SCO Madness Reigns Supreme 607
Roblimo knows good, honest Constitutional argumentation when he sees it, and over on NewsForge amplifies SCO's claims that the GPL is unconstitutional.
Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"
And perhaps today's most interesting SCO submission: 1HandClapping writes "In alwayson-network.com, Mark F. Radcliffe (HIAL) writes about a little-reported aspect of the SCO vs IBM case: 'Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.'"
Noorda's revenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider that Noorda has been around the tech industry a LONG time, that he has been involved in a lot of companys, he presumably knows who the A-team and B-team players are, and that he appears to dislike Microsoft a little bit.
So - he takes one of the organizations under his control. He fills it with C-team players. He fills (or prompts someone to fill) the C-team with truthful but misleading information about SCO's purported "intellectual property". He advises them to go after the biggest target first.
Then he sits back and watches while SCO leads a hopeless charge against IBM. This has the dual effect of (a) laying down case law _supporting_ the GPL that Microsoft will have a very hard time overturning (b) smoking out various linkages and anti-competitive behaviour on Microsoft's part.
Crazy, but I have a hard time seeing why else SCO is being so incompetent.
Re:Noorda's revenge? (Score:3, Funny)
pure genius
The enemy of my enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no doubt he would like to score a win of some kind against MS. But it wouldn't surprise me if Free Software offends him as badly as it does MS. A victory for the GPL isn't necessarily a victory for him. He isn't going to go out of his way for a little schadenfreude.
The other poss
Re:Noorda's revenge? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
This one's Malice *and* Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus. It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software. However, SCO does appear to be the first group that's sufficiently well-funded, aggressive, and boneheaded to attack it with a large crash-and-burn lawsuit.
They do have a partial case - the Unix source license terms were always unclear and dodgy in terms of exactly how closely derived something from Unix source had to be covered, and it's possible that IBM or Sequent or SGI slipped close enough to the edge to sue, but the BSD lawsuits pretty much established that reverse-engineered work-almost-alikes are ok, at least with sufficiently careful clean-room techniques, and IBM has more experienced software-issue lawyers than anybody except possibly Microsoft or remotely possibly the US Government (who also suffer from combinations of malice and incompetence.) However, SCO's distribution of Linux 2.4.x weakens their position substantially.
Me? I've probably still got my Usenix "Mentally Contaminated" pin from a few years ago, though Unix source has evolved a bit from the System V Release 2.0p days when I last looked at licensed kernel source, or from the early 90s when I was using licensed user-space code, and it's amazing how much bit-rot can set in...
Re:This one's Malice *and* Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got a good post here, but Id like to pick at this statement. Nobody is forcing ANYONE to use GPL Software, or GPL code in their projects. If you don't like the license you are free to write the code yourself. End of story. People who whine about the GPL piss me off, they want *free code* and no responsibility. The GPL is Candy and the GPL says "You can have any of our candy, but you have to give our candy and your candy to anyone that asks." If you dont like that, don't take their candy and you are no worse off. none at all.
Re:GNU Public Virus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Noorda's revenge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, if he wanted to get back at Microsoft, would he do something that directs most of the damage to IBM and Linux? Microsoft is loving every minute of this Linux FUD. Even if he advised that SCO go after IBM, if Darl McBride was the least bit sane he would have known he
Re:Noorda's revenge? (Score:5, Funny)
sPh
Selling Multics? (Score:5, Funny)
While most of your post is accurate and informative, I have to dispute one point: nobody could make money selling Multics, or they'd still be selling it today. GE tried and failed, Honeywell tried and failed, and no one else was stupid enough to buy it after that. (I am a former Multician.) Multics was very good at a bunch of things, but it was never designed to be ported to different hardware, and it just cost too damn much to run and maintain.
Re:Noorda's revenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
With Longhorn still two years away, it might be best to drag this out as long as they can. You wouldn't want people changing over to Linux while you try to figure out your new OS, right?
(e)stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe just a non-lawyer's wishful thinking...
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, i kinda hope not. I would really like to see this go to court. Not only for the satisfaction of seeing SCO get smashed by an elephant, but also to see how the GPL will shake out in the courts. It's only a matter of time before the GPL gets called into court, and down the road there may be other opportunities, but it would really be advantageous to those supporting the GPL (of whom are habitually broke) to have this happen now, with the muscle (and finances) of IBM in our court.
