Is the SCO Lawsuit a Good Thing for Linux? 422
Jack William Bell writes "The National Post is running an essay by Wynn Quon entitled 'Linux's lucky lawsuit'. In it Quon claims that (A) SCO is going to lose (saying ". . . SCO is a toad about to face a steamroller.") and (B) the Linux community needs exactly this kind of 'inoculation' as the OS moves from a hobbyist platform to a real business tool. Good analysis or unwarranted optimism?"
Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what mom used to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Er... no (Score:4, Insightful)
If Linux is to survive, it is imperative that its license, the obnoxious GPL, is tested in court.
No publicity is bad publicity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've just got back from the Hampshire LUG [lug.org.uk] meet where we had a good few 'noob' people arrive. We had a good chin-wag about SCO, and generally chewed the fat about all things Linux.
Non-Linux literate people just don't realize how big this open source thing is getting. It's great!
It's early optimism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's what mom used to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Er... no (Score:4, Insightful)
It cuts both ways (Score:2, Insightful)
In the end, people usually believe what they want to believe. Facts usually don't affect the clarity of wishes and illusions
S
I concur... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is gonna have to be able to stand up to these guys if it's going to make further inroads into the corporate environment. Better that it start now, with an ally like IBM. What if they had gone after some real poor Linux distro manufacturer who would have had to cave under financial demands? - There would then be legal precedent for their claims...
Nope, I honestly think this is a ploy by the Executives of SCO to inflate stock price a bit so they are selling at $10 instead of
Liunx success in mainstream media (Score:5, Insightful)
Lighting Strikes.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit. I read through the first half, and it had the facts pretty much on. I thought..wow. A good article coming from the National Post. One of the biggest rags in the western world.
But then the second half..
FUD FUD FUD.
It raises the spectere of FUD about Linux and GPL in particular. Stating that Linux distrubitors need to cover companies over potential copyright violations (none is needed).
As well, it completely misrepresents the GPL. Giving the absurd idea that somehow a future copyright holder could revoke their code, throwing everything into a huge legal battle yet again.
The funny thing is that it actually mentions FUD in spreading FUD..teehee..*sigh*..
Lightning does not strike even once for the National Rag.
don't think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Could someone explain this author that Linux is professional for something like 10 years and is widely used as a web server platform ?
I agree particularly on the inoculation part... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish something like this would have happened a couple years ago... before I started running 5 Linux servers at work that I now can't do without.
Linux is a Product now (Score:4, Insightful)
Over and above the fact that this is not an option it wouldn't be.
It's the same argument as stating we do not need advertising, packaging, etc.
Linux is moving from being a Solution to a Product. A product that needs to compete with other Products in the market place. This means that all the intangibles starts to be very important wether you like it or not.
FUD is a legitimate marketing tool used by alternative products and your Product needs to be able to withstand the critisism.
That is why we need this lawsuit, need for GPL to be declared a legal enforcable license, and for SCO to be silences (or better killed)
Yes it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is it, it's the long-awaited test of the GPL in court. SCO isn't backing down, and IBM isn't forcibly backing them down. The GPL, before this case is over, will have been tested in court, and that is absolutely good... if we win. If the GPL is not upheld in court then this is very, very bad. Since none of us know for sure how it will go, this whole suit is very potentially-good.
But, c'mon, this is IBM here. If anyone can win a court battle, it's IBM.
One way or another we'll know whether the GPL is valid by, say, 2008.
Something has been lost, regardless of who wins (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the author's assessment that this is just the first of many attacks. We will be forever defending Linux and Open Source from the individuals and corporations who want to own and control everything.
It will probably become more difficult for Joe Coder to just submit a patch to fix a bug. At worst, a lengthy background check will become required to verify that he hasn't worked on something similar for a corporation. At best, he'll have to complete some paperwork before he gains committer status.
