I think $12 per year is in the low range of what is possible. In fact, it borders on the "my time and work filling in the credit card number will cost me more than that" level. I think I'd actually be less likely to subscribe for such a small amount, as I would mostly consider it a nuisance charge aimed at annoying me rather than to support a legitimate buisness and worthwhile service.
$60-$120 per year is more in a reasonable range, if it also includes the ability to download mp3s.
Of course, overseas labour will eventually become more expensive as demand outstrips supply and standards of living rise.
And on the positive side, the current US administration seems to be well on the way to really collapsing the dollar against other currencies. That might mean the average low to mid range wage American may have to leave the car at home and ride public transportation due to gasoline prices, but it will be a good way to stimulate employment levels.
Not at all. The resulting code must be distributed _under the terms of the GPL_. The GPL code remains under GPL, the BSD code remains under BSD, and the combined work is guided by the terms of the most restrictive license in the combination.
BSD code can get distributed under pretty much any terms, and thus the BSD license wont interfere. The GPL code only requires that the terms of the GPL are fulfilled on the combined work, and as the BSD license doesnt place further restrictions on the combined code, that means you can distribute the GPL code together with the BSD code.
Relevant sections of the GPL:
2....
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program....
That means, the GPL only governs the right to distribute the GPL part of the code as long as that part is combined with the other work. The other work is still governed by its own license, but that license has to be able to fulfill the terms of the GPL to allow you to distribute them together.
Sure you can. There is nothing in the GPL preventing you from using GPLed snippets in your BSD (w/o ad clause) or MIT licensed code.
Of course, the GPL snippets will remain under the GPL, so if someone else wants to take your BSD+GPL snippets and release them under the Total Proprietary Dominance License version 32.5, then they'll have to remove the GPL snippets in the code.
As far as I can tell, the term "fair use" is widely misused. "Fair use" applies to your right to quote half a page out of Harry Potter for your criticism of it, or your right to create the DomiMatrix parody of Matrix.
Wether or not you have the right to make any copies for personal use has very little to do with the Fair Use provisions in copyright law.
Google should not index anything that is not publically available. When I get a search result I expect to be able to read that search result or it's worthless (and I dont really care if registration is free or not).
If the NYT cares so much about who can read their site they should block google and ask the NSA to archive it instead...
Without the middleman that wouldnt be a problem. The middleman today is what makes it expensive to get heard because they'll pay for ensuring that only their music gets heard.
It's far cheaper to produce decent quality material these days; well within reach of most smalltime bands.
Without the RIAA, maybe those radio djs would have to go back to making their own playlists by doing some research or listening to mp3's sent to them by the artists... oh, horror of horrors.
"Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get.50 cents to 1.00dollar per album."
Dont forget that those 50 cents to 1 dollar per album gets discounted from the advance which is used to record the actual album (in the company owned price-inflated studios, of course). So after selling maybe 500k to a million albums, then the artist may begin seeing those lucky.50 cents, rather than "You've sold 250k albums. Your part of that makes 125k dollars. You now only owe us 375k dollars.".
Not that many artists ever get any money at all out of the CD sales.
I'd love to see the artists getting paid. The RIAA companies, through a clever combination of slavery contracts, racketeering, payola and deceit are the main thing preventing artists from getting paid. For most artists it will be a cold day in hell before they get a single cent out of any CD sales.
Then again, nobody accuses the RIAA of having a sense of decency...
I'd suggest you recommend to your superiors to stop playing both sides of the issue or Sun may very well end up doing badly regardless of the outcome.
The dedication that Sun has to its own Linux initative has been doubious before this, and this doesnt help the situation. While Sun can go on retreating up the ladder into the high end that is in the end not a situation that will benefit Sun, considering the associated loss of application support, even if it can actually manage to stay in the game for the high end. Sun needs a lowend Linux market presence to remain a player, and the competition in that market from HP and IBM is deadly. The slightest doubts and you're out.
