SCO: FSF Reply To GPL Claims, Conference Sponsors Back Off? 580
bkuhn writes "Last week's Wall Street Journal (and other news outlets) carried statements by SCO's Mark Heise challenging the "legality" of FSF's GPL.
FSF has
issued a response to this baseless claim." Also, mcgroarty points out that Intel and HP seem to be backing swiftly away from their sponsorship of SCO's in-progress Las Vegas conference (a EWeek article suggests that "Intel Corp. was recently billed as one of the lead sponsors of SCO's Forum 2003 conference here this week, but then suddenly disappeared from all marketing and press material for the forum. It appears that Hewlett-Packard Co. also got cold feet. As late as last week, SCO was telling attendees that HP would be giving a partner keynote at the forum on Tuesday morning. But on Sunday the schedule of events given to attendees when they registered makes no mention of an HP keynote...") M adds: Now we've got a few stories from the conference: News.com.com and Eweek. Despite some bad headline writing at News.com, SCO simply continues to employ the Chewbacca defense, showing no code to back up their claims. Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie. Bravo!
The Bond Clips (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, no piracy.
I dislike SCO's tactics as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Gates or Ballmer), but a touch of fairness isn't going to hurt our cause.
Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite what I wrote (Score:5, Informative)
Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina [hp.com] and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.
Nothing New (Score:0, Informative)
Text of the response. (Score:3, Informative)
SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity
Eben Moglen
Tuesday 19 August 2003
Now that the tide has turned, and SCO is facing the dissolution of its legal position, claiming to "enforce its intellectual property rights" while actually massively infringing the rights of others, the company and its lawyers have jettisoned even the appearance of legal responsibility. Last week's Wall Street Journal carried statements by Mark Heise, outside counsel for SCO, challenging the "legality" of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects against the baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by users of free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing distribution of the Linux kernel, a distribution which infringes the copyrights of thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the world. As IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren't any best arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what SCO's lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.
According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge the GPL's "legality" on the ground that the GPL permits licensees to make unlimited copies of programs it covers, while copyright law only allows a single copy to be made. The GPL, the Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying, "is preempted by federal copyright law."
This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, LSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.
Of course, Mr Heise's statement is nothing but moonshine, based on an intentional misreading of the Copyright Act that would fail on any law school copyright examination. Mr Heise is referring to section 149 of the US Copyright Act, which is entitled "Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs," and which provides that:
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
As the language makes absolutely clear, section 149 says that although the Act generally prohibits making any copy of a copyrighted work without license, in the case of computer programs one can both make and even alter the work for certain purposes without any license at all. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what copyright owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is utterly bo
Chewbacca Defense (Score:5, Informative)
In the "Chef Aid" episode, Chef is accused of trying to steal the song "Stinky Britches," which he really wrote many years ago. The record company takes Chef to court, and they hire Johnny Cochran to prosecute Chef. The whole town is wondering if he will use his famous "Chewbacca Defense," which he used during the O.J. Simpson trial. Here's a transcript:
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Later in that same episode, Cochran has a change of heart and defends Chef when Chef sues the record company. Again, he uses the Chewbacca Defense, although with some minor changes:
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decided whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca) This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.
It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!
(pulling a monkey out of his pocket) Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! (one of the juror's heads explodes)
Eventually, Chef wins the case and all is well.
Re:Not quite what I wrote (Score:2, Informative)
No thanks.
Re:Who is John Moore? (from Yahoo SCOX board) (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like the wrong company.
We are up to a million lines of code! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
(Soon there will not be any original code left!)
While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual property.
SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability, Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V contracts and copyrights.
For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.
SCO's grasp at straws (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL just spells out under what circumstances the copyright holder is willing to give you that permission.
SCO's argument rests on the fact that since one of these cases outlines how to lawfully make one copy of something, and the other deals with how to make unlimited copies of it, they must somehow be mutually exclusive. This is completely illogical. It is like saying that because it is possible to get a one ride ticket for the bus, it must therefore be illegal to buy an all day pass. Sorry SCO, your reasoning seems just a little bit flawed...
Re:Chewbacca defense? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They showed some code (Score:5, Informative)
But read more and you will see
Much of the Unix code in the slides was obscured, because the company wants to keep its intellectual property under wraps, but SCO is allowing people who want to see a more extensive side-by-side comparison during the conference to do so if they sign a nondisclosure agreement.
So basically they show nothing again
SCO to face racketeering charges? (Score:5, Informative)
One a similar note eWeek is also reporting that members of the open source community have approached SCO [eweek.com] with a proposal for viewing the supposed offending code.
We need to lobby any vendors still supporting SCO (Score:3, Informative)
I think that it would be more effective to lobby (and by that i dont mean output from the insult generator) any vendors that still have some sort of relationship with SCO.
The easiest would be any company that also has an Open source/ Linux relationship. Make them know how we feel. And how their relationship with SCO may sour the relationship with the linux community
Gordon Staines
Re:Chewbacca Defense (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Not quite what I wrote (Score:5, Informative)
As sites may be removed [216.239.53.104] from [google.com] google's cache, here's a listing of the companies that were listed
Premier Sponsor
HP [hp.com]
Gold Sponsor
CRN [crn.com]
Silver and Bronze Sponsors
Microlite Corporation
Rasmussen Software Inc.
