SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL 1043
Pogue Mahone writes "According to The Register, SCO is now distributing Linux code under a more restrictive license than the GPL. This is a violation of copyright, since only the GPL gives them any rights to distribute the code.
Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO."
A better idea (Score:2, Interesting)
A better idea might be to get together a petition, sending it to SCO telling them to stop this. If they fail to comply, the petition could be used as evidence in court against SCO, strengthing the cause of the open source community.
Time to enforce the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?
Ask for compensations then... (Score:2, Interesting)
What do they have to lose? (Score:1, Interesting)
And to anyone who says that they have absolutely no chance in court, because the law is clearly on the other side, just remember how many id judgments have come out of this court system.
Ramifications (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming that their actions of late (starting with the IBM lawsuit) have been directed under the advice of their team of lawyers, who the heck gave the approval for this? Even IF they somehow invalidate the GPL, are their lawyers so short-sighted that they can't see this coming back to haunt not just SCO, but the entire commercial software industry?
-Shadow
Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.
The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.
Re:Understand.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Only if the GPL is totally voided--which would make the re-compilation of Linux impracticable. (Annoying word, that--sure, it COULD be done, but it's not practical...)
If SCO wins their "Copyleft is non-constitutional" argument, then they'll probably argue that the GPL is a warranty-free release into the Public Domain, or at least similar to the BSD license.
Class action lawsuit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone should put up a website that will coordinate this effort. Someone, or some group, should get a lawyer and discuss the problem. I would start something but I know nothing about law.
Awesome! (Score:3, Interesting)
I say good! Let SCO violate the GPL blatently, and let it go to court. Lets put it all on the line and see once and for all what the courts say about the GPL. Of course I believe the GPL is rock solid and will prevail, but even if it doesn't we'll have it settled and know what has to change.
Imagine the insanity if all the code has to be re-licensed! - things like this point to everything that is wrong with our so-called "intellectual property" system. Sane people using common sense can clearly see the intent of the GPL, and if not it can be discussed easily. But we can't do it that way, why? because the world is filled with assholes and degenerates that will do every thing they can to lie and cheat and get away with it.
Too bad the legal system isn't as simple as common sense, then the authors of the code could go to a judge and say "any child with half a brain can see our intent, and that SCO is violating that intent"
12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. (Score:3, Interesting)
- A.P.
Re:Hmm.. question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Small claims court? If each and every music track put on a publicly accessible share is worth tens of thousands of dollars in fines, think of how much you could get from somebody who is illegally distributing a complete server operating system. With the number of source files involved, you could stand to make $Millions!
Class-Action lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
DMCA Takedown request, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think someone representing the Free Software Foundation would have any problem convincing anyone that at least some of the files in their distro are (c) by the FSF.
Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the (improper, from their point of view anyway) copyright attributions and continue distributing. ;-)
Re:Hmm.. question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
what are the more restrictive terms? (Score:3, Interesting)
Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems they will be taken down by a horde of Joe-Blo developers and rightfully so.
IANAL, but the ones I have talked to about sending nasty grams (cease and desist et al) have stated that the offending party can be billed for that "service".
Consider the math, if even 1,000 contributors (remember, this isn't just the kernal, but all "bundled" services as well) send cease and desist and then have their lawyers invoice SCO: figure US $500.00 x 1,000 = 500,000.00
And that's just for cease and desist letters (cheap ones at that).
Not too hard to imagine a picture of a slashdot effect in the courtroom as this does seem to qualify for a class action on behalf of all US developers, not sure about international developers abroad however. And if such a class action was granted, SCO would be killed prior IBM's legal skirmish as a class action could be argued to take precedence as they have harmed individual persons in a gross and egregarious manner.
Overall, I am not surprised by this latest tactic. DarlCo seems to crib it's notes off ShrubCo in it's motive of Preemptive strikes.
ShrubCo: No proof/discloser on Iraqi WMD's, state they want a war, start a war still without the proof/disclosure to justify it's actions.
DarlCo: No proof/disclosure on Source Code infringements, states the GPL is moot/void state that all source code under the GPL within the last 3 years should be Public Domain, they preempt and relicense the "public domain" source code.
DarlCo unfortunately doesn't have the sway or the power to cover it's ass. They aren't the largest military unit in the world and do not enjoy certain protections. This act right now is THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN
They just woke up a force more powerful than IBM, the open source community. Which if organized against a common menace is a force much larger than any corporate entity in the world. That's why MS is scared of Gnu/Linux, not the market share but mind share.
Alas poor Darl, we hardly knew ye.
