IBM Moves To Enforce GPL By Summary Judgement 620
gvc writes "So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.' IBM, in its third motion for summary judgement against SCO, is seeking a permanent injunction against SCO's distribution of Linux, on the grounds that SCO has renounced and violated the GPL, and therefore has no right to distribute the 700,000 lines of IBM-copyrighted code therein. As usual, Groklaw broke the story." We previously reported on another IBM summary judgement from earlier this week.
Just Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
This scenario would, however, lend credence to IBM's other arguments (the GPL being valid etc).
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
By SCO claiming the GPL was not a valid license, they are in effect distributing the work of others without a license to copy or distribute that work. There are very few outcomes to this that could be good for SCO.
Depending on how they turn this around, SCO may not have the permission of the original authors to distribute many of the functional parts of their own product. The Unixware kernel doesn't do much on its own.
Oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell at SCO _ever_ thought this would be anything but a disaster?
Re:Oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I don't think anyone was *that* stupid (No, not even Darl). But as history has demonstrated many times, if you're in the right place at the right time, disasters can be very profitable. This isn't about SCO owning Linux or UNIX -- it never was. This is about a calculated attempt to manipulate investors and the stock market.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
If you distribute code, you are indicating that you accept the license. Can you later reject the license, and if so does your continued distribution constitute a violation of copyright?
Re:Just Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Distribution does not indicate acceptance (Score:5, Interesting)
This is all completely independent of the issue of whether any code used in Linux was actually tainted, of which, of course, we've seen zero lines so far.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is breaching the GPL. Remember how you could buy a license for Linux, but you could not redistribute it? That's a GPL no no.
Thanks to those few who signed a legally binding contract for SCO/Linux licenses, there is concrete proof that SCO is distributing Linux illegally.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) GPL is valid. If this is the case then MS just wasted all the money they funneled to SCO.
2) GPL is not valid and therefore SCO has no right to distribute IBM code. If the judge rules that the GPL is not valid then this would in all likelyhood make all EULAS invalid and that would be a happy day indeed.
You notice I said IBM code not samba, gimp or whatever. IBM is suing about IBM code was released under the GPL.
The case seems pretty open and shut to me but then again IANAL. In fact the more learn about the US legal system more bewildered and disgusted I get. How long has this suit been going on and they haven't even held a trial yet.
ARGGG! GPL is not a EULA! (Score:5, Informative)
EULA = End User Liscense Agreement
The GPL is a liscense for distribution of copyrighted code, it has no bearing on End Users. It only matters to Red Hat, Debian, IBM, etc. A EULA is generally a set of conditions under which you are allowed to USE code ( or usually a work derived from code). EULA's are invalid.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
EULAs such as Microsoft's are actually already illegal (or at least, not enforceable) in many jurisdictions -- where your rights under the law are sacrosanct, nothing can attempt to abridge them. Even if you promise not to do something that the law specifically says you have a right to do {such as reverse-engineering software for certain purposes, i.e. academic study or developing interoperable products}, you can't actually be held to that promise. In some jurisdictions, it's actually an offence to ask someone to make that empty promise.
The GPL -- as clearly stated in the Preamble -- makes no attempt to restrict your statutory rights. Instead, it gives you additional rights over and above your statutory rights, subject to certain conditions. These are clearly not inalienable rights.
So much for the difference and apologies to everyone who already knew that, but some people don't so it needed saying. The similarity is the way the licence is delivered and accepted without feedback to the licensor. (The GPL may even be at an advantage here, thanks to its wording; Sections 4 and 6 say if you receive GPL software from someone who is acting in breach of the GPL, this does not prejudice your rights as long as you play along. Section 5 clearly states the consequences of non-acceptance -- that you retain your statutory rights and nothing more.)
The only reason why the GPL could be found to be invalid is because the proper procedure to create a legally binding contract is not being followed -- there is plenty of evidence showing that is perfectly OK to give someone limited permission to make copies of a copyrighted work, and to impose conditions on their doing so. If this is the case, then any EULA which also failed properly to create a legally binding contract would be null and void.
