Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
The Inquirer looks
into the allegations that SCO used Linux kernel code to implement its
"Linux Kernel Personality" in UnixWare.
"But the bottom line is that SCO seems to have made the same mistake
that AT&T made long ago, that is, copying 'free' source code into its
product and stripping away the copyrights. That loose practice is precisely
what spannered the Unix Systems Labs (USL) lawsuit against BSD Unix, about
a decade ago."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:06 UTC (Wed) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link] just hoping to see real justice done...
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:11 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] ...which could be fun, but the comment reveals a common misunderstanding of the GPL. If you create a derived product from a GPL-licensed program and distribute it under a proprietary license, you have violated the GPL. But nothing in the GPL can force you to relicense your proprietary code and distribute it under the GPL. All it can do is take away your right to use the original, GPL-licensed code. The idea that the GPL can force the release of proprietary code is a common theme in (old) anti-Linux FUD, but it's not something that can actually happen.
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:27 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] You're right that the GPL copyright holder can't force the release of the proprietary code, but in addition to getting the product withdrawn, damage awards are a possibility: the GPL text itself is not the whole of the law. Another misunderstanding in the article is that anyone can file a small-claims action. Only the copyright holder has standing to sue.
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:43 UTC (Wed) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] Another misunderstanding in the article is that anyone can file a small-claims action. Only the copyright holder has standing to sue. This is misleading. Filing small-claims action and suing are the same thing - they are both civil suits. In America, anyone can file a civil suit, for any reason, at any time, against anyone, even without merit. Winning a suit is another thing. You are correct in implying that only a copyright holder has a chance of winning. IANAL.
Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:40 UTC (Wed) by lhand (guest, #11808) [Link] What about people who received binary only distributions of the SCO Unix code containing GPLed code? Couldn't they sue to receive the source code? I'm not sure if this could cause all of the SCO code to be released under GPL, but you never know what a court may decide.But yeah, Linux users have no legal interest so cannot sue. And, FYI, IANAL.
Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:02 UTC (Wed) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] What about people who received binary only distributions of the SCO Unix code containing GPLed code? Couldn't they sue to receive the source code? Barring mention that you can sue for anything you want, the answer is no. In case of violation, the GPL says that the vendor can no longer distribute the source code. See section 4 of the GPL. It also says that the vendor cannot withdraw copies of the program already released to people.
Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:13 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] You could win a lawsuit if it claimed to be GPL but wasn't.The real question is can you be sued for buying SCO products? heh heh.
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL? Posted Jun 12, 2003 6:45 UTC (Thu) by kasperd (guest, #11842) [Link] I recently attended a talk about copyright given by a lawyer. He also specifically talked about the particular case of GPL code being copied into a proprietary product. He had no knowledge about actual cases, but believed the company could actually be forced to release the previously proprietary code under the GPL. This is according to the law in Denmark, I don't know about the law in other parts of the world.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:10 UTC (Wed) by schutz (subscriber, #3760) [Link] From the article:> Well, for starters everyone who owns a copy of Linux will be able to sue Am I correct in thinking that this is wrong ? AFAIK only the people whose Frédéric
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 18:31 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] "AFAIK only the people whose code has been copied could sue SCO, correct ?"Yes, and that is exactly what happened in the AT&T v. UCB case.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 11:55 UTC (Wed) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] Another great article on this matter is at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123172,00.aspUnfair trade practices can be asserted by consultants and integrators along with myriad other Linux oriented IT professionals against SCO in this case. And a halfway decent lawyer could make a case for end users being denied their access under the GPL of the code that should have been licensed and released under the GNU / GPL. A colleague of mine had a great idea however. Forget the class action lawsuits against SCO, that is too neat. With enough evidence publicly available, individual Linux users should file suit against SCO in their local small claims courts. At a conservative installed base of 1 million U.S. Linux users, we could tie up SCO in a legal defense DDoS hell like no company has ever seen... Are there any legal opinions on this? Any lawyers want to have some fun with SCO?