Equinox Systems
Century
Digi International
TeleVideo
Multi-Tech Systems
InoStor
TelSoft Solutions
Open Systems
Lone Star Software [cactus.com]
DTR Business Systems
Maxspeed Corporation
Tarantella
Basis International
Vultus Inc.
SDSI
fp Technologies
TAKgroup
NextAxiom
Now all those sites reference a site [caldera.com], but that has been taken down too...OR HAS IT [216.239.53.104]!!! mwaHAHAHAHA!!
But, yeah, that [216.239.53.104] page is much more informative. Also for those interested on what the diff sponsorships mean [caldera.com][pdf]...
Re:They shoot horses, don't they? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Text of the response. (Score:3, Informative)
106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
section 149 of the US Copyright Act, cited by Heise, ensures that despite the Section 106, the purchaser of software can make backup copies and such copies as are required to install and run the software.
Interview with Darl, not for faint of heart (Score:5, Informative)
SCO CEO Darl McBride met Monday with CRN senior editor Paula Rooney to talk about the company's Unix crusade and product plans. The interview took place at the SCO Forum 2003 in Las Vegas. CRN is a sponsor of the conference.
CRN: SCO attorneys say if there is no settlement, a trial would begin in April 2005 and last roughly five weeks. Following that, there could be appeals. Is there any chance SCO can expedite this case to free up customers, partners and vendors so that the Linux industry doesn't get hurt?
McBride: We tried to move this along, but IBM kept asking for delays. Now with the counterclaim and patent infringement, it could go even longer. IBM can put this on a slow track [with additional legal moves]. But IBM might be throwing hard balls to [get ready] for the soft pitch [to settle].
CRN: Why do you say that? What's happening behind the scenes? Might this case be resolved quietly, rather than become the intellectual property [IP] case of the century?
McBride: They're putting this on a [slow, legal] path. But customers have been putting pressure on IBM to get this resolved. This is not a case IBM can get knocked out on -they'd be filing motions to dismiss the case [if they thought they could win]. Our case is up to $3 billion- they'd have to come up from a few hundred million dollars to settle. Every month, we keep finding more and more [Linux code that violates out Unix System contract]. We'd want a settlement and royalty [on Linux] going forward.
CRN: Have you met with Linus Torvalds yet, especially since he has become an OSDL fellow? What is your assessment of the open source community activities?
McBride: I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on ..he doesn't want to know about IP or
[commercial issues] He readily admits that IBM has put a lot of code in
Linux and says if you want to pursue it ]legally], go ahead. But I said
to him, 'I appreciate you didn't create the problem, but you have
inherited it. But he won't sign an NDA. There's a lot of discussion
going on at the OSDL, IBM and open source community they're working
though.
CRN: Many in the open source community are upset about the impact of this case on the Linux industry. Open source guru Eric Raymond-among many others - say they are respectful about IP issues but they are challenging SCO to specify exactly which code it believes to be infringing, by file and by line number, and on what ground it is infringing.
Raymund says the open source community is not willing to sit idly by while SCO asserts proprietary control, and the right to collect license fees, over the entirety of Linux. What do you say to that? Why doesn't SCO just leave Linux customers, partners and developers alone and out of its dispute with IBM?
McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down [to retrieve your property], and now they want to say you're the one doing the bad thing. I have to read [Eric Raymond's letter] and am meeting with [The Linux Show's]Jeff Gerhardt on it later.
CRN: SCO shares, as you mentioned during your keynote, have soared from less than a $1 to over $10 since you took the reigns and since the case began. There have been some reports of SCO executives recently trading shares. This casts some doubt in the minds of some about the integrity of SCO's allegations against IBM.
McBride: I personally haven't sold any shares. [laughter]Look, Red Hat executives have sold over 500,000 shares just since January. [Other SCO execs sold shares to offset tax losses but does not know more than that.
Re:SCO to sell Samba product... (Score:1, Informative)
The GPL has language that covers this case in clause 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
SCO claims that their IP is in the kernel, so it may not be distributed under terms of the GPL. Assume they're correct. Then, under clause 7, SCO cannot "distribute so as to satisfy their obligations", and so "may not distribute the Program at all". However, SCO is still distributing Linux. Therefore, they are in violation of the right granted them to copy the work of all the other kernel contributors. That right was granted by the GPL; if you're not complying with all the provisions of the GPL, you don't get to distribute any of it.
It's not about a bunch of programmers getting into a snit, deciding that they don't like SCO, and attempting to revoke their individual copyrights to one person. That action isn't even legally possible.
(And it's a good thing, too; OSS would lose most of its appeal if use of the code really were subject to that sort of whim. The whole idea is not to be trapped into that sort of position where you are dependent on someone else's manipulation of their code. It doesn't matter whether it's Microsoft abusing their power to take your money, or OSS authors abusing their power to shut you down.)
Could be the Scheduler Code (Score:5, Informative)
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Tril
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in German).& t=1716 [golem.de]
Well, one of the core SCO developer responsible for the development of the SCO Groups current Unix Intel port, also contributed to the Linux kernel. Compare this post of Jun's including the commentshttp://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774
Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5312/2001/1/
To this actual part of the Linux 2.4 kernel
http://lxr.linux.no/source/kernel/sched.c?v=2.4.1
and consider the comment of Dr.Stefan Hildemann.
This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?
Re:SCO vs. Linux: Now screenshots (Score:2, Informative)
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern
Explantion to source is here:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/
But SCO says this code is stolen from them...
This message is not my effort. I found it here:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.sh