Finally, even if the GPL is found to be valid, this does not mean that EULAs are valid. In fact, it might well substantially weaken EULAs; a "typical" EULA is almost certain to be read out in court as part of the proceedings, and it's very likely that someone will pick up on it.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's sales of "SCO IP in Linux" licenses, such as the license it sold to EV1, clearly breach the GPL, in that they a) charge royalties for GPL'd code, b) restrict the licensee to use only, and don't permit modification, and c) infringe the copyrights of all the other Linux contributors who have not given permission to license their code under any other terms but the GPL.
On the other hand, IBM's other arguments that SCO is out of compliance due to "repudiating" and "disclaiming" the GPL might not be valid. SCO probably has a free speech right to criticize, repudiate, and disclaim the GPL without forgoing its benefits unless they actually breach the license.
Since they have breached the license via their "SCO IP In Linux License" scam, I expect the summary judgement to be granted in IBM's favor on those grounds.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Except that, as someone pointed out on Groklaw, SCO repudiated the GPL in court filings . As I understand it, even a box of rocks wouldn't be dumb enough to assert something in a legal document and then expect to be able to blow it off with "hey, that was just me exercising my right to free speech".
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPL doesn't allow this kind of distribution unless the whole is covered by the GPL.
Therefore there is no non-GPL covered code in linux. (atleast not in the versions they distributed)
This is what IBM is kicking them for... either they accept the GPL as covering the whole binary and thereby made there own alledged code GPLed.
Or they don't accept the GPL in which case IBM is probably going to demand SCO pay a few billion for copyright violation.
Jeroen
Re:Free source code access (Score:5, Informative)
To quote the GPL itself:
This means: Of course you can charge for the executables. But you have to provide the source code at no more cost than just handling and shipping, if the people who got the executables from you are interested. And you are not allowed to avoid the cost and hassle by just pointing at other sources than yourself, if you are charging for the executables.
Re:Just Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
How 'bout a name change: GNU/SCOUnix! GNU/Openserver Cool.
More seriously, I'm starting to think it should be called GNU/Linux not so much because of Stallman's contributions of lots of user mode software, but rather in honor of his brilliance of the GPL. No matter what people say about RMS, the GPL is beautiful.
Note that this IBM move wouldn't work with the BSD license. To a large extent I think the GPL is a big part of the reason why Linux seems to havae more momentum than BSD. Companies like RedHat, IBM, Tivo, Linksys etc seem far more likely to "give back" to Linux; meaning a bigger pool of contributors.
If this works, I'll switch from thinking GNU/Linux is a silly name to thinking RMS deserves it for his legal brilliance that he foresaw long before anyone thought it might be important.
Possibly the best news ever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if IBM get their judgement this could be just about the best news for free software since GNU started.
It's certainkly worth the trauma of the last year to get the GPL publicly upheld in court.
Here's three cheers for IBM (and SCO;-).
i'm not dead yet! (Score:5, Funny)
no it hasn't been (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possibly the best news ever... (Score:5, Funny)
Forbes has a different take. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Forbes has a different take. (Score:5, Insightful)
And those are very different. Yes, the whole article was pretty neutral, but it was just poor word choice, Forbes should be more careful with the opening remarks (because those are what most people read/remember)...
But I find it sligthly difficult to accept your explanation, even though I'm not with the tinfoil hatters. Forbes must have considered SCO's response as "robust" (rugged, durable) and I can't understand how's that.
Ah well, nobody browses at "0" anyway so don't mind an AC challenging your view
Re:Possibly the best news ever... (Score:3, Funny)
So, do you mean that now IBM will remove its evil looking mask to reveal its ugly face and then die silent yet glorious death on Linus' lap?
Raf
Re:Possibly the best news ever... (Score:4, Funny)
But IBM *lost* the Clone Wars. Or is this saying something I didn't know about Episode III?
I hope they actually go through with it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hope they actually go through with it... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they fall a couple more percent, someone could buy them for their cash, if (and its a big if) they can make the legal risks go away. My guess is IBM won't buy them, for fear of setting a "please sue us" precident (like I think EV1 and Sun did by payingn SCO). But perhaps someone with a intellectual-property agreement with IBM that has a "we won't sue each other" clause could.
ack, meltdown (Score:5, Funny)
A major corporation using the legal system to enforce copyrights involved in a license the OSS movement agrees with?
What to do, what to DO...
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Funny)
It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM has a decent case, it brings to mind the image of a kitten poking at a Rotty.
The GPL is well written enough, it should stand up in court, even against SCO.