You guys should also take the opportunity to explain to Mr Smith of the article in question that Suns SCO licenses do not mean a thing for Suns own Linux distribution. While they may get Sun off the hook from SCO's part, any license that is not compatible with the GPL will merely kill the distribution from the GPL end instead, so any license from SCO to distribute Linux with any alleged SCO IP is completely worthless.
SCO has made allegations that Linux contains SCO intellectual property. As SCO is distributing Linux, and the GPL only allows distribution of GPL code as long as all parts of the combined work are distributable under the terms of the GPL that means that any alleged SCO intellectual property included in Linux is distributable under the terms of the GPL. Otherwise SCO would be in violation of the GPL and engaging in copyright violation because they would distributing Linux without permission.
It has no bearing on the SCO vs. IBM case, but it means that SCO's allegations with regard to Linux are irrelevant.
It also means that Suns claims as far as their Unix license would affect their Linux distribution are also irrelevant. Sun can have as many licenses as they wish from SCO to distribute SCO IP in Sun Linux, but the GPL itself does not allow distribution of Sun Linux in that case, unless the whole is distributable under the terms of the GPL.
SCO attempting to sue anyone for possession or distribution of the code in question would result in them violating the GPL on the rest of the Linux code they distribute. The GPL does not allow you to distribute proprietary code as part of GPL code, and so SCO would leave themselves wide open to copyright infringement cases if they try to sue anyone for distributing code they themselves have distributed under the GPL.
Because they would get counterslapped with a criminal copyright infringement case from every Linux distributor with code in the kernel. If SCO tries to claim that they have code in the Linux kernel that they themselves have distributed that is not under the GPL then they have been distributing the rest of the Linux code without permission (and are still doing so).
They cant go after anyone but IBM for anything or they would admit to criminal copyright violation by that very action.
That analogy is flawed. Restrictions in who you can sell to would be restrictions in the rights you ordinarily have under the law, which is entirely different from the GPL.
A better analogy would be if you rent a house and wish to tear down a wall. The landlord could require that you adhere to certain standards or even employ certain contractors to do the work, as you would not ordinarily have the right to tear down a wall in property you do not own.
The GPL sets the terms under which you may do things you're not legally allowed to do otherwise. This is entirely different from restricting you from doing something you are otherwise legally entitled to do.
In both cases you need the permission of the actual owner to engage in what you wish to do. Without that permission you just cant do it.
"And I think, in all honesty, that the GPL has never seriously been tested because people on both sides fear testing the GPL - one side because they're afraid it will win, and the other side because they're afraid it might lose."
Not really. People on the infringing side fear testing the GPL because they lose wether they win or lose. If they lose they have to follow the terms of the GPL, if they win they still dont gain the right to distribute someone elses copyrighted code.
The FSF side has not been the least afraid they might lose. They have tended to approach the enforcement aspect out of court first, as compliance with the GPL has been considered more important than nailing someone to the wall tho. This far that strategy has been very successful.
A GPL violation automatically becomes a copyright violation as the GPL is what grants you the right to distribute copyrighted code. The question of wether or not you may distribute copyrighted code without permission has been very well tested in court. Any infringer faces the risk of going up against well established precedent and criminal charges for copyright violation.
It's worse than that for SCO. As long as they are shipping updates and such to their customers for openlinux they cant even cease to distribute the code or they'd be in violation of the GPL, nor can they restrict the terms on the code in question (and the source is still available for ftp). If they have contracts with customers that could be difficult to do, especially since they would have to say they wanted to break the contract because they're having internal intellectual property disputes within the company and arent sure they have the right to ship the code they claim to own...
They're really managing amazingly well at shooting themselves in the foot.
You're not quite correct. The GPL is actually not based on the same law that makes other software licenses valid. Most licenses for proprietary software are based on contract law, as they often attempt to restrict what you're allowed to do with the software beyond copyright limitations. This is what makes the whole "agreement" part necessary. Contract violations are rarely criminal, usually entail damages only, and are enforced in court by civil lawsuits.