At any other time, the "attrition strategy" of prolonging the court process until the other side is bankrupted might get turned against us.
We all know that even if the GPL is completely rock solid, it can still lose in court depending upon its presentation. And if it *does* lose in court, that could potentially start a firestorm of FUD and abandonment, if not a poor perception of Open Source products (even BSD-license ones.. consider how a PHB thinks). Next thing you know, we'll all be replacing linux/bsd servers with Windows Server 2003 or SUNW at our workplace.
I would hate to see the party crashed just as it was getting started, you know?
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:3, Informative)
The textbook example I remember involved trespass, which is a pretty cut-and-dried legal doctrine. In that example, p
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:2)
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:5, Informative)
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, the biggest problem with SCO's case is that they refuse to mitigate their damages by telling the Linux community what the parts of the code alleged to infringe are.
It is very clear that the minute SCO reveals that information that the code will be yanked and replaced by non infringing code, most likely within hours, days at the outside.
This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.
The analogy would be to the distributor of a compilation 'best of hits' CD consisting of a selection from the distributor's archives, being challenged by a record label claiming that it is actually the legitimate owner of the rights to one of the songs on the compilation but refusing to specify which song is in dispute. The distributor of the compilation is then given the choice between not distributing the CD at all and risking a possibly bogus infringement claim. If the distributor is told the song that is in dispute they can easily swap it for a different one, it is the refusal to be specific that is the only reason that the plaintif's claim has standing.
This is not estoppel, but estoppel could also apply. SCO has allowed Linux to be distributed for many years and is in fact a distributor itself. Failure to enforce claims can result in them being lost. In fact this is the same claim that SCO is making against the GPL.
I don't think that the SCO objection holds because it is the behavior of IBM that is at issue, not the FSF. In this case IBM does not appear to have a history of failure to enforce its limited reciprocal rights under the GPL for the simple reason that SCO is the first company to attempt to sue...
Re:(e)stop the madness (Score:3, Interesting)
Either Extreme Hurts SCO's Case (Score:3, Insightful)
The Madness of King Darl (Score:5, Interesting)
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 financial 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.
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2)
Yes, but shareholder lawsuits can go after the executives' personal fortunes. The SCOids have to know this, yet while their lawyers use careful, lawyerly, deniable language the SCO execs continue to say things that "could be used against you in a court of law". That is hard to understand.
sPh
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the attorneys, under the amended agreement with SCO, they get 20% of certain licensing fees and investments, I believe. Which means they probably pocketed $1.6M from Microsoft's most recent licensing payment, and perhaps $10M from the RBC/BayStar investment.
Quite a motivation to continue pursuing a losing case. Even if Boies & Co. were to be disbarred, this is the kind of money that can make them say, "So what."
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2)
Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2)
It isn't unconstitutional by any stretch of *my* imagination, but that's just because I'm not delusional enough to buy into SCO's theory.
inth Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: I have the babble box on in the background right now, happen to be on CNNFN and was half listening to a discussion about a new proposed EPA rule requiring apartments to install water meters on each unit in the name of water conservation. The discussion covered a lot of issues, whether it would actually save water, how hard it would be to retrofit existing structures, blah blah. At no point was the most important question asked. What section of the US Constituition granted the Federal Government the power to regulate water supply to dwellings? Since there is no such section, the clear language of those same Amendments mean it HAS no such authority. Most of the EPA, FDA, HUD, etc. etc. are illegal according to the Constituition but violate their edicts and you will go directly to jail, not pass go and never find a lawyer willing to take your 200/hr to use the 9th or 10th Amendment in your defense.
The Constituition uses shockingly clear and direct language, but it still gets ignored.
Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re:inth Amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
It goes on:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
That's where.
Constitution of the USA [cornell.edu]
Re:inth Amendment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, and how does the water supply to an apartment fall under "interstate commerce"? Sure, you can come up with contrived logic like "the pipes may have been manufactured outside the state". Once you do that, there is *nothing* that is off limits to government, because every single activity anybody performs anywhere can have some remote tangential connection to some act of interstate commerce. I have a hard time believing this is what the founding fathers intended.
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:5, Interesting)
"GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems."
The same principles apply to non-OS GPL software, although the original concept was just to create a replacement for Unix.
Re:Isn't it ironic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is designed to ensure that there is free software. That is all.
