Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com)
News.com reports on SCO's attacks on the GPL - and the fact that SCO continues to ship GPL-licensed software.
"SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said SCO doesn't offer indemnification, or legal protection, for use of Samba. As a hypothetical example, if Microsoft were to decide Samba violated its file system intellectual property and start suing companies that use the software, SCO would stop including Samba but wouldn't offer customers using the software legal protection, Stowell said."
(Log in to post comments)
On indemnification Posted Oct 29, 2003 14:57 UTC (Wed) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link] Most telling in Stowell's discussion of SCO indemnifying its users for the free software it continues to distribute under GPL:"I'd be confident if we had any reservations that misappropriated code had gone into Samba, we ourselves would stop shipping it, and we would recommend to our users they stop using it. But of assuming responsibility for a Samba lawsuit, I don't think we could." It seems SCO really does understand why the indemnification argument is a red herring, but, humorously, they are using the same argument for why SCO won't indemnify its Linux users as every other Linux distributor is to do the same. SCO is using the word 'indemnification' along with ghostly howling to try to make its opponents appear weak and unlikely to support/deal with its customers should a legal argument come up about a piece of software it distributes. Considering SCO doesn't dare do the same thing it declares others are too frightened to do, I think it's time that the indemnification argument be spit back in SCO's face. SCO isn't even referring to whether Samba (for instance) is legal, but whether they themselves can assume legal responsibility for it. So why demand such from everyone else? Sorry, SCO; I think we can safely say to everyone that if the Linux kernel contains some SCO code, 'we ourselves could stop shipping it, and we could recommend to our users they stop using it,' so we can give them a clean room alternative. Or should SCO just be sued, instead? Seems only fair, indemnification or not.
On indemnification Posted Oct 29, 2003 15:06 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] What should be done is people in the United States should wake up to the fact that corporation owners are trampling their rights and raping the law. I think if that were to happen, people like McBride, Stilwell, and the rest of thzt gang would be pounding rocks, which is what they should be doing.The only reason this argument is happening at all is because the United States has become a decadent, corrupt country, and because the rich and powerful are looting it. Some serious cleanup is due here.
On indemnification Posted Oct 29, 2003 15:45 UTC (Wed) by steven97 (guest, #2702) [Link] The only reason this argument is happening at all is because the United States has become a decadent, corrupt country, and because the rich and powerful are looting it. Some serious cleanup is due here.I don't believe the "rich and powerful" are looting, but I do agree that in the USA, corporate power and influence on the law (and for that matter, government in general, through funding) is so big that liberty and democratic values are under a lot of pressure. Companies don't have a conciousness, only people do, and companies exploit their opportunities. The citizens of the USA don't seem to care much -- You know what they say: people get the government they deserve :-) But I disgress...
On indemnification Posted Oct 30, 2003 2:21 UTC (Thu) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] Amen brother! The issue really is that we have two distinctly perverted political idealogies running this country. The absolutely pro business screw everybody else right (I am referring to extremes here) and the socialist nutbag business is all evil and the workers are being exploited left. Just don't mention the horrible history of exploitation of the workers done by socialist regimes thank you. Unfortunately the socialists tend to be those with the bully pulpit of the media, and activist juries, and the hyper capitalists tend toward undue influence peddling in the executive and legislative branches. And it seems that those that oppose either side on important issues of governance are quickly, and publicly labelled extremists. So in order to not look like a nut case, most people remain silent. Oppression by political correctness... Stalin would be proud.