The GPL on the other hand is not entirely based on contract law; if it were, it could theoretically be challenged in court for some form of gain, and would quite possibly have been long ago. Instead, it deals entirely within the realm of allowing you to do things that you are not allowed to do within copyright law. As the GPL is the only thing granting you the right to modify and distribute the software you cannot distribute the software without adhering to the terms of the GPL (unless you obtain specific permission to do so from the copyright owner). Violating the GPL means you've violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted material without permission and that possibly means a criminal violation (depending on local law and things like wether it was done for profit), with entirely different consequences. This is one of the reasons you dont see any cases of companies challenging the GPL; few lawyers, I believe, would recommend engaging in something that may very well end up with their clients broke and in jail (and hey, wanna bet the RIAA and MPAA will try to lobby in the death penalty for copyright violations soon?).
Due to these differences the GPL is probably more "valid" than most ordinary proprietary software licenses, and violations can carry far heavier penalties, depending on copyright law in the country where it took place.
Can you explain why you think it would not be enforcable? What legal aspect would give anyone the legal right to distribute copyrighted code licensed under the GPL?
The SCO vs IBM case has some bearing on it, but the cases are very different. Lets look at the cases in a simplified way:
GPL:
You have copyrighted GPL software A.
Then you have "derived code" B
The GPL says that you may distribute A if, and only if you fulfill the terms of the GPL, and that means B being licensed with terms as free or freer than the GPL. To distribute (A+B) you must fulfill the GPL. You can still distribute B in any way you wish, as you hold the copyright to it and may license it in any way you want, but if B is "derived" from A it may not make much sense to do so. Still, the GPL does not claim any rights whatsoever to control B, only the terms under which you may distribute A, enforced through copyright.
SCO (in the case of some of their allegations):
You have SCO software A.
You have IBM copyrighted work B.
You have Linux kernel C.
IBM has a right to distribute A, licensed from SCO. They have a right to distribute (A+B). However, SCO tries to claim that they have a right to limit IBMs distribution of B by itself, or in the combination (B+C), something entirely different from what the GPL does. The mechanism of law under which they wish to limit IBMs right to their own code B is unclear. Unlike the GPL they are trying to extend control to code they do not hold any copyright to.
Again, the GPL allows you to do things not allowed under copyright, under its own conditions. SCO tries to stop IBM from doing things they do have a right to do under copyright. That means that SCO has to convince a court in a civil case that they should have the right to control code they do not own, while the GPL automatically falls back on copyright which is well tested in court as it never tries to extend beyond copyright.
"I am not speaking sarcastically, I honestly believe that, even in US, GPL is not exactly enforceable."
Are you seriously suggesting that copyright law is not enforcable? I think you'd get some input on that from everyone from the Buisness Software Alliance, ranging through your local police station to the DA to the US Supreme Court.
If they dont follow the terms of the GPL they are engaging in criminal copyright violation, as the GPL is the only thing granting them permission to distribute the code, if, and only if, they follow the terms of the GPL.
That means the right to take code and distribute it is enforcable by police and criminal courts, with attached fines of thousands of dollars per copy plus jail time on top of that.
MS, IBM and Oracle may have the power to resist a small civil lawsuit indefinitely, but not even they have the power to withstand a clearcut case of copyright violation, any more than any other huge corporation could get away with running Windows without paying.
It's just not a case of civil lawsuits, it's a case of criminal law, and the government has a notoriously large budget to pay for the prosecution of criminals even if the wronged party may not have it.
So breaking the GPL is going to put you in exactly the same kind of trouble as not filing tax properly or making five million copies of Windows XP and selling it.
"We don't need it anymore, and it's a hassle for huge parts of the free software world."