At least, I hope it will, or else we have a whole new battle on our hands...
GPL and Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
IF A THEN B, IF NOT A THEN B.
IF the GPL is Valid then SCO has violated Copyright law.
AND
IF the GPL is InValid then SCO has violated Copyright law.
THEREFORE: SCO has violated Copyright law.
QED
A no win situation for SCO.
Poetic justice based on hard Logic. Gotta love it.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. SCO's original argument was that "the GPL is invalid, developers are effectively putting their work into the Public Domain".
If the court agrees with this, the GPL becomes invalid and SCO are well within their rights to do what they want with the code.
It's not quite over yet.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
As others have stated correctly many times, if the GPL is invalid then normal copyright applies. It wouild be unthinkable for the court to deny copyright protection to Linux, which is explicitly copyrighted. GPL and copyright are not mutually exclusive - they are very distinct and separate. The code is copyrighted. The copyrighted code is licenesed to you under the specific terms listed in the GPL. Even if the terms don't apply, the copyright still does.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but anyone with any code in the kernel or anything else that makes up SCO Linux may also sue, and if they do it after IBM wins such a suit, they'll already have been found guilty. I don't think I'll be the only one amused when SCO starts hemmoraging punitive damages.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but promissory estoppel basically means that if you have said/promised/stated something and someone relies on those statements, YOU can't later turn around and change your mind and then sue people for violating your rights. Other people can still sue, but assuming all developers involved agreed to the GPL they're all limited by promissory estoppel.
Further distribution might be risky, but then the judge is extremely unlikely to find the whole license invalid - the more likely scenario if the judge is wary about parts of the license is for the judge to ask for advice from someone with solid knowledge of the license and/or the copyright holders in question to try to interpret the license in a way that is both legal and meets the intent of the copyright holders.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
So what are the options:
1) The GPL is valid and SCO violated it. The GPL states very clearly that the GPL cannot be combined with other contractual obligations (like "SCOsource"). If you have something that contains GPLed code, but contractually can't be distributed under the GPL, then the license states explicitely that you cannot distribute the resulting code at all. So you can say: "This guy stole my code and combined it with GPL code to make a product, nobody can distribute that," but you can never say "This guy stole my code and combined it with GPL code, so you must pay me to distribute the result," which is what SCO tried to do.
2) The GPL is invalid and SCO tried to license under "SCOsource" lots of stuff it had no valid license to even redistribute. Now, you can claim promisary estoppel for following the letter of the GPL even if it doesn't hold water - but you can't claim promisary estoppel for doing something that violated the GPL when it held no water. That is just nonsense.
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends on why they find it invalid and how much of it they find invalid. It's hard to imagine how they could find any of it invalid, but if they did find any of it invalid, it would probably only be a small portion. And what the results would be would depend on what that small portion was.
Saying, "if the courts find the GPL invalid, the results will be X" is sort of like sayin
Re:GPL and Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I should point out that even in your simpler, "the whole thing is invalidated" scenario, the results are not necessarily guaranteed. SCO, for example, suggests that the GPL is invalid, and then suggests that it should be dealt with under a law where a bequest to a defunct charity is reassigned by a judge to a reasonably equivalent charity. The code, SCO suggests, is like the bequest, and the only reasonably equivalent charity to the GPL is the public domain.
Now that's pretty obviously stupid - the only reason a judge has to rule on a bequest is that the bequestor is, presumably, dead. The authors of Linux, GCC, Emacs, etc., are not dead, so they should be able to decide what should be done with their own code. But that shows another possibility: that the owners of the code could be ordered to choose a valid license of some sort, rather than simply having all the code revert to complete non-distributability.
I agree that your suggestion is the simplest and probably the most likely (in the very unlikely event that the GPL is invalidated). I'm just trying to show that it's not necessarily the only possible outcome. There may even be others that none of us have thought of.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
>court
You know, my lease with my landlord has never been tested in court either, but I don't think anyone would reasonably presume that I don't need to pay rent, or that I can be kicked out without a reason.
I have to wonder whether people who say "the GPL has never been tested" have actually READ the GPL. It is quite straightforward. You don't need to be particularly used to reading legal documents to understand it. Read it, and find one single ambiguity that would require a hearing in court in order to settle its validity.