Will Linus Sue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Linus Torvalds is the trademark holder for the name Linux, does this mean Linus will sue SCO?
actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is throwing a hail mary. I'm not suprised they are sending as many receivers as possible. (Note I said this makes sense, I didn't use the word ethical or correct)
-t
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the GPL dies, then so does the FSF-ideology. Sure, you can have the BSD license, but any time a BSD project achieves execllence we'll just see a proprietary vendor take the software, add three features, and start selling it. If they become established they start messing with the code to break compatibility with the free project, and the free project dies.
This is the standard MS embrace-and-extend technique. Only the GPL has shown immunity to it.
Under standard copyright law linux would just die - many linux developers would not be willing to devote hundreds of hours of their time to a project that will just end up being a code donation to a proprietary vendor.
Re:Hmm.. question.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't bother with C & D letters, use the DMCA! (Score:1, Interesting)
Make stupid law work for you.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats the sort of questions that need to be answered.
If I release code that says "You may use it if you give me your first born." and then that is found illegal/unenforcable, do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license? (Not enforcable so others can legally ignore it.)
Re:Hmm.. question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow up (Score:3, Interesting)
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html
The following error was encountered:
* Read Timeout
The system returned:
[No Error]
A Timeout occurred while waiting to read data from the network. The network or server may be down or congested. Please retry your request.
Time for devs outside the US to call their lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
AFAIK, SCO is only challenging the GPL within the US court system. Regardless of the outcome, the US doesn't dictate license validity to the rest of the world -- only their own country.
And so far as I am aware, many (although certainly not all...) kernel and other core Linux developers live outside the US.
I think it's time for these developers to rise up and smack SCO within their own countries. If SCO is redistributing their work outside the confines of the license the copyright holders provide it under, SCO is in violation. And if developers in enough countries where SCO does business file lawsuits, SCO's going to have to hire a massive army of lawyers to deal with all of them, hitting SCO's coffers.
I know that if SCO were to start redistributing any of my GPL'd code under another license without my prior permission, I'd be hauling them into Canadian court to answer for their actions.
Yaz.
Class Action Suit Time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's right (Score:3, Interesting)
No, nobody is. But cease and desist letters are usually sent with an understanding (at least they attempt to foster the understanding) that if they are ignored, further legal action will be taken, such as a suit. Sending a C&D letter is cheap, but if all you want to do is scare somebody into stopping, they're often effective.
How about send a DMCA notice?
GPL Licence is NULL ? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's interesting that the GPL licence is currently powerless to protect Linux against SCO hijacking the source code and doing whatever it wants with it. Considering that was the very reason the GPL was written, right now it's turning out to be a complete failure.
And it's also interesting that the BSD licenced OS's don't care about code hijack, and yet have the least problems with it.
Is it time to think about getting the GPL tested in the courts ? What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version ?
Is Linux dying as opposed to *BSD ?
SCO and RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't commit any copyright violations against RIAA.
Personal copies made by me for my own personal use are completely legal. We even pay a blank media tax to compensate the copyright holder.
Hmm, can I sue SCO now? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) I can download Caldera OpenLinux ISO images from here [ftp.fsn.hu].
2) The SCO "register to access downloads" feature is a bunch of crap. Wander on over to Caldera's FTP site [caldera.com] and download the source RPMs at will, the legal notice notwithstanding.
So, what happens if I install OpenLinux 3.1.1 workstation on my box at home (it is free and I have a spare machine I'm not using) and SCO closes the Caldera website down? If I go to SCO and say I need the sources, they ask "Are you a Caldera customer, I say, 'No, I am using a free downloaded version of OpenLinux 3.1.1' and they reply "You need to buy a SCO Linux License.", I think I have the grounds at that point to sue them for violation of the GPL's terms of distribution since they cannot deny me the sources on a product they distributed just because I didn't buy it.
Also, here is a fun page on SCO's own website OpenLinux Supplemental Open Source Software [sco.com]. Hmm, does IBM need some more ammunition provided by SCO themselves?
Bozo (Score:5, Interesting)
It is illegal to mass duplicate music - and I agree with that.
The Copying rights for Linux are CLEARLY labeled, and every user is CLEARLY informed of them. It is illegal to not supply this information.
The Copying rights for CDs aren't particularly clearly stated. It takes a bit of digging to actually figure them out.
Sound recordings occupy a special place in Copyright law. Computer source programs are NOT the same thing at all.
Now, all of this has been hashed to death, but the thing that makes you a Bozo is:
The RIAA does NOT hold sound recording copyrights. The RIAA is simply a cartel representing its members.
Linux is not even a cartel. It is simply a trademark. There is NO cartel; copyright is held and defended by the individual authors, or, in some cases, has been assigned to the FSF.
Ratboy
SCO, MSOFT, RIAA, GOOGLE = copyright war (Score:3, Interesting)
Class Action Lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
The REAL fun, now it's non-USA, too (Score:4, Interesting)
But this is different. Now SCO is violating copyright law, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Obviously they're testing the GPL, and thinking about US law. But now they have to worry about the status of the GPL under other nations, as well.
