SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
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."
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:06 UTC (Wed)
by RobDavies (guest, #9930)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:11 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:27 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
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that the GPL copyright holder can't force the release of the proprietary code, but in addition to getting the product withdrawn, damage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.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 19:43 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.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:40 UTC (Wed)
by lhand (guest, #11808)
[Link] (2 responses)
But yeah, Linux users have no legal interest so cannot sue. And, FYI, IANAL.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 20:02 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.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 20:13 UTC (Wed)
by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
[Link]
The real question is can you be sued for buying SCO products? heh heh.
Posted Jun 12, 2003 12:45 UTC (Thu)
by kasperd (guest, #11842)
[Link]
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:10 UTC (Wed)
by schutz (subscriber, #3760)
[Link] (1 responses)
> 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
Posted Jun 12, 2003 0:31 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link]
Yes, and that is exactly what happened in the AT&T v. UCB case.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:55 UTC (Wed)
by dbhost (guest, #3461)
[Link] (1 responses)
Unfair 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?
Posted Jun 11, 2003 19:24 UTC (Wed)
by leightonbrown (guest, #6264)
[Link]
Posted Jun 11, 2003 19:04 UTC (Wed)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link] (2 responses)
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 ,...
Posted Jun 11, 2003 20:23 UTC (Wed)
by erat (guest, #21)
[Link] (1 responses)
(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?).
Posted Jun 11, 2003 22:56 UTC (Wed)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
Posted Jun 11, 2003 20:04 UTC (Wed)
by trutkin (guest, #3919)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 11, 2003 20:14 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.
Posted Jun 11, 2003 23:01 UTC (Wed)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 11, 2003 23:12 UTC (Wed)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Jun 12, 2003 20:44 UTC (Thu)
by scharkalvin (guest, #7372)
[Link] (1 responses)
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.
Posted Jun 15, 2003 8:51 UTC (Sun)
by joeman (guest, #6711)
[Link]
just hoping to see real justice done...
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
...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?
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
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.Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
You could win a lawsuit if it claimed to be GPL but wasn't.Re: SCO forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
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 forced to put SCO UNIX under GPL?
From the article:SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
> SCO for withholding that source code in violation of the GPL, and --
> should SCO's misappropriation be shown -- likely win.
code has been copied could sue SCO, correct ? Yes, it must be correct,
because the original author could have double-licenced the code to a
company under a separate, proprietary licence which allows withholding
the source, and this is none of the GPL user's business.
"AFAIK only the people whose code has been copied could sue SCO, correct ?"SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
From http://livinginternet.com/?i/iw_unix_war.htm:
"In 1991, a group of former CSRG members established a company called BSDI to market a commercial version of Unix based on Networking Release 2. AT&T then sued BSDI and UCB for disclosing trade secrets and infringing copyrights. UCB then counter-sued AT&T for not acknowledging the source of a lot of UCB code in the System V baseline. Finally a settlement was reached which required some minor code-tweaking to the BSD source, which was then released as 4.4BSD-Lite under UCB's open software license."
Another great article on this matter is at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123172,00.aspSCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
This I like. Question is: Can it be done ?
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
what the hell! werent you expecting samething of the kind a lot of time ago?SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
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!
and that way the enormous value in the order of "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" if not "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS" of excelent Linux code that falls in the lap of these anti-linux corporations!
"They" ( without doubt corporations mostly)aint gonna give a minute of rest now, as we can see in http://www.internetweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300745 , and a Linux win must have to do more with peoples desktops than with corporations servers.
(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.SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
That is the reason of FUDs even when reports show backfire on M$.SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
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.
I really hope that this theory turns out to be fact and thus hurts SCOs case. Otherwise, this SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
theory really sounds like the linux community is starting to get a litter desperate.
Well, the press is desparate :-)
Honestly there is no case to desparete when "WE" are winning!...SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
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.
The spelling is "desperate". "Desperate"
We're going pretty far afield, here, guys. :-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desperate
>"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."SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)
They would still own it.
SCO might recycle ATT's Unix blunder (Inquirer)