If the law doesn't protect the GPL on its face without a struggle at every step, then NO licence agreement is safe. The GPL is as simple, straightforward, and unambiguous as it gets!
What's to "test" in court?
That's not the best example (Score:5, Insightful)
I more or less agree with the principle of what you've said, but I'm not sure if this is a great example. Even if you and your landlord have never been to court, chances are that the lease agreement is either a clone or a very close copy of a standard and legally scrutinised agreement. It's likely that a similar template agreement has been used in thousands or more lease agreements, and probably that template has been tested in court many many times already.
Although the GPL is clear, concise and (we would hope) very straightforward, it's still out on it's own to a large extent. It's quite a different way of doing things from any software agreements that came before it (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), and it hasn't been tested. There seems to be quite an incentive to have it tested in court, too, if only to silence the people who might publicly dispute its validity for their own reasons.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
It has been said the GPL has never been tried in court, because only a fool would try it. Enter SCO:
SCO has argued in the media, not in court, the GPL is unconstitutional. If the court found this to be true, then SCO is in violation of copyright, since by claiming it unconstitutional, SCO had no right to distribution under standard copyright law. Note in this case, IBM has not signed their copyrights over to the FSF, so still retains copyright on their code. This means, were the GPL found unconstitutional, IBM goes after SCO for standard copyright violation & SCO gets stomped by IBM in court. Regardless, SCO has presented no evidence to the court the GPL is invalid or unconstitutional. (OK, they haven't presented any evidence for anything, in any case)
Therefore, SCO HAS NO CHOICE but to argue the GPL is valid, otherwise, they themselves are in violation of copyright law and get sued into oblivion.The GPL does not need to stand up in court...! (Score:3, Interesting)
You either accept the license and get the right to distribute the work under its conditions.
Or you refuse the license and you do not distribute the work.
The courts have nothing to do with it, until the moment the copyright holder decides that his rights have been infringed, and sues. SCO cannot (and of course they know this, but they are playing stupid buggers) claim that "the license is invalid". WTF does that mean?
If I write a license
Re: It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
"A more interesting situation would be if anyone ever mounted a successful challenge against EULAs, which would surely cripple the GPL"
Why do you say that? The GPL isn't an EULA.
The GPL doesn't even presume to restrict *use* in the sense that an EULA does, and it is quite explicit on this point. It bothers me when people refer to the GPL as a license respecting use of the software, because that misconception could be working against adoption of software, even when the believe is completely false.
GPL is not a User license (Score:5, Informative)
The only fact applicable to an End User for GPL is the "Use for anything but No Warranty" part . Excepting the Freedom 0, there is no End User Licensing applicable to GPL and it is NOT CERTAINLY AN AGREEMENT for the end user as it has NO CONDITIONS to agree to for him , only a notice of Warranty which is present in almost every product on the market (absence or presence of warranty).
However a developer or distributer has to agree to the license and comply or not choose to distribute it. The point to be noted is that GPL is applicable for code that is distributed. I can take gcc/binutils and modify it for my own OS , keep it private and never release the source. I can even take it to a couple of trade shows and demo it out . But only if I give the binary to someone else without sources will I be violating the GPL.
You have to understand the twists in GPL to really appreciate RMS and FSF - they essentially built a strong moral , ethical , and legal foundation for GPL (V1 and V2).GPL did stand up in court, didn't it? (Score:5, Informative)
It stood up in court recently in Germany, AFAIK
The German GPL Order - Translated [groklaw.net] from GROKLAW
Back in '04... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM's motion is successful this would open the door for IBM to sue SCO for the breach!
NEWS FLASH: SCO MESSES UP (Score:5, Funny)
IBM Deserves something.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM Deserves something.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you really want to get them something fitting, how about some code?
Re:IBM Deserves something.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure but they do seem to get the idea of producing a good product/service that people will *want* to buy, rather than forcing their tolls and products down people's throats. Hi Unisys. Hi Microsoft. Hi SCO. Hi Apple. Hi BT. Hi BSA. Hi US Government.
I for one welcome our new decent-product-producing overlords.
Cheers
Stor
Re:IBM Deserves something.... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, put yourself in the shoes of a low-level manager at IBM:
New PHB: (pokes head into mid-level boss' office) Psst! Hey Boss! Gotta minute?