These kinds of steps will help tone down the endless parade of future lawsuits that await us, but they will have an impact on the culture of open source, if you can call it that. We can't be innocent volunteers trying to help out anymore; open source processes will have to evolve to more closely match their corporate counterparts. Expect accountability and responsibilty to become new buzzwords, and expect the sort of back-stabbing politics that come with that kind of corporate climate.
There will be an impact on the meritocracy so often praised -- your work may be rejected for reasons having nothing to do with its merit. Or from another point of view, part of the measurement of your work's merit will be your ability to prove that it's original. "My patch doesn't fix the bug as elegantly, but you used to work for Company X, who developed a similar system five years ago, so we really can't accept your work."
I'm probably too much of a pessimist. But it seems that regardless of the outcome of the whole SCO mess, something will be lost. Maybe nothing terribly vital, but something.
SCO's lawyers are (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Linux installs went up instead of down after SCO started making noise indicates that most people/companies don't think SCO has a snowball chance in h... and that the GPL will stand the court test.
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't we all wish it was that simple (Score:2, Insightful)
The odd thing is that I didn't expect the lawsuit to come from SCO. I would have expected Microsoft (conspiracy theories aside) or maybe Sun. Also, I expected the initial lawsuits to be about patents and not copyrights. I actually think there are more lawsuits in the future for Linux. Since patents are more broadly defined, future lawsuits about patents could be even more dangerous than the SCO suit.
Re:Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
The case absolutely will test the GPL, because both IBM and Red Hat have raised GPL license issues. SCO distributed GPL'd code (even if they assert it was a mix of GPL'd code with their own code) and the legal question is what legal rights did they agree to waive by doing so.
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The original suit wasn't about the GPL. However, one of the specific points of of IBM's countersuit [com.com] is that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL and thus removed any claim they may have otherwise have had to exclusive ownership of parts of the code in the Linux kernel. This IS a direct test of the GPL, and it will likely be one of the first issues decided since, if it stands, it makes all of the other issues in the suit irrelevant.
Take warning from BSD's experience (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been pointed out often but it bears repeating: BSD won their lawsuit too, for all the good it did them. All it takes is one or two quarters of businesses' holding off on a Linux migration and we'll end up like BSD: a bunch of hobbyists and cranks who do great stuff but never get to take it anywhere.
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO lawsuit against IBM was not about the GPL.
The Red Hat lawsuit against SCO is about the GPL, as is the IBM countersuit against SCO.
Mod Parent down -1 (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice.
How about Ximian = Boston = Catholicism = Child Molestor? Or maybe IBM = New York = Jew = Baby Eater?
This is VERY ugly language, and very ugly ideas. That you posess them and spew them and put them forth as the correct perspective is abhorent.
And BTW, I lived in Utah for a number of years. Your perceptions and bigotry are skewed. The Mormons, as a whole, are a nice people. This SCO group, on the other hand....
suing Brittanica (Score:5, Insightful)
Very recently, however, I discovered Encyclopedia Brittanica used my blurb for their entry on the subject. They stole my intellectual property.
I am hereby announcing my forthcoming lawsuit against Encyclopedia Brittanica. I am looking to enjoin them from distributing any further copies, either in paper or electronic form. I will also be seeking royalty payments from anyone owning a copy produced since 2001. And no, I will not disclose which entry it is they stole, since I do not anyone reprinting it even as a news article.
* * * * * * *
Yes, the above is fiction. It was written to illustrate how stupid SCO is being. Why no judge has forced them to disclose said infringing code is beyond me. Frankly, since if the code were disclosed it would be removed, it seems like they are ENCOURAGING further infringement, which I would take as their not defending their copyright adequately.
It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liunx success in mainstream media (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's $699 for the tiny little part of Linux that SCO claims to own. So if SCO's intellectual property makes up a few percent of Linux (yeah, right), then Linux as a whole should be worth several tens of thousands of dollars. And you get it for free!
Re:Kind of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO originally thought it was going to raise a stink, get IBMs attention and get bought off or bought out. That didn't happen. Microsoft got into the fray with their purchase of a license and that, interestingly was the point where the thing started to go out of control. Originally there was no talk from SCO about the GPL or going after Linux companies or users.