Any quality benefits are purely coincidental. (The Open Source crowd disagree, but that's a different kettle of fish, and a whole other bunch of licenses).
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:4, Funny)
Shame really. I can just see it now. McBride's just spent his new $50 million hollowing out an old mountain (for SCO's new headquarters), bought him self a brand new white cat and leather chair and got his employees kit-ed out in matching grey overalls.
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2)
That argument has been advanced since the dawn of the Internet, but it turns out not to be the case. A lot of Linux developers do live in the US, RedHat is headquartered in the US, and at the moment Linus lives in the US as well. Whether or not "Linux" could be controlled by the USG, a lot of people who work on Linux could suffer ad
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:2)
That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? If one defines freedom by lack of restrictions, GPLed code is less free than public domain code by virtue of the GPL's specific copying conditions. Thus the only thing seperati
I am confused (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply. If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed re
The GPL is *not* freer than public domain software (Score:2)
That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use. The point of the GPL is that it restricts certain individual freedoms, while protecting common freedom. But make no mistake: public domain software is freer.
It's an issue of sematics, yes. But an important distinction.
Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw (Score:2)
This is the endless debate between Free Software and Open Source advocates. GPL is freer in the sense that it protects the *code* from being captured by proprietary distributors. BSD and PD is freer in that it protects the *redistributor* to
Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw (Score:2)
GPLed code is proprietary. The copyright holders own it and distribute it with redistribution conditions (but not usage restrictions). It is less "free" than public domain code because one cannot do whatever they like with it, like d
metaphor time (Score:3, Insightful)
But then, life is complicated, and the result of having no house and no fence is that, for example, I have no place to put my stuff. I'm not really very free to have stuff, and if I do have a VCR in the woods it's easily stolen. You can think that you are more free. There is a semantic argum
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL. Public domain software has no restrictions whatsoever. Public domain software HAS to be more free.
You seem to think that because someone can take a copy of public domain software and make THE COPY restricted, the software is less free. But that applies only to the copy. For example, take the original work _The Wind in the Willows_, by Kenneth Grahame. The copyright on the original book has expired, and the book is now in the public domain. You decide to make the 95th Anniversary Special Edition of TWITW, based on the original work, and sell it. Because it's in the public domain, you may do this, and you may claim a copyright -- NOT on the Grahame's original TWITW, but on your particular derivative version of it. The original book -- and, more importantly, the text -- though, is and always will be public domain. Your buddy can sell "the Real 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book; your mother can sell "the Unauthorized Complete 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book; Darl McBride can sell "the Poorman's Library 95th Anniversary Edition" using the original book -- and each can claim a copyright on each of their versions, but none, not even Darl, can claim a copyright on the original book, ever. How is this not as free as GPL, which forces you to do something in exchange for being able to redistribute the subject code?
Another way to look at it is this. When a copyright on a work expires, the work becomes more free, right? I don't think anyone would argue against that. So when the copyright expires on a GPL'd work, what happens to that work? Does it become less free? If I take, then, a copy of a public domain work, and redistribute it but with the GPL, is my redistributed copy more free than the public domain work I copied?
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Interesting)
As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead. These are all qualities that the GPL possesses in one form or another. It also possesses the quality of "freedom", but owned, copyrighted and licensed software will never be as free (in the FSF sense) that unowned, uncopyrighted
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Insightful)
You confuse literal freedom with political and social freedom. Political and social freedom exist in a context, not in an isolated situation. Your reductionism does not do justice to the societ
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:5, Funny)
While King Darl is pretty good, a more interesting name would be "The Princess McBride" ;)
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Informative)
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
To quote the GPL:
Re:The Madness of King Darl (Score:3, Insightful)
And given the artificially inflated prices charged by various software vendors, MS in particular, those prices could stand a little reduction.
If the software companies want to sell product, all they haveto do is write better software than a bunch of amateurs and hobbyists. I mean how hard can that be?
And if they can't manage that then arguably their software wasn't worth
Nerd on a rampage... (Score:2)
Oh, I see. (Score:4, Funny)
1. File law suits
2. Get the licensing declared illegal
3. Profits
The only thing is getting everything released under the GPL in the last three years turned over to public domain would trampel the very concept of a copyright. It is a nice idea for SCO, but in reality they have to be smoking crack to think that this one will work. I honestly can not see it happening.
