Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy 612

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the sweet-sweet-irony dept.
An anonymous reader noted an article talking about the Samba Team's Statement to SCO. While Darl McBride blasts the GPL, his company simultaneously announces the use of Samba 3 in their OpenServer product. I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff. Probably a little of both.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy

Comments Filter:
  • by havaloc (50551) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:43AM (#6744638) Homepage
    should ask SCO to pay for a license...
    • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)

      by akiaki007 (148804) <aa316@[ ].edu ['nyu' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:50AM (#6744742)
      You can't ask for that under GPL. You can however ask for money to download. Though they can't single out individual computers and organizations, as that would be anti-competitive behaviour. So they can't do anything about it except the post they just made.
      • Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 1010011010 (53039)

        We could take up a collection and run a full-page ad in a national newspaper.
      • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigpat (158134) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:22AM (#6745151)
        "You can't ask for that under GPL."

        Of course that is correct, but that is exactly what SCO is doing here. Asking for licensing fees from code that they themselves publish under the GPL.

        Every time I hear this bozo of a story I think of stupid investors that would actually hang onto this doomed company's stock. Can we just change the icon for SCO news to a picture of their CEO with a clown nose.

      • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)

        by johnnyb (4816) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:22PM (#6745881) Homepage
        Actually, they can sue SCO for copyright infringement. SCO has publicly said that they do not believe the GPL is valid, and are implying that they aren't bound to the legal implications of it. Since GPLd programs can only be distributed under the GPL (nothing else gives you that privilege), SCO can be sued for violating the Samba GPL (as well as many other GPLs).
        • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:45PM (#6746941) Homepage
          I'm not sure this is true.

          Sure, they've claimed that the GPL isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and it's true that they continue to distribute the Linux code even as they deny anyone the right to redistribute that code. They've even demanded licensing fees in violation of the license under which they distribute the kernel.

          The question now is, does this give SAMBA a right to pull their license? I don't believe it does, or that such a rule would be productive. Unless the GPL is written in such a way that violating one piece of GPL'ed software revokes distribution rights of *all* GPL'ed software, Samba cannot revoke the GPL on Samba.

          The reason is, they can say whatever they want about the GPL, just as I can stand outside Microsoft's campus with leaflets about why EULAs may not be legally enforceable. What I'm doing isn't violating the EULA of any software I have. By the same reasoning, until SCO actually violates the GPL with regards to Samba software, I think they're legal.

          I think that the best thing the Samba team could do would be to draft a letter, asking Darl and Co. to reaffirm their commitment to complying with the terms under which SCO received their intellectual property. Chances are, SCO will ignore it--as I said, I don't think that Samba currently has grounds to revoke the license--but at least it will highlight the hypocrisy of SCO's behavior and provide some good PR for the community.
      • by fv (95460) * <fyodor@insecure.org> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @04:58PM (#6748982) Homepage
        So they can't do anything about it except the post they just made.

        Actually they can. Section 4 of the GNU GPL [gnu.org] states that violations of the GPL automatically terminates distribution rights for GPL'd programs. The GPL also states that you must agree with the GPL or you don't have any distribution rights. SCO/Caldera has publicly announced their refusal to comply. I plan to exercise section 4 to revoke their right to redistribute Nmap [insecure.org]. I just started on the wording and haven't yet run it by a lawyer (I will). But the announcement will probably be something like:

        SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, OpenServer, and UNIXWare.

        -Fyodor
        Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]
        PS:I just posted a similar comment to an older SCO article, but it is more relevant here. Also I don't know if OpenLinux or any of their other products include Nmap. Most Linux distributions do, but Caldera wasn't exactly at the forefront of technology.

    • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:51AM (#6744763)
      Actually they should point out that SCO's interpretation of the GPL indicates that GPLed products are not legally licensed to be duplicated and distributed and thus by distributing a GPLed package, SCO is in violation of (their own interpretation of) copyright law.
      • Re:samba team... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BJH (11355) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:59AM (#6745596)
        More to the point, someone should raise this issue in SCOX's next investor conference call. Perhaps something along these lines:

        "At the recent SCO forum, you indicated that you consider the GPL to be damaging to intellectual property. At the same Forum, you announced that you would be shipping Samba 3 with your next release in order to provide a higher level of Windows compatibility. Considering that Samba is licensed to you under the GPL, your arguments against it would actually prevent including such functionality. Do you plan to remove Samba from your coming release if you win your lawsuit on the grounds that the GPL is invalid under Federal copyright law? If so, how do you intend to provide the Windows compatibility that you have announced?"
  • Nice response (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MadChicken (36468) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:44AM (#6744643) Homepage Journal
    It's a bit frustrating, but a highly principled response. I respect that.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:05AM (#6744959)
      True, nice dignified response.

      However, as I am not burdened with morals myself, I would like to take this opportunity to tell SCO to kiss my ass.
    • Re:Nice response (Score:5, Insightful)

      by B'Trey (111263) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:14AM (#6745071)
      Principled indeed. A subject SCO is obviously completely ignorant on.

      At SCO's next press conference, someone should ask them if they're willing to indemnify purchasers of OpenServer in the event that Samba is found to have copyright infringing code and someone else begins to ask for a licensing fee.
  • by nuggz (69912) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:44AM (#6744644) Homepage
    SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.

    They need to figure out if they will agree to the GPL, or fight it. They can't do both, or if they do someone has to get the cat to chase its tail.

    This has been discussed repeatedly in the other SCO posts.

    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:59AM (#6744883)


      > SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.