On indemnification Posted Oct 30, 2003 11:32 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] You don't believe the rich and powerful are looting the country?Okay, I'm not an American, but from what I can see, ENRON is becoming more and more the norm. And what happened there? The rich and powerful raped the company, walked off with the money, and left the employees with no job and no savings (all those raped 401K's). And if you're lucky enough to be in the higher echelons of management, you get all the money with none of the blame :-) The average American or Brit is steadily getting poorer, while the rich are getting obscenely richer. I can't remember the exact stats, but some pink rag ran an article a month or two back. In real terms, the average big company has not grown much. The average salary of the senior execs in those companies has, however, grown ten-fold. Cheers,
On indemnification Posted Oct 29, 2003 15:49 UTC (Wed) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link] It occured to me after my first posted comment that this runs even deeper than SCO's Linux. SCO UNIX distributes GPL licensed tools as well. We haven't heard a holier than thou declaration from SCO that they intended to indemnify their SCO UNIX users either.Even if SCO believes their legal filings which claim they own every version of UNIX imaginable and deserve a cut of the earnings, they are still, apparently, more than willing to pass on any legal issues that come up with their own proprietary UNIX when it comes to free software tools distributed with SCO UNIX. Either that, or they simply assume that when free software is distributed with SCO UNIX, it conveniently won't cause a legal issue for them because it isn't theirs (as Stowell said) - but when free software is distributed with any other UNIX, then it's a problem if it contains SCO's code. I don't think SCO is in a very powerful position to speak about indemnification. You can't have it both ways.
On indemnification - Not even Microsoft Posted Oct 29, 2003 17:03 UTC (Wed) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] In comparing the Microsoft EULA to the GPL, Microsoft's EULAs are pretty uniform when it come to exluding themselves from liability...http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf QUOTE Analysis
UNQUOTE The Timeline Inc case bring up an important issue; while no vendor can expected to identify all potential patent violation when developing software, when the vendor does purchase and license technology from a third party, the vendor should insure that the end user/develop is not put at further risk. Even Microsoft's May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability. https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/contractupdates.asp https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/mba.doc The new section 6 clause contain exceptions QUOTE Loophole #1 This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims. Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents, http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/ QUOTE "Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products(e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)." UNQUOTE Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won. http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?
Since you mention it... Posted Oct 29, 2003 15:59 UTC (Wed) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Hasn't IBM been a major contributor to the Samba project?Has SCO published the changes they made to Samba to allow it to run under their OS? Derek
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 16:03 UTC (Wed) by whig (guest, #8781) [Link] It's important to understand that this really is a war, and SCO has a point, albeit not one that sane people should accept.The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the economic value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed. SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law. SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws. According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable. By this reasoning, then, SCO will claim it has every right to use GPL code in its proprietary distributions, but on the other hand, can contend that its own code (or code which IBM created under a license which grants SCO ownership of their code) was never intended (by SCO) to be released under GPL nor public domain. Now, to fully understand these arguments, you must put yourself in the mindset of a madman. Which, undoubtedly, Darl McBride is. Microsoft and others have surely encouraged his delusional state, and given him the resources he needs to pursue his dreams of world domination, with the understanding that even if SCO has no chance of succeeding in the final analysis, the legal case can and will create FUD to slow the adoption of Linux and buy time for proprietary firms. If this is a war, SCO is a foot soldier. SCO will die, of course, but that's what foot soldiers are expected to do.
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 16:37 UTC (Wed) by Carl (guest, #824) [Link] SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.Strangely enough that is one if the restrictions that the GPL kind of allows. Although I have never seen someone make use of this clause of the GPL. 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 17:06 UTC (Wed) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] XVid uses it.
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 30, 2003 3:23 UTC (Thu) by adamruth (guest, #12380) [Link] This was hashed out today on the Yahoo! SCOX message board, and here's theconclusion (from my point of view). Since the GPL only requires you to provide source code to those to whom you Therefore, I can write some code and provide the source on my website for anyone Since I would not have shipped any binaries to Syria (that's illegal, afterall), I would Now, someone who downloads my product would have permission (via the GPL) to It seems a bit convoluted at first, but is really quite elegant. The GPL is not
The GPL and export controls Posted Oct 30, 2003 3:57 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Since the GPL only requires you to provide source code to those to whom you distribute binaries, you are not bound by the GPL to give the source to the whole world (a common misconception). Actually, that is a common misconception. The actual text of the GPL reads:
[You must] Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code You can get around that by shipping source with the binaries, but otherwise you have to respond to anybody. The GPL does work with export controls, though, due to section 8, which allows geographical limitations.