Old and busted, but still applicable. (Score:2, Funny)
Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? Nothing. La
I writ my own SCO article, here it is... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the document the lawyers admit some facts submitted by Big Blue when it counterclaimed, but the important things are what it doesn't admit, of course.
It alleges that Linux is an "unathorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable" from it.
I wonder how much the SCO lawyers are being paid.
Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is... (Score:2)
In short, I think it was decided a while back that "look and feel" alone (which, AFAICT, is the argument presented here) is not grounds for dispute.
I repeat again - and i called it in advance... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...
SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.
it sucks being right.
I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.
There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".
Re:I repeat again - and i called it in advance... (Score:2)
> there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed
> everyone else of doing.
What do you suggest? A BSA type raid on their headquarters for a GPL licence compliance audit, perhaps using ESR's shredder SW on their source code?
Here's a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm thinking we'll see this resolved by New Years (Score:2)
I'm going away for a month starting at the end of November. I think when I get back, I'll find this has been resolved.
SCO is just reaching too far now. How much longer can it go on? The pyramid of FUD has to collapse soon.
Of course, that's just my opinion. After all, this whole case was pretty obvious from day one, and it's still moving forward... reality seems to mean nothing to SCO.
Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Fearless prediction: we will see WinBSD in our lifetimes. Only it will be referred to as just another iteration of NT.
Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Free the meme! Viva la revolution!
Or not.
Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.... (Score:2)
*cough* Current Cisco ad *cough*
Besides, after all the work put into it, the original authors deserve at least recognition.
New theory (Score:4, Funny)
If people won't RTFA... (Score:2)
For reasons I don't understand, this "silver bullet" defense has not been widely reported in the press.
Sorry, Mark, but it didn't quite make front-page on
Bright spot amid all the lunacy. (Score:3, Insightful)
for the sake of arguement... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?
Might such a thing also extend to employment contracts?
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Any contract whose terms are not legal is null. So I think that's already the case.
Note that there is a difference between someone waiving their rights and inalienable rights being violated. In any contract there is give and take - for example, in exchange for payment I give up some specific rights (like working for my employer's competition on the side, for instance). However, I couldn't sign a contract making m
Liabilities (Score:2)
SCO's nefarious plan... (Score:5, Funny)
Sheer genius!
Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't matter; it is OK under the GPL to make code available only to those people who received binaries from you. You must, however, grant the same rights to those recipients so that they can further modify or distribute what they got from you.
In other words, if the GPL is enforceable, this move by SCO does not mitigate their responsibility to honor the terms of the license which they accepted by distributing the software.
If the GPL is enforceable, SCO has lost their rights by attempting to add further restrictions (in the form of their "SCO IP License"). If the GPL is not enforceable, then the whole software industry is in for a shake-up, because a license is the only way that software copyright holders extend any rights to you beyond what copyright allows.
Well then. (Score:4, Insightful)
- November 1 comes.
- IBM buys one (1) SCO UNIX license.
- IBM downloads the full linux kernel from SCO's website.
- By giving IBM said kernel, SCO has just licensed Linux to IBM under the GPL. This can no longer be argued to be mistake, or something accidentally left around on the website. IBM is now not only someone who has grabbed a file off SCO's website-- which is all that you need for the GPL license to be extended-- they are now a paying customer.
- All the code IBM ever put into linux now falls into two categories.
- Code which IBM had the right to put into linux because they own it.
- Code which IBM has the right to put into linux because SCO has granted them an unfettered license to do so by distributing said code to IBM under the GPL in step 3.
- Thus, SCO's lawsuit against IBM-- in which they allege IBM put code into linux which by right of contract is the property of SCO-- is no longer valid, since whether said code is IBM's or SCO's property, IBM now has the right to distribute it under the GPL anyway. The suit can be thrown out.
Yes, I realize the above is utterly rediculous. I'm pointing this out just to elaborate how rediculous SCO's position is. As if it weren't already obvious to all.Who gets the most from the death of the GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
There were early rumours about Microsoft having a puppeteer-like hand up SCO's collective ass when this whole mess started.
Everything released under the GPL over the last three years, ostensibly some pretty solid code and products, would suddenly be up for grabs without the viral GPL attachment, including the Linux Kernel.
