SCO's new offensive [LWN.net]

SCO's new offensive

Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:53 UTC (Thu) by mongre26 (guest, #4224)
In reply to: SCO's new offensive by swaldman
Parent article: SCO's new offensive

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
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.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.

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.

This is contract law

/*
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
any later version.
*/

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

(Log in to post comments)

SCO's new offensive

Posted Jul 31, 2003 19:29 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #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.