The GPL and export controls Posted Oct 30, 2003 17:39 UTC (Thu) by adamruth (guest, #12380) [Link] That's not entirely true:You do not need to provide source to "any third party", that is one option, but you do have Also, section 8 states: "If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 17:16 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the economic value of proprietary software."Have you ever authored any code be it GPLed or not ??... I would certainly will choose the GPL, because i'm far from a good programmer if a programmer at all!!... BUT even i was a very good one, why not benefit from a world wide community to help me doing better ?... i would certainly benefit from that, because thounsands of heads think better than one, and excelence and "equality" of rights and dutys is what mind in GPL, not commercial concerns!! So what happens is that GPLed code can be so much better than proprietary code, and SCO & Ma$ter are showing the world how full of it they always were, because they cannoy contain the "Genius" and are standing to lose big in the commercial front,...,WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT !??
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 20:15 UTC (Wed) by whig (guest, #8781) [Link] "Have you ever authored any code be it GPLed or not ??..."Yep. I wrote LZap (http://lzap.by.net), a data compressor, and put it under a BSD-style license a few years back. I'd put it under a GPL today, but it's not like it's a very important application, just an experimental program. I was also a Debian developer for some time, and maintained quite a few GPL programs. Look, I'm *in favor* of GPL. That I recognize its revolutionary nature does not make me adverse to its provisions. To the contrary, that's why I consider it preferable to BSD or public domain.
Designed for what? Posted Oct 29, 2003 17:48 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Actually I think it is clearly documented that it was designed to preserve the ability of the end-user to look at and modify the source code. I don't think economic value had anything to do with the design of the license. You could always ask RMS or Eben Moglen if you really want to be certain.
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 18:24 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.Which is not prohibited by the US Constitution, and is actually addressed by the 9th Amendment. The US is not the Soviet Union, where everything not explicitly allowed was forbidden, but the reverse. For the moment anyway. sPh
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 29, 2003 20:43 UTC (Wed) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] The GPL has no effect on the public domain. When a GPL licensed software's copyright expires, the software becomes public domain -- just like any other software. You don't need the GPL to copy the software in that case.The idea that the GPL creates a competing commons is true, but in no way illegal. RIAA demands it. (If you take away the private property rights that the GPL is built on, then all other licenses built on those rights will crumble too.)
Methinks a stalking-horse was just run through the field there. Posted Oct 29, 2003 21:36 UTC (Wed) by cr (guest, #3685) [Link] <i>As a hypothetical example, if Microsoft were to decide Samba violated its file system intellectual property and start suing companies that use the software, SCO would stop including Samba but wouldn't offer customers using the software legal protection, Stowell said."</i><br>Weren't we, not so long ago, dismissing the idea that good old Caldera/SCO could be up to any legal shenanegans? I think maybe we just found out who the next legal target will be, when SCO goes down in flames. That is, unless enough of Microsoft's major customers make enough outraged noises about a proprietary operating system they can't interoperate with.
Methinks a stalking-horse was just run through the field there. Posted Oct 30, 2003 12:36 UTC (Thu) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Unless of course, the (apparently wholly compromised) antitrust settlementwatchdogs come down hard on Microsoft for sponsoring this whole FUD flood. Which of course, they have.
SCO attacks open-source foundation (News.com) Posted Oct 30, 2003 4:31 UTC (Thu) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] All this at the same time that the Librarian of Congress publishes its DMCA Mother-May-I list.US Law is suffering from a serious case of recticranial inversion.
Why not have it public domain then? Posted Oct 30, 2003 12:13 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] If in fact GPL is invalid, why doesn't SCO simply say on their web site that Samba, Linux kernel and other GPL-ed works (some of them copyright FSF: e.g. bash) is *public domain*? Why have a "licensed under the GPL" charade?Yes, why is that? It is because they would not be able to withstand the amount and power of copyright infringement lawsuits they would be facing, some of them even from outside of the U.S. Bottom line: I don't think anyone should waste their time with crazy theories when common sense and common practice says otherwise. SCO are just fishing, that's all.
|
|
||||||||||||