(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = ?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Argh, who moded this Insighttful? No, it wouldn't. Assuming there intellectual property is in the Linux kernel, if they had knowningly released it as GPL, it would GPL'd and the whole damn thing would be moot anyway.
SCO's claims are that IBM and SGI put System V code, along with other code they developed, but that according to SCO still belongs to SCO by the terms of the Unix license agreement, were put in the Linux Kernel and the SCO Relased it under the GPL _without know it was there_. And that therefore it was IBM and SGI who released SCO's proprietry IP under the GPL. So it wouldn't be any more legitimately Public Domain that it is GPL'd now. At least if you buy what SCO is saying.
GPL is unconstitutional? (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this stay off the financial newswires? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I'm throwing out two questions:
Is there anything we can do to make the financial folks more aware of this? Every time a deceitful SCO executive makes another $100,000 stock sale to ignorant traders, Adam Smith does another 360 in his grave.
Is there some better news source I should be using for the stocks I buy? I may sound like I'm mocking the "ignorant traders", but how can I be sure I'm not inadvertently funding some con artist myself?
Re:How does this stay off the financial newswires? (Score:4, Informative)
ICP is one of the smartest private investors in California. My advice on news... watch what they do, not what they say. On news sources: best source is EDGAR [sec.gov].
America's loss if they ban the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
If the GPL is ruled unconstitutional in the USA then the rest of the world simply goes for a dual license. With apologies to all the sane people in the USA, I go for something along the lines of: "GPL applicable outside the USA. No licensing terms available within the USA." We move repositories of GPL stuff out of the USA and the rest of the world gets on with business as usual, apart from possibly a few years setback having to replace key developers. The USA, meanwhile, carries on smoking its crack pipe.
Re:America's loss if they ban the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
No judge is gonna take this pill though. They know the score. He won't actually have the authority to revoke your copyrights, my copyrights, or Linus' copyrights, period. Even if I licensed my stuff under plainly illegal and unenforceable terms. EVEN IF THE GPL is COMPLETELY INVALID, the copyrights are safe from any sweep
Class action lawsuit? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this one statment says it all. (Score:2)
"'IBM strongly believes in its counterclaims and looks forward to trying its case in the court of law,' where IBM will address SCO's specific claims, such as the GPL issue, spokesman Mike Darcy said."
No one looks forward to going to Court unless they are sure they are going to win HUGE. It is odd that IBM has turned into Tux's 10,000 pound pet pit bull.
Makes me wish my company was in Utah. We need a new bu
A discussion of Copryright Preemption (Score:3, Informative)
Whether the GPL applies or not... (Score:3, Redundant)
A person publishing source code does not relenquish the author's legal rights over that source code any more than a book author, by having a book published, relenquishes copyright control over the content of *HIS* work.
Without the GPL, no code that is currently GPL'd can ever be legally distributed by anyone (except those expressly permitted by the copyright holder), until such time that the copyright expires (which given the inane extensions given to copyright recently, could be an *AWFULLY* long time).
As for getting permission from the copyright holder... well if a person had wanted to use the GPL in the first place, they'd just come up with their own licensing system which still maintains the copyright holder's ownership and control on the work, and has simple enough requirements for getting permission that absolutely *ZERO* paperwork is necessary (ie... a GPL-ish license).
Why is IBM so quiet? (Score:4, Insightful)
I almost get the impression that IBM is not making a sound for fear that too much pressure on SCO will simply cause them to fold.
When you have a million to one advantage against your enemies, there really isn't any reason to jockey for position.
It is hard enough to keep them in the game, and IBM legal knows as well as anyone else that splattering Boise & Co. in the court room will be some seriously positive publicity.
Re:Why is IBM so quiet? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a very good reason why you should keep your trap shut when you're involved in a lawsuit: "Everything you say can and will be used against you in court." Now I KNOW you've heard that one.
You do not discuss legal action until the case is over with. Time and time again, SCO's refusal to keep their lips zipped has fed IBM more fuel for their own counter-suits and defense. Everything they have said can and will be used against them by IBM.
IBM is not making the same mistake.
I also feel that their brevity and silence makes the cloud forming over SCO only seem darker, but that's just my own bias talking there. The reality is that what you don't say won't come back to haunt you later.