FSF (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway (followup) (Score:3, Interesting)
Further to my last post ...
The ALA has some comments on mass-market licenses [ala.org]. In general a negotiated contract is enforcable over Copyright law, while a non-negotiated one ... well, that depends on the court, from time to time.
So riddle me this: a fBSD kernel coder sees a cute trick in the Linux kernel and, with minor modifications, uses it. Infringement or not?
Is it fair use?
Ouch. Strictly a violation of the GPL, but legally acceptable? How far does this go?
Re:Understand.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mostly because there are two schools of interpretation of IP in the US. One, which equates IP with ordinary property, allows you to form a contract with any parties on any conditions the standard contract law would find legal. Incidentally, GPL implicitly relies on this interpretation when builds upon U.S.C. 17.
The other school distinguishes IP from P and sees U.S.C. 17 as artificial construct carefully crafted by State to strike the balance between IP creators and IP consumers. If you look at the IP from this angle, then GPL may be considered illegal (at least in the US) because it alters this balance. Hence, the SCO's argument that it is illegal and must be pre-empted.
There are precedents that decided both ways of interpretation, which makes SCO's case less laughable, then any one of us would want it.
Whether GPLed works fall into public domain or not is a separate question. AFAIK, SCO's argument why they should, is because distributing works under illegal license, you barred yourself from the copyright law protection as a matter of equity.
The most ironic part of the whole thing, is that, in general, most people on /. (including myself) consider IP != P, which weakens their pro-GPL case and corporate IP creators, including SCO, in general, argue that P == IP, which makes their anti-GPL case weaker.
Since both sides try to have a pie and eat it too, I expect the trial to be more interesting then MS' anti-trust case.
GPL isn't really powerless, proprietary checkable (Score:5, Interesting)
From that perspective, it's clear that SCO is not "getting away" with their actions. Instead, they're being sued by two organizations.
This case is becoming exactly what you asked for - a possible situation where the GPL is tested in the courts. It may not come to that; SCO could quickly back off on those points when it's trial time. But to get the GPL tested in the courts, you need someone willing to blatantly violate the license and continue to do so while in a trial. That's not happened before; violations are usually unintentional, and nobody's ever been willing to stay in court to fight the GPL. I think most lawyers have decided that it'd be far too risky to play that game, and their clients have some product or service that can make them money. SCO has nothing to lose.
By the way, you ask "What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version?" There have been persistent rumors that some major proprietary vendors (including Microsoft) are using GPL'ed code illegally in their proprietary code. However, they're just that, rumors, and it is not fair to allege that someone has committed a crime when there's no evidence that they've done so. Indeed, I think Microsoft takes copyright quite seriously and I would expect them to take many steps to prevent violating any licenses.
Currently it's difficult to detect stolen GPL code in proprietary programs. But in theory it's quite possible to compare proprietary machine code (possibly decompiled) with GPL'd source code. If anyone suspects that GPLed code has been wrongfully included in proprietary code, and the binary is available, feel free to create and use tools to do such checking.
Re:Claim in article is not correct (Score:1, Interesting)
The code does seem to be derivative of SCO's. This gives them an ownership interest in the code, which of course allows them to distribute it in any way they please.
This is in fact false. If this were true than the writer of the book Forest Gump could redistribute the movie however he wanted to. He could sell copies of it that compete with those from the studio. This is not the case. Owning a copywrite to a work that someone makes a derivative work based on, does not confer copywrite to the derivitive. Thank you for playing.
Look at Their Strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it their position that they now own all software that has ever derived from UNIX (pursuant to the original UNIX license)? They have at times implied that even the BSDs are not immune.
AT&T made this "derivative software license" claim with BSD a long time ago, but they lost because they had violated the BSD license themselves (by stripping the copyright notices of BSD contributors). SCO has said that BSD might not have complied with that court order. Sounds like FUD to me, but it does reveal their hand a bit.
Of course, their argument regarding Linux (which seems doomed to fail) will be that because Linux at some point in time had some of their code in it, they own it under their license as a derivative work, free of the GPL. It's the same argument that AT&T made 20 years ago.
The SCO code that existed in Linux (which at least SGI has admitted to inserting) was a copyright violation only until SCO distributed that same code under the GPL. As soon as SCO distributed that same code under the GPL, it gave everyone the right to use that code under the GPL.
SCO's distribution of its own code under the GPL was not intentional... but it doesn't have to be because copyright law creates strict liability.
Will they argue that they should not be deemed to have relicensed their code under GPL unknowingly... Will they at the same time argue that everyone who used that code is strictly liable and shouldn't be allowed to rely on the fact that SCO had distributed the code under the GPL? That is arguing for a double standard under the same statute: strict liability for them, fault liability for me.