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:24 UTC (Wed) by leightonbrown (subscriber, #6264) [Link] This I like. Question is: Can it be done ?
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:04 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] what the hell! werent you expecting samething of the kind a lot of time ago?Who's gonna sue if eventually it happens to be Linux code copyed into a lot of other OS's including M$ Windows, that's right, however unlikely it seems, M$ Windows! Now imagine that this corporate weasels can somehow stop or completly outlaw Linux!... can you imagine the enormous amount of law suits they avoid?!... and better, if Linux is stoped who's gonna check or care about copyright violations of Linux Code... I think the only solution to keep this Gnu/Linux, specialy Linux "personality" is to focus heavy on "WORLD DOMINATION", because "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE",... that is: or Linux wins and dominates in the long run,... or it will be without doubt swallowed by others ,...
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:23 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (a) Linux code is already out there. Anyone can try to take it away, but unless the code is determined to be all swiped from proprietary sources I seriously doubt anything would kill Linux. US copyrights outside the US don't always amount to very much.(b) I can't imagine why any intelligent major OS vendor would want to swipe GPL'd Linux code when they can swipe BSD licensed (and hence legal to incorporate into proprietary software) code. And don't start a BSD vs. Linux flame war. They're BOTH good OSes. (c) Who's going to defend license violations? Considering how the majority of the non-kernel stuff seems to come from the FSF (and lots of the rest of the code may even be copyright FSF even if the code isn't part of GNU), I would guess the FSF and possibly the EFF would do the defending. As for the kernel... Someone with deep pockets and a vested interest in keeping the Linux kernel legal to use would perhaps step in (SuSE? Red Hat?).
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 16:56 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] That is the reason of FUDs even when reports show backfire on M$.Linux and BSD are both good OSes, but BSD never really represented a commercial threat to any established Corporation, the ATT vs BSD was more a bad case of ATT gluttony than other thing, because they could and did incorporate BSD code,... but Linux +GPL is a different history!.... "IF" the Linux is stoped, (i hope that will never happen) then a big parte of GPL software out there is stoped too,... and if things get to be really demoralizing, then maybe FSF can go under,... and then, there is no one that "credibily" can stop any "Big Name" from incorporanting any chunck of Linux or other GPL software they want, not only because the "robbery" go in a close-source form and you can only guess, but also because there will be no organization with the tools and the will to check it, and the money to persue the wrongdoers,... specialy in the US.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:04 UTC (Wed) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] I really hope that this theory turns out to be fact and thus hurts SCOs case. Otherwise, thistheory really sounds like the linux community is starting to get a litter desperate.
Well, the press is desparate :-) Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:14 UTC (Wed) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] There haven't been any new revelations in a week or two, so it's time to stir things up again. Seriously, I've found GPL'd code in proprietary code bases in the past; it's amazing how ignorant some programmers are of copyright law--even "senior" ones. If I were SCO, I'd be awfully careful about the accusations they're throwing around; in my experience, Linux code is at least as likely to wind up in proprietary products as the other way around.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:01 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Honestly there is no case to desparete when "WE" are winning!...SCO, is history, its only FUD and entertainment for IT audiences,... let's give them the best response and really win all the way from servers to embeded to desktops.
"Desperate" Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:12 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] The spelling is "desperate".We're going pretty far afield, here, guys. :-) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desperate
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 12, 2003 14:44 UTC (Thu) by scharkalvin (guest, #7372) [Link] >"IBM likely recoils from the thought of buying out SCO because -- aside from refusing to reward such flimsy blackmail -- it might want to avoid "owning" Unix."Well they don't have to own it. If they can pick up SCO for a few millicents on the dollar after the smoke clears they can do the world a favor and GPL it.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer) Posted Jun 15, 2003 2:51 UTC (Sun) by joeman (guest, #6711) [Link] They would still own it.
|
|||||||||||