SCO now knows that it is out of control. You can thank Microsoft for this. They must be having a good laugh. They got what they wanted. A famous test case for the GPL.
Re:Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
If the claim stands up in court, then it will be a win for the GPL. Which I gues kind of proves the point of the article, even though I'm not happy about the actions SCO has taken.
If nothing else... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM's claim is that they have exclusive ownership of the code that SCO is contesting (RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc.), and that SCO is in violation of the GPL by:
A) distributing the code in violation of IBM's copyrights
B) requesting licensing fees in violation of the GPL, under which IBM permits distribution of its copyrighted kernel contributions
and
C) requesting licensing fees for code SCO has itself already licensed under the GPL.
Re:Something has been lost, regardless of who wins (Score:5, Insightful)
That didn't start with this lawsuit.
Furthermore, even if "bad code" slips in, it can simply be removed. That sort of thing has happened before and it's not the end of the world. The only reason SCO's complaint hasn't been addressed yet is because they haven't told anybody yet what their complaint actually is. As soon as they come forward, it will be addressed within days at most.
Open source is in a better situation than proprietary, closed-source software when it comes to copyright violations. If a closed source company puts someone else's code into their products, they might be trying to get away with it; that's why courts penalize such conduct pretty harshly in the rare cases where it is actually discovered. But it makes no sense to put copyrighted code into Linux because it's so trivial for copyright holders to check--obviously, when that occurs, it's either an accident or stupidity, and both proof and attribution are so trivial. That's why merely requiring removal of the code from the open source project is usually sufficient.
So, no, I don't think anything has changed with the SCO lawsuit. People have been worrying about these issues for many years, and they have been dealing with them for many years. The only thing that's different about SCO is the spectacle and PR that surrounds it, probably just intended to drive up SCO's stock price.
$6 Million, Man (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why it indeed could turn out to be a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to the popular belief, the SCO case never was and never will be about the GPL.
No, but it should be. Linus and other kernel developers should be suing sco for copyright violations since they are still distributing the Linux kernel without agreeing to the GPL.
Re:Not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the just-settled patent suit between Intel and Broadcom, with Broadcom being the LOSER. Intel does not have had any legal standing to sue anyone whose equipment has a Broadcom chip. Broadcom has already paid Intel for those chips - that's what the damages are for, what Intel would have made if Broadcom had not infringed on Intel's patents.
Re:Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
The enemy of your enemy could be a friend, but it could end up one day being your enemy and come back to bite you. I'm sure there are some chinese proverbs out there but I can't think of them right now.
Re:From the article (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:SCO is committing seppuku (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sickened by their behaviour. I would rather dig ditches than install or maintain any of their products because of this lawsuit. I can smell it around me - the loathing and, well, shock. Hell, who in the trenches of IT thinks that SCO are 'winners'?
Some people in the company might profit, but most companies are made up of a lot more people who profit very little from wierd stock schemes, especially in very recent times.
A few low-lifes may profit, but I would wager that a lot of ordinary, decent folk at SCO will be kicked in the teeth. What a shame.
Nope, the company is a loser. I don't care how much money their CEO makes. He is a loser. I wouldn't be him for all the tea in China, or all the bravado in America. I spent too much time in the trenches in hospitals to think that making a bunch of money turns you into a winner.
Re:Kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
I must respectfully disagree. While I don't exactly care what OS most businesses use, I like using it at work. I want it to It was very easy to convince my superiors with examples such as Burlington Coat Factory, NVIDIA and IBM, which are big businesses that use Linux. If I didn't have these examples, convincing people that Linux was good to use in the workplace would have been much harder.
There is only one reason to be involved with Linux and one reason only: because you love computer technology and OSes for what they are: cool toys.
Here I really think that you're oversimplifying. I may love computer technology and operating systems because they are cool toys, but at the end of the day I appreciate them because they allow me to make a living.