We dont? I myself havent noticed any significant improvement in the ethics of software companies, nor any massive movement towards supporting the advancement of the commons over the advancement of the individual corporation, nor any tendencies towards relaxing copyright, or consensus to avoid security through obscurity, or increased desire on the part of corporations to solve individual problems for specific users in COTS software, or any major move away from Embrace and Extend tactics, proprietary extensions, vendor lockin and bait'n'switch tactics.
In fact, I'd say free software is more needed than ever, and that free software needs all the protection it can be given. The GPL builds a community of software that is protected and guaranteed Free.
The legal "threats" are a consequence of copyright law, and will have no power when copyright law has no power. When copyright law has no power I'll be happy to agree we dont need the GPL anymore.
You appear to be misunderstanding the so called 'viral' aspect of the GPL. The GPL affects the code that is under the GPL, and only that code. You may write any code you want and do anything you want with that code, including distributing it, wether or not it depends on GPL software.
You do not ever 'need' to GPL your work. You need to abide by the terms of the GPL to obtain permission to distribute the work that already is under the GPL, but which apart from the GPL is already governed by copyright law. You can easiest fulfill those terms by placing your own software under the GPL, but there's nothing preventing you from fulfilling the terms by placing your code under for example the MIT X11 license.
However, if you do not want to abide by the terms of the GPL then you cannot distribute the GPL software. If your own code is useless and worthless without the GPL components, then, well, that's too bad.
As it is copyright that governs the right to distribute anything copyrighted, and the GPL governs the permissions to do things not allowed in copyright law, it doesnt matter if there's a conflict. The 'viral' nature is entirely governed by copyright law; either you have permissions to distribute the GPL code or you dont. If you abide by the GPL you do, if you dont you dont.
If the GPL gets overturned, or invalidated in court, well it doesnt change the fact that you still dont have any right to distribute the GPL code.
And, by the way, as API use is regarded as derivative work, as well as things like crt0.o that gets inserted into all binaries by the compiler, that's the reason these things are usually not under the GPL but rather LGPL or similar more relaxed licenses.
So, if you write a virus and give to someone, telling them it's a new neat editor, and it destroys all their data you wouldnt be legally liable for that?
You can always be held liable for deliberate sabotage or gross negligence, in pretty much any jurisdiction, no matter if there's a contract or not, and even with liability limitation clauses.
If you cant live with that you probably shouldnt be writing and even giving away software you know will damage peoples data.
That German law is explicit about the fact that you cannot limit some kinds of liability isnt really unique (many european countries have the similar laws), nor are you really protected against that kind of liability in the US either.
It isnt really a big problem for free software anyway, unless you're into deliberately screwing peoples systems up.
I consider shorting stock a very dangerous practice. While I do believe that this will end with SCO ceasing to exist as a corporate entity, the problem is it's quite hard to tell exactly when they'll be dead and buried, and wether or not the stock will go up or down until a certain point in the future due to gullible investors and their incompetent stock analysts. Can you say how long the lawsuit will take? Can you predict the near term actions and statements of IBM's lawyers and the courts decisions? As long as there are people actually listening to, and believing, SCO's press releases it gets very hard to guess where the stock is going over the next few months, or even year, even while one may be certain they're going to lose.
Just because a stock is massively inflated due to hot air, groundless claims and unfounded accusations it doesnt mean it cant get even more inflated before collapsing. And in this case, how long it is going to stay inflated depends mostly on timing in the legal system and the psychology of investors, rather than any hard facts.
As it would be criminal law, rather than civil lawsuit, I think you pretty much could get armed feds in black helos doing the job for you. Think 'illicit fly-by-night mass copyright violations'. Pretty much like an operation cloning and selling popular software in a seedy part of town.
Of course you're right someone has to press charges, but pretty much anyone who has copyright to any part of the kernel could file and press charges. I'm sure the BSA would be happy to help...
SCO could get off the hook tho, by confirming that they have released the alleged SCO code in Linux under the GPL and quit their raving...
