So the GPL question was not answered? [LWN.net]

So the GPL question was not answered?

Posted Jun 6, 2003 19:05 UTC (Fri) by NZheretic (guest, #409)
Parent article: Notes from the SCO conference call

a few quick notes

SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

Was the SCO code originally from old BSD or Linux?

Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

Levels towards DEF-CON 5

I don't believe that SCO could hope to even start a court case against IBM until the copyright in question has actually been transfered to the SCO Group. Any chance that Novell will hang tough?

Effectively this still means is that, before the SCO Group can even begin to sue Linux developers,vendors and users, SCO has to :-
1) Sue Novell - to tranfer SCO ownership of the copyrights ( forgetting the patents ) AND
2) Prove in a court of law that the source code in question did in fact originate from AT&T,Novell or SCO itself and was not copied from old BSD or Linux, AND
3) Sue IBM - to prove that IBM planted Unixware IP in Linux in breach of their contract with IBM, AND
4) Break the same GPL license in court of law that Caldera has been collectively developing Linux under since the groups forming in 1994 ( which predates even Caldera's purchase of SCO and old SCO's Monteray deal with IBM ) and that SCO made the choice to sell and distribute the code under.

SCO has to achive all this before even beginning to go after other Linux distributions, developers and users.

For (2), IBM under the terms of reasonable disclosure would have the right to demand copies of the source code going back to Version 7. IBM could then disclose the amount of Old BSD and Linux source code that has slipped into SCO's non-Linux products.

For (3), Unless the SCO Group get (1) and (2) it cannot precede with (3). Jim Stallings, the general manager of IBM Corp.'s Linux business recently stated: "I believe I am correct in saying there are no violations on any intellectual property issues [with Unix and SCO Group] and we will continue to support our Linux customers. It will be business as usual." Frankly IMO, given the quality of IBM's legal team, SCO don't stand a chance.

For (4), the GPL has never been succesfully challanged and has been recognised in a federal court. Even if SCO break the GPL, it means that EVERY developer who contibuted GPL'ed content to the Caldera/SCO distributions and is used with the CalderaLinux or SCO Group's Unixs, can persue a case against the SCO Group using the same loopholes the SCO Group has opened. Either way the SCO Group is F****D.

GPL clauses 5,6 and 7

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE [ with emphasis added ]

...
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.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
....

Distributing the binaries source grants all recipants an implict license to use all the distributers IP within the terms of the GPL.

Also reread clause #7

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Note the phrase "imposed on you". You cannot use paragraph seven as a right to deny an effective automatic patent( or trade secret etc ) unless imposed to do so by a third party.Since SCO claims ownership of the infringed IP in question, and Novell or IBM is highly unlikely to force SCO to stop distributing it in Linux, SCO cannot deny recipients full effective license to the IP,patents,trade secrets,copyrights in question.

(Log in to post comments)