Re:Er... no (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the GPL has nothing to do with End Users.
The GPL allows you to copy and redistribute the software, it's basically just the way that the author of a copyrighted piece of code gives you permission to do whatever you want with it (it sort of counteracts standard copyright law -- where copyright says you can't copy, the GPL says you can). That is all.
The GPL in no way restricts your use of a program (the way an MS EULA does), and you don't have to "agree" to the GPL to use a GPL'd program. You only have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute a GPL'd program.
Re:Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM's products are enterprise-level hardware and technology consulting. If enterprise-level software is more available, the demand for both of these increases. Therefore, it is in IBM's interest to make a high-quality operating system ubiquitous and inexpensive.
It so happens that they have chosen to do so through Linux. The plan is make profit by selling hardware that runs Linux and consulting services for systems that run Linux. At no point is it in IBM's interest to hinder the development or adoption of Linux, since doing so only decreases their potential market.
(Microsoft did a similar thing with the PC. By licensing DOS to IBM in a non-exclusive fashion, they left the door open for cloned PC's to run the same operating system, and therefore look and feel the same to the user. And when the PC became a commidity piece of hardware, Microsoft profited. However, their doing so was not a bad thing for the PC in a hardware sense, nor could they have any possible profit-motive in restricting the spread of the PC.)
Re:Er... no (Score:5, Insightful)
But at the moment, while SCO claims that one or more programmers violated their copyrights, SCO has violated the copyrights (stolen the IP) of the over 400 programmers who have contributed to linux. By not agreeing to the GPL they forfeit the right to create or distribute modified GPL'd software, but they'd rather commit hundreds of counts of copyright infringement, even while suing others for lesser infringements against themselves, than break some of their support contracts with past customers.
For them to be "legal", they must either stop distributing the kernel source code altogether, or agree to the terms under which they are distributing it. Though there's still the problem of crimes already commited. They've been commiting copyright infringement for several months now, there's all the libel, the false and threatening emails and phone calls to the customers of their competitors, the attempts to sell licenses for something they don't own, threatening lawsuits against those who don't buy them, etc.
I hope to see some of the countersuits pierce the corporate veil and drain some SCO executives, those who don't flee to mexico with the money earned from selling their inflated stock.
Re:Don't we all wish it was that simple (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its high time we are forced to look at the law we are passing and consider whether or not it is good law.
Re:Er... no (Score:4, Insightful)
What a world we live in, when building software can land you in prison.
My vote is that prisons should only consist of violent offenders. Any crime that does not involve violence should be a house arrest of some type (even before RFID, we have ways of tracking criminals in their homes).
But they're not listening to my vote.
Re:Er... no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Er... no (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the focus of SCO's complaint is that they've lost business because if the code hadn't been put into Linux in the first place, we would all own VAXen or mainframes, and be running System V, therefore SCO would be reaping big fat bags of money (with dollar signs on it!) from all of our $1000/seat licenses.
Since we stole that mystery code long ago, we can't make it better by replacing it now. Those big bags of money (with dollar signs on it!) are gone for good and we can't make it better. We suck, and must display contrition.
Good analysis or unwarranted optimism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither.
The article is neither "good analysis" nor is it "unwarranted optimism". It is an editorial piece making the argument for "the corporate makeover of Linux" and attempting to sell that idea to the current users and developers of Linux. "Corporate Makeover" implies both the limitation of the Free aspects of Linux (and other Free Software) in distribution (beer) and in access to the source (freedom), and the introduction of centralized management of Free Software development.
The repeated claim that Linux cannot become a success and remain free is getting tired and thin. That companies cannot wrap thier minds around the implications of the GPL enough to ship thier products (and services) in a way that is compatible with the GPL is not the fault of the Free Software comunity. It [debian.org] is [debian.org] possible [debian.org] to create and distribute propietary apps for Linux without running afoul of the (L)GPL.