Old PHB: Yeah, what is it?
New PHB: Uh, you know how other companies have problems with employees surfing Fark.com, porn, eBay, et al? Well, I've discovered that our employees are goofing off by... (looks left, looks right, whispers)... developing that free Linux operating system during work hours, when they don't think I'm looking!
Old PHB: Hmmm... well, if we discipline them, we'll have a morale problem... if we fire them, they'll take our secrets to the competitors... tell you what, why don't you look into this Linux thing, see if we can make some money with it.
Re:IBM Deserves something.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Will.
Good thing Linux isn't a GNU project (Score:4, Insightful)
The kernel won't be on SCO's site for long... (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM reconciling their debt to society? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still... I'm suspicious enough to wonder what their long-term (10+ year) plan for linux really is...
Re:IBM reconciling their debt to society? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy.
Here are the high points.
By making the operating system and other software open source you undercut MS. Less money MS has the less they can boss you around.
You concentrate on making good hardware especially mainframes where you are a market leader.
By boosting linux which can run on many platforms you undercut Intel and thereby giving your chip division chance to compete.
Continue to build up your services division because open source software needs lots of support.
Profit!!
Pretty simple actually.
The big corporate winner of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The big corporate winner of this story (Score:5, Funny)
Sell! Sell! (Score:5, Funny)
What's love got to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, because of the GPL, globalisation and the internet, GNU/Linux or some other functionally equivalent free OS will tend to survive, even if in the future IBM (for good business reasons) decides to change its stance.
Re:What's love got to do with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, this is second time I've read kind of statement today, and probably the 50th time I've read it this month. And it's NOT true--it's a broad generalization that seems like it should be right, because we see corporate behavior in the news so often that seems to follow this principle.
I have worked within several actual corporations (LLCs and INCs, mostly) in my professional career so far, and done business with many, many more. My most recent job (investigations and litigation work) gave me an incredible inside view of high-level goings-on at a number of corporations, big and small. And it's just not that simple.
Corporate actors (managers, officers, executives) make moral/ethical decisions all the time--sometimes inside their own firm, sometimes outside. Even beyond the basic "ethics means not breaking the law" issue, most of these people are enlightened human beings with consciences. These decision-makers, as a group, will turn down moneymaking opportunities more often than you think in order to stay on the right side of ethics/morals, even if there's no legal or PR risk involved.
Not everyone acts like this all the time. But since it's not particularly newsworthy when a CEO does the right thing, quietly, in the privacy of a board meeting, you don't see it. This is a classic media bias problem: you assume that the world is a worse place that it really is, because you only get told about the bad things, by and large. That isn't the whole story.
Remember: Corporations are run by people, just like you, me, Abe Lincoln, and Hitler. We can only except "corporate" behavior to be within the range of human behavior, from the good to the bad, because corporate behavior is just HUMAN behavior. It's situational, sure, but most of the peculiar corporate manifestations (e.g., Dilbert) are really just bureacratic behaviors--you'd find similar stupidity in the government, the military, or non-profit orgs.
Re:What's love got to do with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, what some have grasped is that by being a "good" corporation, you can potentially make a LOT more money in the long run than you could by being "evil" for the short term.
Re:What's love got to do with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fundamental principle in capitalism is to minimize costs and maximize profits, you learn this the first day of business school. And consumers are pretty much only concerned with getting the cheapest products (which is also a fundamental principle of capitalism), so what happens is that the market actually *encourages* immoral behaviour. Media coverage of immoral behaviour rarely has any impact, and this is especially true for multi-national corporations where you would need massive, global media coverage.
A good example is food production - treating animals good is costly, the most effective way is to have large "factories" where animals barely have any room to live, are drugged with all sorts of weird growth hormones, and are slaugthered as soon as possible. And since consumers want the cheapest food, they most often buy these products, and thereby promote this animal abuse.
I think Milton Friedman [wikipedia.org], a Nobel prize winning economist, said it best in his essay "The Social Responsibilty of Business is to Increase Its Profits [sdsu.edu]". Let me give you a few quotes:
"[B]usinessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are--or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously--preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades."
"In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible[...]"
"[T]he corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money. The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsiblity," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it."
"[T]he doctrine of "social responsibility" involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses."
