| |||||||||||
SCO's new offensiveSCO's new offensivePosted Jul 22, 2003 7:56 UTC (Tue) by Soruk (subscriber, #2722)Parent article: SCO's new offensive How long before individual kernel hackers (hopefully with the help of the EFF) get to kick SCO's arse on the resultant GPL violations to their code in the kernel? Maybe they need to make it "available" to SCO under an alternative licence (since by SCO's actions the GPL cannot be used) where SCO have to pay each and every kernel source code contributor (from the main driver maintainers to the individuals who donate one-line bug fixes or enhancements) - and to put a real sting in it, the licence does not allow sublicensing... that way SCO (whether or not they own the code in question) cannot sublicense the kernel since the applicable licences on the rest of it forbid it. So the only route the kernel is available is through the GPL. OK, I may be talking nuts here, but it's a crazy thought.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 9:12 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] SCO's demand for money from Linux users implies that SCO has distributedLinux in the past without granting the right to use SCO code that Linux is alleged to contain. Since that can't be done under the GPL, it follows that SCO has distributed Linux without obtaining a license to do so. The rights of copyright owners are important. I think that SCO would I hope someone is looking at SCO's UNIX products for enhancements that
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 9:23 UTC (Tue) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] I think that you pointed to the reason why SCO stopped distributing Linux.The GPL doesn't (can't) forbid extor^H^H^H^H^H licencing schemes for software when you don't distribute it yourself. A big problem here is that SCO still has to proof that Linux contains their propriatary code, which they didn't distribute under the GPL by their previous distribution of Linux.
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 10:40 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] Linux is big. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it contained someplagiarized code. So even if were to turn out that SCO's claims were _completely_ groundless, which is unlikely, we still have to face the possibility that Linux contains code plagiarized from some other proprietary code base. This leaves Linux open to FUD attacks. What's the defense?
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 12:11 UTC (Tue) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] The defense is: (1) a large, globalcommunity of developers, (2) an open and transparent development process, and (3) fast response in removal and replacement of infringing work. Oh wait, Linux already has that The problem is SCO has not attacked As far as FUD "attacks" go, those
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 16:32 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The same things all apply to, for example, MicroSoft; there are a huge number of MicroSoft developers of varying degrees of technical proficiency. What are the chances that none of them has ever taken code from somewhere else (without a suitable license) instead of writing it like they were supposed to?This is a fundamental problem with copyrights on works which are not intended for distribution (like proprietary source); it's impossible to determine whether something you have belongs to someone else when nobody who knows will tell you. I'm not entirely clear on how the legal system intends this to be resolved (e.g., an author puts someone else's private letter in a book, gives it to a publisher as a work of fiction, and disappears; the original writer recognizes this when the book is published; the publisher couldn't have known beforehand, the plagarist is gone, and the original writer may not want the letter in print, and hasn't been compensated for it, either; what happens?) If anything, the risk with Open Source is that if you are violating a copyright, the copyright holder has a chance of finding out. But there's no more risk there than there is in buying books. And it's certainly possible that hidden offences will be discovered at some point, and a copyright dispute is certain to be much more acrimonious when and accidental offender has been profitting substantially from the offense for a while in secret.
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 23, 2003 18:48 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] Improper copying takes place in propriatary software development too. The chances of discovery are small, only a few cases per year become public.Between software vendors the case is usually settled with the infringer taking a licence (paying damages) for the infringed software. The FSF prefers to settle cases like this by demanding the infringing company to change procedures to prevent further infringement. I have heard stories about distributers (Dell) that ask their suppliers to comply with the license (GPL). Awareness of licensing issues is certainly rising. Copyright limits the act of copying to the author and his/her licensees. So, in your example the author is (criminally) wrong in sending a copy of the letter to the publisher. The publisher is wrong (in civil law) by printing the letter in the book. Most publishers will recall the offending book; they are allowed to distribute a reprint with the offending pages removed. The amount of compensation for the original writer of the letter will depend on the damage that he sustained in the incident; the publisher could be sentenced to pay the damages if the author can't be found. [I am not a lawyer, and english is not my native tongue so bear with my choice of words here.]
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 31, 2003 9:43 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] SCO never stopped distributing Linux. They're still distributing it. See for yourself.
|
|||||||||||