Slashdot Mirror
I think $12 per year is in the low range of what is possible. In fact, it borders on the "my time and work filling in the credit card number will cost me more than that" level. I think I'd actually be less likely to subscribe for such a small amount, as I would mostly consider it a nuisance charge aimed at annoying me rather than to support a legitimate buisness and worthwhile service.
$60-$120 per year is more in a reasonable range, if it also includes the ability to download mp3s.
Of course, overseas labour will eventually become more expensive as demand outstrips supply and standards of living rise.
And on the positive side, the current US administration seems to be well on the way to really collapsing the dollar against other currencies. That might mean the average low to mid range wage American may have to leave the car at home and ride public transportation due to gasoline prices, but it will be a good way to stimulate employment levels.
Not at all. The resulting code must be distributed _under the terms of the GPL_. The GPL code remains under GPL, the BSD code remains under BSD, and the combined work is guided by the terms of the most restrictive license in the combination.
...
...
BSD code can get distributed under pretty much any terms, and thus the BSD license wont interfere. The GPL code only requires that the terms of the GPL are fulfilled on the combined work, and as the BSD license doesnt place further restrictions on the combined code, that means you can distribute the GPL code together with the BSD code.
Relevant sections of the GPL:
2.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
That means, the GPL only governs the right to distribute the GPL part of the code as long as that part is combined with the other work. The other work is still governed by its own license, but that license has to be able to fulfill the terms of the GPL to allow you to distribute them together.
Sure you can. There is nothing in the GPL preventing you from using GPLed snippets in your BSD (w/o ad clause) or MIT licensed code.
Of course, the GPL snippets will remain under the GPL, so if someone else wants to take your BSD+GPL snippets and release them under the Total Proprietary Dominance License version 32.5, then they'll have to remove the GPL snippets in the code.
As far as I can tell, the term "fair use" is widely misused. "Fair use" applies to your right to quote half a page out of Harry Potter for your criticism of it, or your right to create the DomiMatrix parody of Matrix.
Wether or not you have the right to make any copies for personal use has very little to do with the Fair Use provisions in copyright law.
Google should not index anything that is not publically available. When I get a search result I expect to be able to read that search result or it's worthless (and I dont really care if registration is free or not).
If the NYT cares so much about who can read their site they should block google and ask the NSA to archive it instead...
Without the middleman that wouldnt be a problem. The middleman today is what makes it expensive to get heard because they'll pay for ensuring that only their music gets heard.
It's far cheaper to produce decent quality material these days; well within reach of most smalltime bands.
Without the RIAA, maybe those radio djs would have to go back to making their own playlists by doing some research or listening to mp3's sent to them by the artists... oh, horror of horrors.
A huge loss compared to what? Even a few people paying will still give them more money than they'd get out of a RIAA contract.
"Secondly out of a fifteen dollar album an artist would be lucky to get .50 cents to 1.00dollar per album."
.50 cents, rather than "You've sold 250k albums. Your part of that makes 125k dollars. You now only owe us 375k dollars.".
Dont forget that those 50 cents to 1 dollar per album gets discounted from the advance which is used to record the actual album (in the company owned price-inflated studios, of course). So after selling maybe 500k to a million albums, then the artist may begin seeing those lucky
Not that many artists ever get any money at all out of the CD sales.
I'd love to see the artists getting paid. The RIAA companies, through a clever combination of slavery contracts, racketeering, payola and deceit are the main thing preventing artists from getting paid. For most artists it will be a cold day in hell before they get a single cent out of any CD sales.
Then again, nobody accuses the RIAA of having a sense of decency...
I'd suggest you recommend to your superiors to stop playing both sides of the issue or Sun may very well end up doing badly regardless of the outcome.
The dedication that Sun has to its own Linux initative has been doubious before this, and this doesnt help the situation. While Sun can go on retreating up the ladder into the high end that is in the end not a situation that will benefit Sun, considering the associated loss of application support, even if it can actually manage to stay in the game for the high end. Sun needs a lowend Linux market presence to remain a player, and the competition in that market from HP and IBM is deadly. The slightest doubts and you're out.