"I have called [the doctrine of "social responsibility"] a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
Moral behavior without morals (Score:4, Insightful)
Where morals come into play is when tit-for-tat doesn't apply - one of the dealers is much bigger than the other, or has an opportunity to crush the other without repercussions. Microsoft (to pick a random example) screws its partners primarily because it can.
Re:What's love got to do with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
While the common wisdom is that corporations will only do what's best for their bottom line, the reality is somewhat murkier.
Far too simplistic a view of business. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you and other people with similar views seem to forget is that even very large companies are usually under the direction of a small handful of people - and sometimes the group is even smaller than that.
You paint IBM as a directionless ship, blowing where the wind will take it. But the very best companies do not just do what is strictly best for money's sake - instead they have some kind of vision and execute plans to take them there, even if they might leave a little money on the table in the process.
IBM has done exactly that. They have seen the big "Open Source" event horizion off in the distance, and they are placing themselves in the best position possible for a company to survicve (and thrive) in that kind of storm.
No matter how much money IBM might have made siding with SCO, they still would not have done so - because doing so is 180 degress aginst the vision they are going for. Companies that truly follow the money might be good for a short hop, but will never go the distance.
If you want examples of other companies that really act more as extensions of individuals (for good or ill) just look at Oracle, Sun, and even Microsoft.
Profitable != Immoral (Score:3, Insightful)
However, corporations in a sense are not so different from most people. Most people exist for personal profit, whether monentary or otherwise. We live to better our own situation, often regardless of consequences to others. Look at how we treat the environment, or abuse "the system" to the detriment of others for personal benefit. By and l
Never tested in court???? (Score:5, Interesting)
I cant see IBM loosing this one. i bet they can produce something SCO cant - evidence. This'll be good to watch
Re:Never tested in court???? (Score:5, Funny)
As usual... (Score:3, Interesting)
You cannot use GPL because you will be sued in court like SCO. Use our OS, we would never sue you! As compliment we will offer you a free browser, media player and firewall! Yay!
Stupidest company ever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bitching aside, it is nice to have a real OVC (Original Villainous Company - IBM) show these wanna-bes how it's done.
First sentence from the article sums it all up... (Score:3, Funny)
Amen.
Three cheers for IBM! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget that Sun is beginning to do this. There are now full-page magazine ads appearing that feature StarOffice. However, these are of lesser interest to the Linux community in that the ads primarily benefit Sun without the broader appeal of the IBM ads. Still, adoption of StarOffice and OpenOffice will eventually make it easier to switch to Linux.
Another question is, "what do you think professional marketing' will bring to the table that Linux doesn't already have?" For instance, who in the United States does *not* already equate RedHat with Linux? You're unlikely to increase vendor/product identification in this case through traditional marketing (and RedHat is quite happy to pay for their own marketing). What you *might* do is increase market acceptance of Linux as a product. But IBM is already doing that. If your competitors' ads are working for you, why spend the dollars?
All in all it adds up to one of the old/stuff tech GIANTS backing the fledgling OS that could, Linux. Thanks IBM, let me start repricing those t41 thinkpads now...
CB!
Future action against SCO ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If SCO loses the right to distribute Linux because they repudiated the GPL, would they then be open to lawsuit for distributing other products under the GPL or GPL-like licenses (GNU CC, etc.)?
If so, perhaps it would be useful to not only go for the jugular, as IBM has done, but to violate the corpse as well.
it depends (ordinarily, the answer is no) (Score:4, Insightful)
If they lose for violating the GPL, and, in particular, for trying to charge people per-CPU fees for Linux, and for asking them to sign licenses agreeing not to use or distribute the source, then the answer is no. That's a violation of the kernel license, which just happens to be the GPL. It's not a violation of the licenses of any other software that may happen to be under the GPL, since they haven't tried to charge for or restrict the distribution of that other software. On the other hand, the violation claims should be a slam-dunk for IBM.
It helps to think of the GPL as boilerplate. The kernel has a license, gcc has a license, emacs has a license, etc., and they all just happen to use exactly the same words. Ordinarily, you can't actually "violate the GPL"; all you can do is violate a particular license that happens to be the GPL. It takes some really unusual (and spectacularly stupid) behavior to end up in violation of all the licenses of all software everywhere that uses the GPL. Before SCO came along, I would have said it was impossible. Now...I'm still not convinced it's possible, but if there was ever a company with the proper combination of chutzpah and stupidity to pull it off, it's SCO!
