Comment Hoping for Court (Score 1) 386
Yes, I'm actually hoping this gets to court. No one believes for a second that SCO was damaged by anything other than their own bumbling in the market place!
This case is important because it is the test of the GPL. It has the potential to answer the question, "Is the GPL a legally enforcable software license?" It also has the potential to establish the parameters around the GPL. The Open Source community seems to be afraid of having these questions answered.
Why though are they afraid? Perhaps, its because of the GPL is an attempt to use the protections of copyright law, to subvert the intent of copyright law. This is no idle matter. It is a valid subject to bring up and debate.
They are afraid because they believe 1) the protections of copyright law are legitimate, 2)the GPL is a subversion of it, and 3)making the GPL illegal will damage or destroy the open source community.
The first premise is that copyrights and patents are legitimate legal constructions which accomplish their stated purposes. The purpose, for example, of patents is to create an artificial monopoly to allow the inventor of the patented invention to bring his product to market WITHOUT COMPETITION for a period of time. The alleged protection is from the "Big Bully" on the block who would immediately offer his new product without allowing the creator just recompense for his efforts. The fear is that innovation would cease or slow if patents weren't granted as there would be less incentive to create these innovations.
The argument with copyrights is that without copyrights authors wouldn't create books, musicians wouldn't create music, and software developers wouldn't create software. But we know from experience that this is not true! The copyright is not for the creator, but for the distributer. Few developers, authors, or musicians achieve any great financial success from copyrights. The distribution companies do however.
In the software industry experience shows that neither patents or copyrights are necessary to create new and innovative software. The Apache Group, sourceforge, Linux, PHP, Perl, Python, etc. are all software projects which have succeeded with what could be considered subversive copyrights - Copyrights which allow copying and distribution without payment to the holder of the copyright. They have been created because they do the job!
Copyrights and patents are what this lawsuit is about, and with any luck it will go to trial. Either way the court case is decided is a benefit to the consumer. If SCO wins, the ridiculous of the nature of copyrights and patents will become more obvious and apply more pressure on consumers, thus causing more pressure on politicians. If however SCO loses, it will validate the nature of the GPL.
The GPL at heart is an attempt to reinvigorate the Commons, with a little bit of malice. Simply providing the source code into the public domain, would help the commons. However, the GPL attempts to subvert copyright laws and patent laws, by requiring code which comes into contact to be infected with the GPL. It operates on the assumption that the quality and quantity of content in the commons is more important than the artificially constructed monopolies of patents and copyrights! I happen to agree.
Copyrights and patents aren't used to protect the struggling inventor, the hungry artist, the mystery writer, the drug scientist, or the software developer. They are designed to provide the distributers of the copyrighted and patented products from competition. In practice we find that large corporations build up portfolios of intellectual property and use it to THWART THE COMPETITION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL. With large pockets, legal threats and a vast arsenal of IP, a large company badgers a lesser competitor into selling or quitting.
In the SCO case we see the opposite. The little failed company is trying to eek out a little more value from its vaunted IP for the investors, before they go belly up. The fault isn't with SCO for doing it. It's a natural consequence of the desparateness of their position. The fault is with legally sanctioned monopolies on intellectual property WHICH CANNOT HELP BUT BE COPIED!
Thanks
David B.
This case is important because it is the test of the GPL. It has the potential to answer the question, "Is the GPL a legally enforcable software license?" It also has the potential to establish the parameters around the GPL. The Open Source community seems to be afraid of having these questions answered.
Why though are they afraid? Perhaps, its because of the GPL is an attempt to use the protections of copyright law, to subvert the intent of copyright law. This is no idle matter. It is a valid subject to bring up and debate.
They are afraid because they believe 1) the protections of copyright law are legitimate, 2)the GPL is a subversion of it, and 3)making the GPL illegal will damage or destroy the open source community.
The first premise is that copyrights and patents are legitimate legal constructions which accomplish their stated purposes. The purpose, for example, of patents is to create an artificial monopoly to allow the inventor of the patented invention to bring his product to market WITHOUT COMPETITION for a period of time. The alleged protection is from the "Big Bully" on the block who would immediately offer his new product without allowing the creator just recompense for his efforts. The fear is that innovation would cease or slow if patents weren't granted as there would be less incentive to create these innovations.
The argument with copyrights is that without copyrights authors wouldn't create books, musicians wouldn't create music, and software developers wouldn't create software. But we know from experience that this is not true! The copyright is not for the creator, but for the distributer. Few developers, authors, or musicians achieve any great financial success from copyrights. The distribution companies do however.
In the software industry experience shows that neither patents or copyrights are necessary to create new and innovative software. The Apache Group, sourceforge, Linux, PHP, Perl, Python, etc. are all software projects which have succeeded with what could be considered subversive copyrights - Copyrights which allow copying and distribution without payment to the holder of the copyright. They have been created because they do the job!
Copyrights and patents are what this lawsuit is about, and with any luck it will go to trial. Either way the court case is decided is a benefit to the consumer. If SCO wins, the ridiculous of the nature of copyrights and patents will become more obvious and apply more pressure on consumers, thus causing more pressure on politicians. If however SCO loses, it will validate the nature of the GPL.
The GPL at heart is an attempt to reinvigorate the Commons, with a little bit of malice. Simply providing the source code into the public domain, would help the commons. However, the GPL attempts to subvert copyright laws and patent laws, by requiring code which comes into contact to be infected with the GPL. It operates on the assumption that the quality and quantity of content in the commons is more important than the artificially constructed monopolies of patents and copyrights! I happen to agree.
Copyrights and patents aren't used to protect the struggling inventor, the hungry artist, the mystery writer, the drug scientist, or the software developer. They are designed to provide the distributers of the copyrighted and patented products from competition. In practice we find that large corporations build up portfolios of intellectual property and use it to THWART THE COMPETITION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL. With large pockets, legal threats and a vast arsenal of IP, a large company badgers a lesser competitor into selling or quitting.
In the SCO case we see the opposite. The little failed company is trying to eek out a little more value from its vaunted IP for the investors, before they go belly up. The fault isn't with SCO for doing it. It's a natural consequence of the desparateness of their position. The fault is with legally sanctioned monopolies on intellectual property WHICH CANNOT HELP BUT BE COPIED!
Thanks
David B.