Their argument doesn't hold water, and hopefully the court will see that.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the future of Linux, and the future of SCO now depend on what a judge says. SCO is betting the company on a legal strategy. They were going down the tubes anyway, so why not bet it all on a long shot?
Score one for the DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Class-action? Group petitions? WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Group petitions?
WTF?
Doesn't anyone learn anything from watching the news about Afghanistan or Iraq??? Why do think we're getting our butts kicked? Why is Ramadan now synonymous with Tet? Stabbing with a million little knives is always far deadlier and more effective than with a single large knife! Did Saddam plan it this way? Hell, yes! This precisely what the war-naysayers in the Pentagon was worried about.
J-H-C! Do the fixed and variable cost of engagement calculation. Learn something about Lanchester equations already! Why did Rumsfeld say "we're at a disadvantage... our cost structure is $1Bs and the resistance is $1Ms"? It's the fundamental weakness of centralized power against distributed power. It's a mathematical inevitability. It's why you don't jump into a guerilla war with a conventional force, unless you're an idiot or a shrub. Why do you really think open source kicks butt on proprietary source?
The most effective way to combat SCO's blatant copyright violation and rights theft is precisely to file a million separate C&D letters, followed by a million separate lawsuits, each for maybe only several $1K-100K each. To make this easy the EFF, open source lawyer, et al., should post a D&C template kit and a copyright lawsuit template kit (GPLed of course!) that can be taken to a local lawyer for a perfunctory blessing and establishment of legal figurehead.
Now, the overhead of addressing each and every suit (as SCO is required by law) is probably enough to burn out all their new venture money by itself and then some. To make it extra difficult and expensive, allocate the filings over every federal court district. Hey, lawyers do this calculation all the time!
But just case that isn't enough, follow through to step two. Next the EFF becomes a clearinghouse for a marketing and pr campaign against SCO based on all these D&Cs and suits. The campaign should focus on institutional investors, first and the general media. Add up the damages and publicize the enormous financial risk facing SCO and pretty soon even the most strident SCO supporters will be demanding they backdown or will be pulling their investments.
And then there's steps 3 and 4, but I won't go into those...
Sigh! :-( The square-law multiplier and economies of scale (aka technology and financial resources) are neutralized and much more, by a distributed, asymmetric engagement. That also is a mathematical inevitability. That's how we lost Vietnam and how we'll probably lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we can finally learn something good from it.
Group petitions?! Class-action?! Psshaww! This is war, unfortunately. You want to make yourselves an easy target for neutralization? Class-action has a single-point failure! Just like Lanchester's Convention-vs-Convention engagement you have a square-law force multiplier: double the legal clout and they get 4x better results. The only group action should be massively independent distributed action, just like open source development itself! Also like DDOS
JGski
Just another delaying tatic... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's not go eye for an eye here. (Score:1, Interesting)
Do send them C&D's
Let's have some serious players set up an account or two that will accept paypal, cc's etc. so we can voluenteer $$.
Heck, I live in utah. I'm sure there's many people that would love to see their HQ and offsite facilities for backups burned or even just "disabled"
Any takers
Re:That's right (Score:3, Interesting)
If they distribute GPL'ed code in this way by internet, they are violating the DMCA.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, but you have to spoecify exactly which files you believe infringe your copyrights, something SCO is completely unwilling to do.
SCO would not succeed requesting a takedown of rh90.iso but if they go after lance.c in anyone's distro, we at least know where to look.
Besides, at least one of SCO's position is that these Linux files belong in the public domain, so anyone should have the opportunity to publish at will. Now I wouldn't put it past them to shoot one of their own arguments in the foot with a braindead act like asking IBM to takedown their Linux files, but I think trying to have a DMCA takedown issued for every mirror of every kernel file is too much work for them; it's just not their style. SCO is playing a strategy based on only having to win one battle, and only having to fight in the court room (their home turf). Personally, I think the real world frightens them.
Re:FSF activity (Score:1, Interesting)
it's basically up to them to defend the GPL, and if they don't/can't... that's a Very Bad Thing (TM).
the lady that i talked to hadn't heard yet that SCO had begun distributing GPL software under their own license, or that there are a few people filing complaints against SCO with the SEC (whoever came up with that idea, good move). maybe whoever is in charge at the FSF will react more strongly now.
Re:Hmm.. question.. (Score:2, Interesting)
But have SCO accepted the license? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since there is no way any sane court will accept their claim the GNU/Linux is in the public domain, and they haven't accepted the license, they are simply making a copyright violation.
By their own estomate, GNU/Linux is worth at least US$ 699 (that's their price, right?), per seat. So as a copyright holder, you should sue them for that amount for every copy of Linux ever distributed by SCO, including those downloaded from ftp. This is what RIAA does, with success.