Welcome! (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the club, glad you could make it.
Sincerely, BSD License
Extend and embrace (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, my then boss remarked that operating system software should be like the sewage system: only noticed on the rare occasions it fails. The sewage system is, in effect, Open Source: anyone can read the rules for designing it, and anyone who follows the rules can connect to it. They will have to pay to dispose of waste through it, but that's another matter. What they pay in taxes is the cost of provision, not an IP tax to the person who designed the system in the first placed.
Equally, anyone can read the plumbing codes. I don't have to pay a fee for intellectual property to Home Depot every time I want to put a shower in, or connect two pipe lengths.
On the other hand, Home Depot makes good money, and highly skilled plumbers installing big shower rooms do very nicely, thank you.
So I think this is where IBM wants to be. IBM wants, in effect, to put in really big and impressive bathrooms. It's easier to do this if someone else, who hardly has to be thought about, is taking care of the water supply and the sewage. It makes sense to give away some of your knowledge of infrastructure, because others will build on it and make your life easier.
I apologise (a bit) for the extended metaphor, but I think my understanding of the basic economics is right. SCO builds high priced sewage pipes and charges a premium for knowing how to do it. They also want everybody else who digs holes in the ground to pay them a tax. In doing this, they are trying to backflow (sorry) against the entire trend of technology development. IBM, in classic Adam Smith mode, look to their own advantage but, without intending to, benefit everybody.
Re:Extend and embrace (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, they're being honest about it. Notice that IBM isn't claiming to be a 'white knight' charging in for 'the greater good', or some such leftist rot. They've been pretty clear that they back Linux because it's good for them and their business, and not for any other reason.
I could get used to this new IBM. No grandiose claims, just smart and honest business. That's a company I could put money into. And it's a whole hell of a lot different from the IBM we knew and hated when I was young.
Max
Lets all help out (Score:5, Funny)
Except this isn't about the GPL, per se (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the MSJ closely, IBM is actually saying: (emphasis added)
So this isn't really about the GPL--it's a simple copyright infringement issue. They're saying to the judge, "we own this code and SCO is distributing it without permission, so stop them".
On the other hand, they do go on to add:
So if SCO is going to mount a defense to this MSJ, they'll have to argue for the GPL, essentially countering their own earlier claims that the GPL is invalid and forcing them to tell the judge "uh, we were wrong". This isn't about IBM "testing" the GPL, it's about them grabbing two big boulders and squishing SCO between them. (:
If the GPL did end up being ruled on by the judge, about the only ruling I could see is that the GPL is valid and therefore SCO has not infringed IBM's copyrights--but IANAL, so what do I know?
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
It turns out that in the Memorandum in Support [tuxrocks.com], IBM does invoke part of the GPL--specifically, the part that says "no relicensing":
Re:Except this isn't about the GPL, per se (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Except this isn't about the GPL, per se (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has, without permission, copied code from sixteen discrete packages of copyrighted source code written by IBM for Linux and distributed those copies as part of its own Linux products. SCO has literally copied more than 783,000 lines of code from these sixteen packages of IBM's copyrighted material. As a result of SCO's copying and distribution of IBM's code, SCO has unlawfully exercised IBM's rights to its works and therefore infringed IBM's copyrights. It can be interpreted it that way.
If you go on to read the next paragraph:
Although IBM's contributions to Linux are copyrighted, they are permitted to be copied, modified and distributed by others under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") or the GNU Lesser General Public License ("LGPL") (collectively, the "GPL"). However, SCO has renounced, disclaimed and breached the GPL and therefore the GPL does not give SCO permission or a license to copy and distribute IBM's copyrighted works.
You can see that the axis of this motion really is the _GPL itself_.
Re:Except this isn't about the GPL, per se (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except this isn't about the GPL, per se (Score:5, Informative)
The Memorandom of Support makes this clearer. Either: (a) SCO's claim that the GPL is invalid and unconstitutional etc etc is true, in which case the only legal basis for SCO distributing IBM's work is destroyed. So they've been distributing IBM's work illegally. Or: (b) SCO's claim that the GPL is invalid is false, in which case they have breached the GPL by demanding license fees (from Autozone amongst others). Breaching the GPL in this fashion means that SCO loses the right to redistribute the GPL'ed software (per the GPL, which is valid in this line of argument). So they've been distributing IBM's work illegally.