You guys should also take the opportunity to explain to Mr Smith of the article in question that Suns SCO licenses do not mean a thing for Suns own Linux distribution. While they may get Sun off the hook from SCO's part, any license that is not compatible with the GPL will merely kill the distribution from the GPL end instead, so any license from SCO to distribute Linux with any alleged SCO IP is completely worthless.
SCO has made allegations that Linux contains SCO intellectual property. As SCO is distributing Linux, and the GPL only allows distribution of GPL code as long as all parts of the combined work are distributable under the terms of the GPL that means that any alleged SCO intellectual property included in Linux is distributable under the terms of the GPL. Otherwise SCO would be in violation of the GPL and engaging in copyright violation because they would distributing Linux without permission.
It has no bearing on the SCO vs. IBM case, but it means that SCO's allegations with regard to Linux are irrelevant.
It also means that Suns claims as far as their Unix license would affect their Linux distribution are also irrelevant. Sun can have as many licenses as they wish from SCO to distribute SCO IP in Sun Linux, but the GPL itself does not allow distribution of Sun Linux in that case, unless the whole is distributable under the terms of the GPL.
SCO attempting to sue anyone for possession or distribution of the code in question would result in them violating the GPL on the rest of the Linux code they distribute. The GPL does not allow you to distribute proprietary code as part of GPL code, and so SCO would leave themselves wide open to copyright infringement cases if they try to sue anyone for distributing code they themselves have distributed under the GPL.
Because they would get counterslapped with a criminal copyright infringement case from every Linux distributor with code in the kernel. If SCO tries to claim that they have code in the Linux kernel that they themselves have distributed that is not under the GPL then they have been distributing the rest of the Linux code without permission (and are still doing so).
They cant go after anyone but IBM for anything or they would admit to criminal copyright violation by that very action.
That analogy is flawed. Restrictions in who you can sell to would be restrictions in the rights you ordinarily have under the law, which is entirely different from the GPL.
A better analogy would be if you rent a house and wish to tear down a wall. The landlord could require that you adhere to certain standards or even employ certain contractors to do the work, as you would not ordinarily have the right to tear down a wall in property you do not own.
The GPL sets the terms under which you may do things you're not legally allowed to do otherwise. This is entirely different from restricting you from doing something you are otherwise legally entitled to do.
In both cases you need the permission of the actual owner to engage in what you wish to do. Without that permission you just cant do it.
"And I think, in all honesty, that the GPL has never seriously been tested because people on both sides fear testing the GPL - one side because they're afraid it will win, and the other side because they're afraid it might lose."
Not really. People on the infringing side fear testing the GPL because they lose wether they win or lose. If they lose they have to follow the terms of the GPL, if they win they still dont gain the right to distribute someone elses copyrighted code.
The FSF side has not been the least afraid they might lose. They have tended to approach the enforcement aspect out of court first, as compliance with the GPL has been considered more important than nailing someone to the wall tho. This far that strategy has been very successful.
A GPL violation automatically becomes a copyright violation as the GPL is what grants you the right to distribute copyrighted code. The question of wether or not you may distribute copyrighted code without permission has been very well tested in court. Any infringer faces the risk of going up against well established precedent and criminal charges for copyright violation.
It's worse than that for SCO. As long as they are shipping updates and such to their customers for openlinux they cant even cease to distribute the code or they'd be in violation of the GPL, nor can they restrict the terms on the code in question (and the source is still available for ftp). If they have contracts with customers that could be difficult to do, especially since they would have to say they wanted to break the contract because they're having internal intellectual property disputes within the company and arent sure they have the right to ship the code they claim to own...
They're really managing amazingly well at shooting themselves in the foot.
