem if the GPL is a license to use. Which I don't think it is.
A second reason that the argument might fail is because the authorization to copy applies unless you break the license. It would be difficult to argue that a person breaking the license causes the license to become invalid.
I guess that Michael needs to learn to review previous stories - this story, complete with the details about FSF approving but not recommending it, was covered in an article three days ago.
In any case, I can't really imagine the FSF recommending any license other than their very own GPL, now the darling of IBM and the open source movement in general. Not that it isn't deserving of this adoration, as it may have saved Linux from SCO.
From the article on the Lycoris web site:
Redmond, WA - August 6, 2003 - Lycoris revealed today that its flagship product, Desktop/LX, is based on Caldera OpenLinux, which Lycoris has a license to develop and distribute directly from SCO. The terms of this previous agreement lock in Lycoris's ability to alter the source code of the Caldera OpenLinux product, which it has done extensively and release the results as Open Source to the public.
Now, as I understand it, Linux is just the kernel that is distributed ONLY under the GPL. So if Lycoris has purchased a license from SCO that covers Linux and is more restrictive than the GPL, then haven't SCO just lost the right to distribute Linux (as IBM suggests)? More to the point, doesn't that also mean that Lycoris have also lost the right to distribute Linux under the GPL? But Linux can't be distributed except under the GPL, so isn't Lycoris sorta screwed?
I expect I'll get modded down for this. It seems that IBM is relying quite a bit on the GPL for their defense and counter-suit against SCO. There seems little doubt that SCO are trying hard to kill Linux, and their motivation is obviously suspect.
/. and elsewhere for his views and his methods. It has often seemed that people believe that he is doing this out of a personal need. That may be true, or it may not. I can't tell as I have never met the man and I have no reasonable basis to make a judgment one way or the other.
I have to wonder how Richard Stallman is reacting to these latest events. Egan Moglen also. It's starting to look like the FSF (who created the GPL, as I understand it) may be a savior for Linux.
Over the years I have watched RMS being reviled in
However, at this point, it does seem that his work is paying huge dividends in protecting Linux as well as GNU. Of course, his detractors aren't very likely to admit that this is the case and may point out that his aim wasn't to protect Linux.
That doesn't matter. RMS and the FSF were working to ensure that free software was free from exactly the sort of problem that SCO has created. They have been diligent to the extreme about licensing and this may may well be the ONLY reason that Linux will not be encumbered with a $1399 tax paid to SCO. The fact that IBM is relying heavily on the GPL in their defense speaks volumes about their work, and about the need for to protect open source from attacks of this sort in the future. I suspect that most of us are a lot more familiar with the GPL than we were six months ago, and we are all taking a lot more interest in ensuring that the open source code we write is protected appropriately.
Egan Moglen, RMS, everyone at the FSF, thank you. A donation will be on its way today.
Do you honestly think the world revolves around the type of open source license that people use, and that this news merits a place on Apple's home page? Of course Apple won't make a big splash about this -- it's simply isn't relevant to the vast, vast majority of people who go to the Apple web site looking for information about the company and their products. It's interesting only to programming geeks like us, and even then only to a limited subset of Apple interested geeks.
Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.
Ummm, what's wrong with the ones we have? Dick Chaney (operating a presidential puppet successfully since 2000), John Ashcroft, et al.
Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
SCO is presumed to know what it does with its own property. It isn't like a person who can say "I forgot" or "I didn't realize". A company can't sell a product and then say "oops, we didn't mean to include xxx, so please pay us for those bits we didn't intend to include." That is equivalent to saying "we were negligent, and because of that you owe us money." It won't fly.
SCO can't profit from it's own negligence, whether it be their lack of knowledge of what they were selling, their lack of understanding of the GPL, or anything else that the court deems they should have known.
Just as there are many types of medical experts so there are many types of lawyer. A professor of law such as Eben Moglen is very different from a trial lawyer.
Which would I rather have? It depends, just as with medicine. If I've just been diagnosed with cancer I'd like to see an oncologist, if I've just had an axe embedded in my head I'd rather see a trauma specialist.
Eben Moglen is an expert in his field and works quietly (and by all accounts very effectively) behind the scenes to ensure that the best possible legal framework is in place to protect the FSF code. You will note that no FSF code has not been attacked by SCO. A professor of law would definitely be best for drawing up licenses and covering all the bases.
On the other hand, a trial lawyer would be a far better person to have if you are about to accuse someone of breaking a license or have to defend such an action.
Both have their place. Being a professor of law doesn't mean he has to win court cases, it means he understands the law, can interpret the law, and can protect his clients appropriately. You will also note that SCO have not attacked the GPL, they just claim that their release of "protected" code was inadvertant and therefore not covered by the GPL.
You must be new here. And a little ignorant to boot.
/. to the article, not by the author of the article referenced as you appear to believe.
The author of the article (Egen Moglen) is an extremely well known IP lawyer. He has been the general counsel of the FSF for about 10 years. He has contributed more the Open Software movement than it's likely you ever will, and by several magnitudes. Go listen to him talk sometime, you may find it educational, he's a Very Neat Person.
The typo you complained about was made by the guy who alerted
I just spent two weeks in Britain. Nothing happened to my iTunes purchased files, they were not deleted, they were not changed in any way, and I had no problem playing anything. This story is completely false.