If Microsoft had helped WINE, there would be little or no demand for OpenOffice, and Linux users would be purchasing Office. Of course, this would have meant acceptance of the fact that Linux is eroding Microsofts dominance of the Desktop market, but acceptance of reality is generally thought of as part of a healthy attitude.
The accusation that there needs to be more "centralized" control over Free Software development is equally false. The current decentralized methods being used for many projects is the main reason for Linux's (and other FS project's) success. There seems to be a failure to understand how the success of Linux has been due (in part) to the lack of marketing driven development. The "markets" that have directed development have been the needs of individual (and groups of) developers, the needs of the users of individual distributions, and the needs of distributions to cooperate in specific ways. This allows greater freedom for separate distributions to explore different answers to the problems of creating an OS and to share, either in whole or in parts, the solutions that different distrobutions have created. It also allows distributions to decide whether to impliment standards based on merit instead of on compliance (I do not want nice to exit with anything but 0 unless there is an error).
There will continue to be people who either refuse or fail to understand that Linux and free Software not only fits nicely into the business place, but is a direct result of business philosophies failing to fufill the needs of software developers and end users alike. Corporations are free to cooperate in free Software Development, make products that run on top of Free Software, and market services to end users of Free Software, but it would be a bad idea to let them run the show.
Re:Er... no (Score:1, Insightful)
Playing the devil's advocate here: The difference between Apple's or Microsoft's code and GPL'ed code is that, GLP'ed code is much much easier to obtain. So it's much easier for the programmer to slip in some GLP's code...
Are the IP laws working as intened by the founders (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, though the advancement of technology means the shorter the time span of technology is useful, the IP monopolistic rights have been extended. Where the only way to extract value after initial integration is to take the laws to their extream and to a degree never intended by the founders.
At the heart of the arguement is not SCO vs. the world but IP laws applied today vs. their original intent.
The simplist statement of original intent is that "of benefit to society"
And not to be used in a manner of
"Unfair Competition [threeseas.net]
The repression of unfair competition is directed against acts or practices, in the course of trade or business, that are contrary to honest practices, including, in particular:
* acts which may cause confusion with the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* false allegations which may discredit the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* indications or allegations which may mislead the public, in particular as to the manufacturing process of a product or as to the quality, quantity or other characteristics of products or services;
* acts in respect of unlawful acquisition, disclosure or use of trade secrets;
* acts causing a dilution or other damage to the distinctive power of another's mark or taking undue advantage of the goodwill or reputation of another's enterprise.
Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage creative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men.
"
Seems to me that GNU and GNU/Linux reaches that last sentence far better than SCO can possible achieve in their lawsuit and claims against Linux and the world.
Maybe SCO thinks the last word "men" is exclusively them.
Re:Er... no (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is now that those SCO suckers bought a deed to a piece of useless land, pardon the analogy, and are desparately trying to find a way to make the boneheaded purchase turn into something not so pointless. They realize that IBM is going to ditch AIX at some point soon, dooming the revenues from the UNIX license for AIX. SCO is trying to protect an investment... it just so happens that they are doing it in a panicky, incompetant, clumsy, and extremely annoying way.
I'm sure IBM knows this. They will drain the life out of SCO with their countersuits, like the ancient old business vampire that they are, and SCO won't irritate us any more. Perhaps the UNIX intellectual property will be purchased by Red Hat, Apple, or Microsoft when all is said and done... perhaps the only legally true UNIX will be Windows Server 2005 ;)
Are those two really directly related? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hardly think it was the lawsuit that killed BSD, I certeinly don't believe it was "lack of commercial interest" that made all the difference. Assuming BSD even died, which would be an exaggeration, considering BSD is powering OS X.
If anything is a threat to Linux, it is the total lack of respect for copyright law. If people had really been forced to pay for Windows/Office, I know quite a few that would be tech savvy enough to get around in Linux just fine. But as it is, they do WinXP/OfficeXP and with the same savvyness, dodge whatever activation scheme MS is putting in there.
Kjella