You're not quite correct. The GPL is actually not based on the same law that makes other software licenses valid. Most licenses for proprietary software are based on contract law, as they often attempt to restrict what you're allowed to do with the software beyond copyright limitations. This is what makes the whole "agreement" part necessary. Contract violations are rarely criminal, usually entail damages only, and are enforced in court by civil lawsuits.
The GPL on the other hand is not entirely based on contract law; if it were, it could theoretically be challenged in court for some form of gain, and would quite possibly have been long ago. Instead, it deals entirely within the realm of allowing you to do things that you are not allowed to do within copyright law. As the GPL is the only thing granting you the right to modify and distribute the software you cannot distribute the software without adhering to the terms of the GPL (unless you obtain specific permission to do so from the copyright owner). Violating the GPL means you've violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted material without permission and that possibly means a criminal violation (depending on local law and things like wether it was done for profit), with entirely different consequences. This is one of the reasons you dont see any cases of companies challenging the GPL; few lawyers, I believe, would recommend engaging in something that may very well end up with their clients broke and in jail (and hey, wanna bet the RIAA and MPAA will try to lobby in the death penalty for copyright violations soon?).
Due to these differences the GPL is probably more "valid" than most ordinary proprietary software licenses, and violations can carry far heavier penalties, depending on copyright law in the country where it took place.
Can you explain why you think it would not be enforcable? What legal aspect would give anyone the legal right to distribute copyrighted code licensed under the GPL?
The SCO vs IBM case has some bearing on it, but the cases are very different. Lets look at the cases in a simplified way:
GPL:
You have copyrighted GPL software A.
Then you have "derived code" B
The GPL says that you may distribute A if, and only if you fulfill the terms of the GPL, and that means B being licensed with terms as free or freer than the GPL. To distribute (A+B) you must fulfill the GPL. You can still distribute B in any way you wish, as you hold the copyright to it and may license it in any way you want, but if B is "derived" from A it may not make much sense to do so. Still, the GPL does not claim any rights whatsoever to control B, only the terms under which you may distribute A, enforced through copyright.
SCO (in the case of some of their allegations):
You have SCO software A.
You have IBM copyrighted work B.
You have Linux kernel C.
IBM has a right to distribute A, licensed from SCO. They have a right to distribute (A+B). However, SCO tries to claim that they have a right to limit IBMs distribution of B by itself, or in the combination (B+C), something entirely different from what the GPL does. The mechanism of law under which they wish to limit IBMs right to their own code B is unclear. Unlike the GPL they are trying to extend control to code they do not hold any copyright to.
Again, the GPL allows you to do things not allowed under copyright, under its own conditions. SCO tries to stop IBM from doing things they do have a right to do under copyright. That means that SCO has to convince a court in a civil case that they should have the right to control code they do not own, while the GPL automatically falls back on copyright which is well tested in court as it never tries to extend beyond copyright.
"I am not speaking sarcastically, I honestly believe that, even in US, GPL is not exactly enforceable."
Are you seriously suggesting that copyright law is not enforcable? I think you'd get some input on that from everyone from the Buisness Software Alliance, ranging through your local police station to the DA to the US Supreme Court.
If they dont follow the terms of the GPL they are engaging in criminal copyright violation, as the GPL is the only thing granting them permission to distribute the code, if, and only if, they follow the terms of the GPL.
That means the right to take code and distribute it is enforcable by police and criminal courts, with attached fines of thousands of dollars per copy plus jail time on top of that.
MS, IBM and Oracle may have the power to resist a small civil lawsuit indefinitely, but not even they have the power to withstand a clearcut case of copyright violation, any more than any other huge corporation could get away with running Windows without paying.
It's just not a case of civil lawsuits, it's a case of criminal law, and the government has a notoriously large budget to pay for the prosecution of criminals even if the wronged party may not have it.
So breaking the GPL is going to put you in exactly the same kind of trouble as not filing tax properly or making five million copies of Windows XP and selling it.
"We don't need it anymore, and it's a hassle for huge parts of the free software world."