The story is based on an email (not an article) by Shawn Yeager, a guy who has worked for Microsoft and has developed a competitive product named MusicDirect. So either this guy was very confused or he was deliberately trying to hurt his competitor.
If it was the latter, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, thanks to Slashdot running this on the main page. It seems that the best thing to do is:
1. Write inflamatory email
2. Alert SlashDot to the existance of said email
3. Wait until SlashDot posts it on front page
4. Profit!!!
This was not responsible reporting by SlashDot. Mud sticks, regardless of whether it should have been thrown, and by its irresponsible reporting SlashDot was being used to throw FUD around. This is the sort of thing I expect from SCO, not from SlashDot.
If I received a notice tomorrow saying that Linux (the kernel) was compromised legally and couldn't be used, I'd start planning to move people to another OS (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MacOSX, Solaris, etc.)
If I received a similar notice about GNU code, I'd panic. In truth, the FSF and GNU are vastly more important to companies running non-Windows systems than the Linux folks. I'm not running down Linux, but I am very, very thankful that the FSF does own the copyrights and has made a good faith effort prevent their code being polluted.
Other World Computing made this allegation in a press release but AFAIK they have never produced any emails, letters, or other documentation to support it. I haven't heard of any other company that has alleged that Apple is using the DMCA.
Surely a huge company like OWC wouldn't stretch things slightly because they are pissed at Apple and allege something that they know that many people would find outrageous. Na, they would never do that...
This is not the first time that Proclus (aka Dr. Michael Love) has taken issue with Apple. Last year he put a large headline on the gnu-darwin web site stating Apple was using the DMCA - with the implication that this is a heinous thing to do (which it might be if it is true). That headline is still on the site.
What happened is that Other World Computing alleged that Apple had threatened them under the DMCA (although they never offered any proof such as emails or letters) to prevent OWC including a piece of software with their DVD writer that circumvented a restriction on the use of third party hardware with Apple's iDVD software. OWC were naturally unhappy at this and stated that Apple had threatened them with action under the DMCA.
Proclus took this and ran with it. He ignored the issue that this was an unsupported allegation, and he blasted Apple for using the DMCA and said some very harsh words about Apple on his site. I wrote to him pointing out that that in fact Apple was entitled to prevent others using their copyrighted programs in ways they don't approve of, that the DMCA is not required to prevent this type of issue, and that the use of the DMCA (a very loaded term) was an allegation without any published evidence. Proclus wrote back to me saying that that the onus was on Apple to show they had NOT used the DMCA as OWC had alleged they had. I guess Proclus' docterate isn't in law....
From his emails I gained the distinct impression that that this is a man with an axe to grind. I can't help thinking this latest issue is just more of the same. I also have to wonder why he is so involved with gnu-darwin since he seems to dislike Apple so much. Perhaps he will learn some day not to bite the hand that feeds him, or maybe he should have found a different area to focus his energies.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, fanboys? If it isn't true, explain to me why what are free utilities for Windows machines are $20-$30 extortionware for the Mac.
ummm, well, that's a new one. I live daily in a mixed world of Windows, Macs, and Unix systems. Yes, you might be able to find the occasional product that is free under Windows and not free on the Mac, but honestly I would place the likelihood somewhere around the same level as pigs flying out of my arse every Saturday evening at 11pm.
I suggest you install Windows XP and place a DVD in your player. Then read the dialog telling you about companies that will sell you a suitable product to play that DVD thoughtfully provided by Microsoft. Of course, on a Mac, Apple just provided the application to play it.
The general rule is for everything to be shareware or a product on Windows. I have come across approximately zero free products that I would want to use. I daily use half a dozen products that people have written and made freely available on the Mac, or have been provided with the Mac operating system and are extra cost items under Windows. And let's not forget that the Mac OS is a lot less expensive than Windows XP despite providing more capabilities.
Are you saying that Mac users are in some way more ignorant than users of other systems of the fact that programmers are needed, or that Mac users are more ignorant of programming than other other computer users, or ....?
Are you saying that users need to know about programming to run their systems? Do I need to know how my car engine works to drive?
On the face of it, your comment appears to make little sense.
Yes, there are a number of runtime architectures. There is one standard executable (Mach-O) and a number of legacy architectures that needed to be supported to allow for easier migration. Yes, the file system stuff can be messy if you (as a developer) don't take the time to read a page or two in the documentation - and not obscure pages at that. Overall, it's a whole lot less messy than when MicroSoft changed from a 16 bit to a 32 bit architecture or modifying an app from Windows 95 to NT, and it's a lot easier to develop for Mac OS X than for multiple Linux and Unix standards.
:-)
Quartz is a resource hog, it goes with the territory. Features have a cost, particularly when the featureset includes items like translucency. I do wish we could switch off some of the bells and whistles... However, Jaguar is much improved over previous versions, and I've no doubt that things will continue to get better.
Nothing is perfect, but at least Apple seems to have a vision of where it wants the OS to go, and it's getting there.
As far as GUI's are concerned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many people don't like standard Aqua, including me, which is why I run the Silverfox theme. And I run a three button mouse with a wheel, and it worked out of the box. And telling any non-computer user how to use any application on any OS over the phone is an exercise in frustration. Trust me on this point
The Mac is about DOING WORK, not worrying about recompiling your kernel or wondering why that last install caused three other apps to become unstable. It's for users more than geeks. The Unix stuff is all there, all very accessible and with lots of opportunity to play geek, but Apple correctly realizes that this is not where it will make money.