Re:Why is IBM so quiet? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only a "mistake" if the goal of the people whose lips are in question is for SCO to win the lawsuit.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to pump up stock prices to make some personal profit before the company's demise, it would make sense both to make all sorts of wild claims to boost investor confidence, and to put off the day of reckoning in court as long as
The sound and the fury (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, wen you enter a legal dispute, your first tactic is usually going to be to attack the very foundation of your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if your claims are reasonable (though they should be as reasonable as possible), you just want to take the shot.
Then, idealy, you prepare several fallback positions of increasing weight. There's an emotional trick here and a logical reason for this. The emotional trick is that you set the bar by making the hyperbolic claim. When you claim that the GPL is unconstitutional, you're not attacking the GPL directly so much as you're attempting to start the conversation with a debate over the validity of the GPL so that your next points: the enforcability of the GPL will be recieved better.
The logical reason to do this, however, is obvious to anyone who worries about network security. The first thing you do is always the easiest, no matter how likely it is to stop an attacker, to NOT do the easy things, you would be remiss. After you block all incoming IPX traffic, you still have to deal with the TCP threats, and while it's unlikely that you'll be getting IPX-based attacks from your T1 provider, you should still block it.
That's what SCO has done here. They're not really taking the position that the GPL is obviously unconstitutional, so much as they are making that claim because it's where you start... then you can move on to the arguments that are more likely to work for you.
Whenever I hear someone talk about how "insane" SCO is acting, I have to shake my head. It's not insane for a dying company to make grandious copyright claims against the rest of the industry. It is in fact, a very wise, if desperate, tactic. Get used to it, now that Linux is seen as an ecconmic reality, SCO's wild pot-shots will only be the first of many. The open source community's headache here will be the fact that most businesses don't handle all of those pot-shots in the public eye....
I see a pattern emerging here... (Score:5, Funny)
2. IBM, we sue you because you leaked thousands of lines of our code into Linux.
3. IBM, we sue you because we own Unix and you developed software for Linux.
4. Linux was based on Unix and Unix has 2,000,000+ lines of code. Linux contains all our code!
4. IBM, we sue you... not quite sure why now... We own Linux. Everyone give use $699 or else.
5. All software written under the GPL in the last 3 years is free because the GPL is stupid and it just should be ours anyway.
6. All software ever written is ours.
7. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it (Score:4, Interesting)
The SEC needs some help from *you* (Score:5, Informative)
I posted a comment [slashdot.org] with more information about this yesterday....
Makes sense (Score:3, Funny)
It seems to me that they will build an ingeniously incorrect case, bring it in front of a court of law, play the justice system like a card table in Vegas, and if they win
Re:GPL == General Public License? (Score:2)
Did I interpret that wrong, or are you asking why is it being called the General Public License?
If I interpreted it right, it's probably because it's what GNU calls it [gnu.org]. If it was the GGPL, GNU General Public License might make sense.
Of course, it's possible I've totally misunderstood you...
Re:GPL == General Public License? (Score:2)
Where's your cave? (Score:2)
Re:Who will come up.... (Score:2)
What needs to happen to this particular corporate blood-sucker is a stake through the heart, beheading with a silver dagger, stuffing the mouth with garlic & sewing it shut, burning the corpse at a crossroads and scattering the ashes at sea to make sure it doesn't rise again...
Re:Where is Richard Stallman? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Stallman is being quiet because this offers the best possible contrast with SCO's approach to this farrago. Eben Moglen makes regular, measured, authoritative statements concerning SCO's claims. He is the appropriate conduit for the FSF's position in this case, IMHO.
You know, maybe there's a lesson
Re:Where is Richard Stallman? (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly (and more accurately), Eben Moglen "could be thought of" as the FSF's Legal Counsel. Why do you think that anyone cares whether you think RMS's actions are acceptable?
Nobody rammed the GPL down my throat. Some people offered some software under a licence they selected. I chose to use the software. Occasionally I have redistributed this software, under the rights and conditions granted to me by the GPL.
There is a certain art in trolling. You have to stay just the right side of acting like an obnoxious idiot, otherwise you'll just get patronised by people who are cleverer than you are.
Re:In terms a 4th grader could understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then thousands of angry people all have a serious grievance regarding their right due process before a Constitutional Right can be abridged. Every one of them is entitled to an individual hearing on the matter, probably one for each piece of copyrighted work.
The judge in this lawsuit does not actually possess the authority to make such a judgement, except in the specific cases of the property of the parties to the suit. If your code isn't part