| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
SCO's new offensiveSCO's new offensivePosted Jul 22, 2003 9:15 UTC (Tue) by swaldman (guest, #4269)In reply to: SCO's new offensive by ayeomans Parent article: SCO's new offensive Both Sun and Microsoft have ulterior reasons for not being too upset about a "leveling of the playing field" between Linux and proprietary operating systems. Their acquiescence doesn't say anything about how a company with no axe to grind would evaluate SCO's threats. It doesn't help though, that Sun and Microsoft are big names -- a follow-the-leader, cover-your-ass impulse might work in SCO's favor here, as SCO no doubt intended. We've all waited a long time to see how courts would handle the complex legal issues posed by the GPL. If SCO is not bluffing, and there really is a lot of commingling of code that SCO has a clear claim to, I guess we'll find out. Ain't no lawyer, but as far as I can tell, SCO can't succeed in doing what they're doing without persuading the courts to ignore the GPL in the face of competing commercial claims. If SCO does show infringement, then under GPL, the Linux kernel cannot be distributed at all until the infringing material is removed, notwithstanding any license anyone has bought from SCO. For these licenses to be worth anything, courts have to interpret GPL like LGPL, or enforce it not at all. Interesting times.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 20:06 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > We've all waited a long time to see how courts would handle the complex legal issues posed by the GPL.Please don't propogate this myth. The GPL does not pose any complex legal issues; the language of the GPL is very straightforward. All conditions it makes are clearly grounded in copyright law. Probably the only less ambiguous licenses are the new BSD one, and the MIT/X11/Expat/etc one.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 22:30 UTC (Tue) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] > The GPL does not pose any complex legal issues;Unfortunately, it does, in probably most of the world. It's written in English, for a start, which makes it hard to be valid at least here in France. It also strongly depends on the USAn copyright system (which seems to be rather widespread so this point may not be very important). It may also go against seemingly unrelated laws, like concurrency and customer protection laws: it's not straightforward that offering no guarantee of any kind is legal here. I'm taking the example of France because I'm French, but I assume some of these points are valid in other continental Europe countries, and probably others too.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 23, 2003 3:29 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] "It may also go against seemingly unrelated laws, like concurrency and customer protection laws: it's not straightforward that offering no guarantee of any kind is legal here."If this is not legal, then Microsoft, Sun, SCO, IBM, HP, and pretty much every other proprietary software company is in big trouble. Every proprietary EULA that I've read includes a disclaimer of warranty; the GPL is hardly alone in this regard. It's such common practice, both for free and non-free software, that any objections along these lines would be laughable; no court could rule against the GPL because of the lack of guarantee without also ruling against the entire software industry. Of course, everything SCO has been doing is laughable, but this would be even more so than usual.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 11:02 UTC (Thu) by one2team (guest, #7316) [Link] Most shrink-wrapped licenses are almost certainly abusive and at least partly illegal/void in most of the world. They rely on the fact- almost no one reads the fine print Why do you think so many of them state "parts of this document may not be legal your country" ? (as to why companies bother with them - do *YOU* think a company lawyer will tell his clueless boss he's paid to write junk ?)
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:53 UTC (Thu) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link] Before you attempt to "propagate" the myth that the GPL is somehow "magic" or "breaking new ground" please read Eben Moglens excellent essays on this exact subject. He is the lawyer most familiar with the GPL and its enforcement.http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html The short version is that the idea that the GPL needs to be "proven" in court is silly. Look at any of the files in Linux and you will find entries like the following in icside.c in the 2.4 kernel tree. * Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Russell King. What this shows, and what many people do not realize is that what protects Linux is not the GPL. The GPL is just a _contract_ under which you can use, modify and distribute Linux kernels. What protects Linux is copyright law. The same copyright law that the RIAA uses against university students, the same copyright law that Metallica used to sue Napster. Seems to be working out pretty well for them and I have no doubt it will work just as well for the Linux kernel authors. As far as other countries, again the GPL is not relevant nor is it relevant what language the GPL is written in. No matter what the country you are in what protects Linux kernel authors is Copyright law. The only question you need to ask is did the country in question sign onto the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) or not ( or earlier copyright agreements ) and before you ask most countries signed it. If the country in question signed the agreement then the copyright stands and thus Russell's and any other kernel authors work is protected. To re-iterate, even if the GPL itself was not compatible with a particularly countries laws as long as said country signed the Berne Convention no one in that country can do anything with that code without Russell's explicit permission ( or that of other kernel authors ). Take the GPL away from Linux and you simply have a copyrighted and protected work, * All Rights Reserved *. I understand the confusion. What is Copy Right Law and what is contract law gets all mixed up. I blame the "copyleft" propaganda partly for confusing the issue. Simply put this is Copyright law. * Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Russell King. This is contract law /* You may use the kernel, which is copyrighted, if and only you follow the contract. If you choose not to follow the contract you have no additional rights to that work and are in violation of copyright. Simple really. Don't worry about Linux, it might seem all fuzzy and warm but it is protected by the same 8 foot thick reinforced steel doors that any other copyrighted work is. It is just that the kernel authors have agreed to let us all use their work as long as we sign their GPL contract. For this we all owe them our gratitude as the terms of the GPL contract are very generous indeed. No the party who should be worried is SCO if they try to start licensing Linux in violation of the GPL contract. If they do that copyright kicks in and SCO is likely to get their fingers caught in that steel door as it slams shut. - t All trademarks used in the above post are the properties of their respective owners
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 31, 2003 19:29 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (subscriber, #75) [Link] You may use the kernel, which is copyrighted, if and only you follow the contract. Actually, that's not really true. Just check out section 0 of the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. Once you have a copy of the program, you're free to use it as you see fit, provided that the use is otherwise legal. You only have to pay attention to the GPL if you plan on distributing the program or works derived from the program.
|
|||||||||||