The interesting part (Score:4, Informative)
Not tested in court = good, strong (Score:5, Interesting)
It is most unlikely that the GPL will be tested in court, because it is unlikely that SCO will challenge it in court.
Things that get challenged in court are things that have some ambiguity or uncertainty to argue about. The reason the GPL has never been tested in court is that nobody has ever devised a legal attack on it that a judge might take seriously. FSF lawyers have written to many companies which tried to get away with violating the GPL. Faced with the credible threat of legal proceedings, all these companies gave in, presumably on the advice of their attorneys.
The only cases of ongoing GPL violation I am aware of (e.g. Kiss Technology's piracy of Mplayer code) continue because the violator is not faced with a credible threat of being taken to court. The main advantage of assigning one's copyrights to the FSF is that the FSF has the resources (money, lawyers) to sue the bad guys, and has a track record of success.
line up here, mouthbreathers (Score:5, Informative)
This is for all the mouthbreathers on here who have tried to come up with some assinine pseudo-legal reason as to why a breach of the GPL doesn't give way to copyright claims against the breacher. I have argued time and again on here that breaching the GPL simply opens somebody- like SCO- up to statutory damages for willful copyright infringement.
Well, you don't have to argue with me about it anymore, argue with IBM's lawyers:
Any questions?
Re:Not a very strong case (Score:5, Insightful)
When they started trying to charge people $699 for using code they've been distributing themselves under the GPL for years, you don't think that was maybe a breach of some kind?
Re:Not a very strong case (Score:3, Interesting)
What IBM is arguing is that SCO's "GPL sucks" (and maybe other actions; have to wait for the full pleading to be sure exactly what they are saying) statements constitute a "renouncement" and a "disclaming" of the GPL and a statement that SCO is rejecting the terms therein. Without the permissions granted by the GPL, SCO has no rights to distribute the portions of IBM's code in Linux, apart from those granted by the fair use doctrine.
Furthermore, they are probably g
Re:Got there a few minutes earlier.. (Score:5, Informative)
Violating the license is strictly speaking not possible, because such "license violation" is done by doing something which is not covered by the license. The license grants you rights above those granted by copyright law, and granting of rights can't be violated. Of course a license can have a termination clause for the case you violate copyright law (or, for that matter, for any reason except those which are explicitly illegal; you could f.ex. state that a license terminates at the time of the next thunderstorm, except that no one would make such a silly clause).
IANAL, however.
Re:The GPL doesn't need to be tested in court. (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling the GPL an exception would be far more misleading IMHO. The GPL does not void copyright or exempt you from it. You are still subject to copyright law, but you are given permission to exceed what copyright law would normally allow; it's the GNU Copyright Extension, perhaps, rather than Exception, as it adds to your rights rather than taking away from them.
Your agreement with PJ consists of PJ allowing you to do something (copy one of her posts) that ou would not otherwise be allowed to do - in other words, she's giving you licence (or permission) to do so.
SCO's error has been that they *did* treat the GPL as an exception, thinking that it acted to erase copyrights somehow while adding a couple of conditions - and that voiding the GPL eliminated the conditions and left the code copyright-free. IBM is now demonstrating to them the errors in this interpretation. :-)
Still, it's definitely a puzzler why SCO continued to distribute Linux while claiming that the GPL was invalid.
(Incidentally, I notice Forbes now has an article giving SCO's "reply", which essentially pushes SCO's own dubious views concerning what a "derived work" comprises. Basically it looks like a SCO press release... not unusual for Forbes when it comes to the SCO/IBM case.)
Re: IBM deserves some money from Linux (Score:4, Funny)
So what if IBM manages to make some money from their investment/contributions?
Why and why not... (Score:5, Informative)
The reason the FSF wants authors to include it is that IF there is a legal issue (such as an unfavorable decision or opinion) that requires a change to the GPL they don't have to wait for every author to update their releases to use the new license.
It's unlikely that RMS could do anything so extreme even if he wanted to, though. Remember, this is an "or" clause, so if he put onerous restrictions on later versions of the GPL they wouldn't automatically apply to existing releases.