We dont? I myself havent noticed any significant improvement in the ethics of software companies, nor any massive movement towards supporting the advancement of the commons over the advancement of the individual corporation, nor any tendencies towards relaxing copyright, or consensus to avoid security through obscurity, or increased desire on the part of corporations to solve individual problems for specific users in COTS software, or any major move away from Embrace and Extend tactics, proprietary extensions, vendor lockin and bait'n'switch tactics.
In fact, I'd say free software is more needed than ever, and that free software needs all the protection it can be given. The GPL builds a community of software that is protected and guaranteed Free.
The legal "threats" are a consequence of copyright law, and will have no power when copyright law has no power. When copyright law has no power I'll be happy to agree we dont need the GPL anymore.
You appear to be misunderstanding the so called 'viral' aspect of the GPL. The GPL affects the code that is under the GPL, and only that code. You may write any code you want and do anything you want with that code, including distributing it, wether or not it depends on GPL software.
You do not ever 'need' to GPL your work. You need to abide by the terms of the GPL to obtain permission to distribute the work that already is under the GPL, but which apart from the GPL is already governed by copyright law. You can easiest fulfill those terms by placing your own software under the GPL, but there's nothing preventing you from fulfilling the terms by placing your code under for example the MIT X11 license.
However, if you do not want to abide by the terms of the GPL then you cannot distribute the GPL software. If your own code is useless and worthless without the GPL components, then, well, that's too bad.
As it is copyright that governs the right to distribute anything copyrighted, and the GPL governs the permissions to do things not allowed in copyright law, it doesnt matter if there's a conflict. The 'viral' nature is entirely governed by copyright law; either you have permissions to distribute the GPL code or you dont. If you abide by the GPL you do, if you dont you dont.
If the GPL gets overturned, or invalidated in court, well it doesnt change the fact that you still dont have any right to distribute the GPL code.
And, by the way, as API use is regarded as derivative work, as well as things like crt0.o that gets inserted into all binaries by the compiler, that's the reason these things are usually not under the GPL but rather LGPL or similar more relaxed licenses.
So, if you write a virus and give to someone, telling them it's a new neat editor, and it destroys all their data you wouldnt be legally liable for that?
You can always be held liable for deliberate sabotage or gross negligence, in pretty much any jurisdiction, no matter if there's a contract or not, and even with liability limitation clauses.
If you cant live with that you probably shouldnt be writing and even giving away software you know will damage peoples data.
That German law is explicit about the fact that you cannot limit some kinds of liability isnt really unique (many european countries have the similar laws), nor are you really protected against that kind of liability in the US either.
It isnt really a big problem for free software anyway, unless you're into deliberately screwing peoples systems up.
I consider shorting stock a very dangerous practice. While I do believe that this will end with SCO ceasing to exist as a corporate entity, the problem is it's quite hard to tell exactly when they'll be dead and buried, and wether or not the stock will go up or down until a certain point in the future due to gullible investors and their incompetent stock analysts. Can you say how long the lawsuit will take? Can you predict the near term actions and statements of IBM's lawyers and the courts decisions? As long as there are people actually listening to, and believing, SCO's press releases it gets very hard to guess where the stock is going over the next few months, or even year, even while one may be certain they're going to lose.
Just because a stock is massively inflated due to hot air, groundless claims and unfounded accusations it doesnt mean it cant get even more inflated before collapsing. And in this case, how long it is going to stay inflated depends mostly on timing in the legal system and the psychology of investors, rather than any hard facts.
As it would be criminal law, rather than civil lawsuit, I think you pretty much could get armed feds in black helos doing the job for you. Think 'illicit fly-by-night mass copyright violations'. Pretty much like an operation cloning and selling popular software in a seedy part of town.
Of course you're right someone has to press charges, but pretty much anyone who has copyright to any part of the kernel could file and press charges. I'm sure the BSA would be happy to help...
SCO could get off the hook tho, by confirming that they have released the alleged SCO code in Linux under the GPL and quit their raving...