      Actually they've adopted a consistent strategy of "say whatever sounds best at the moment", without the least concern for internal consistency. This is a common symptom among the advocates of pseudoscience, and IMO is the most revealing evidence we have that their case is entirely bogus. If they had a leg to stand on they'd stand on it.

      • by eric76 (679787)

        I was wondering about whether or not their sales talks at their little get together are real or are they just hot air.

        They seem to have convinced their faithful that they really do have some new products coming out.

        From Users and resellers say SCO's news is good news [computerworld.com]:

        "I came away willing to invest in Unix" again, he said. "I was very pleased that SCO appears to be very committed to Unix, that there is a road map. It appears that it's a company that wants to partner, and therefore we should explore a l

    • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:00AM (#6744895)
      It's called "Say anything to keep in the news. Run up stock price, allowing parent company to use stock to do complicated asset shifts to make itself seem more profitable then it really is. Have corporate officers sell inflated stock to suckers who aren't paying attention to the underlying issues. Cash out and live the good life."

      The final components, "Sink face first in rancid dung in pit of hell. Writhe for all eternity." are an unintended consequence.

      • by vleck (134134) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:04PM (#6745657)
        Talk about a strategy. Read this analogy from the CRN interview:
        "... Raymond 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. "

        It's more like the "thief" sells copies of the jewels to you. SCO sues the thief and comes after you demanding a royalty fee. You even try to return the jewels, but SCO doesn't want it back and it won't tell you which jewels are theirs. Just pay up!

        It's sad, SCO's strategy is to settle the suit for hundreds of millions AND collect a royalty fee for every copy of Linux. I hope IBM doesn't settle just to shut them up.

        http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid= 74 &ncid=74&e=6&u=/cmp/20030820/tc_cmp/131006 19
      • by bshroyer (21524) <bret AT bretshroyer DOT org> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:15PM (#6746561)
        There are enough readers here to actually make a difference if we all started taking short positions on SCOX. I think that the vast majority would agree that the target share price is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.00, it's just a question of when.

        As of right now, short positions on SCOX [yahoo.com] are at 391K, or about 2x daily volume.

        Take a stand, go short on 20 shares of SCOX, and put $200 into your pocket today. The downward pressure you create thwarts the efforts of SCO management to inflate the price through non-news press releases.
    • by CGP314 (672613) <CGPNO@SPAMColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:04AM (#6744937) Homepage
      SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.

      They need to figure out if they will agree to the GPL, or fight it. They can't do both, or if they do someone has to get the cat to chase its tail.


      Actually having things both ways is a good corporate strategy. Remember, corporations are defined as selfish. If they can benefit from the GPL in some areas and attack it were it does not benefit them they win in the short run.

      Corporations need not have an internally consistent value system.
      • by DickBreath (207180) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:21AM (#6745147) Homepage
        Corporations need not have an internally consistent value system.

        In the case you describe, they would have an internally consistent value system. Whereby, they would simply not be consistent in their respect of the GPL. But they would be internally consistent in regard to their value system of grabbing money by any possible means.
    • by antimuon (677853) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:04AM (#6744941)
      I suspect (and the subsequent news postings of SC0 seems to confirm) is that SCO is going to argue that stuff released under the GPL is public domain. My guess is they are going to argue since the copyright holders aren't "enforcing" their rights then there are no rights to "enforce" - it is publically available and the no one cares what you do with it, it is public domain. So SCO may try a two point attack 1) the GPL itself is invalid and 2) the copyrights underlying it aren't being actively enforced therefore 3) it is public domain. (NOTE: I do not agree with this, this is just what I think one of their arguments are going to be).

      Just like that college in California that has to shut down the shortcut through its campus every couple years to make sure they don't lose their property, copyrights are only good if someone is "actively trying to enforce them" - when you find a violation you must act. The history of the FSF/GPL community working with GPL violators to bring them in line is going to be the major counter argument (such as the recent work with Linksys to make sure they release the Linux they use). Other people who have worked on an individual basis to bring GPL violators to task would be helpful for the GPL case also.

      -antim
      NOTE: IANAL, TIJMV (this is just my view)
    • by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux@nosPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:08AM (#6744998) Homepage
      Here is Mr. Allison's email address: jra at samba dot org . Email him and offer him and any Samba members a beer if they ever find themselves in your area...I did.

      Hmm...Distributed Beer Reward System. Could be a viable form of payment. I'd code for it. :)
    • I always found the "Sue the crap out of the competition" corporate strategy to be very successful. Look at everyone that is using it lately.
    • by TexVex (669445)

      SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.

      Here's a conspiracy theory that might not have been posited yet: SCO is going out of business, and they want to do it with a bang -- so, they are forcing the issue with the GPL to get its validity tested in court. And they are deliberately screwing themselves so they won't win, doing the FSF and the Open Source community a big favor -- and maybe making a few extra bucks at the same time.

      I mean, on the face of things this whole deal is just so totally and

  • SCO reply (Score:5, Funny)

    by IFF123 (679162) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:44AM (#6744649)
    So when can we expect SCO to sue Samba? (I Assume they too infringle on SCO's code)
  • by emtboy9 (99534) <{jeff} {at} {jefflane.org}> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:44AM (#6744652) Homepage
    from a company who has a lot of nebulous claims, and no substance... kind of like my ex-girlfriend.

    All talk and no foreplay.
  • text of article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:45AM (#6744660)
    Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.

    Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said :

    "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."

    In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.

    We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.

    The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.

    Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.

    Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.

    Jeremy Allison,
    Marc Kaplan,
    Andrew Bartlett,
    Christopher R. Hertel,
    Jerry Carter,
    Jean Francois Micouleau,
    Paul Green,
    Rafal Szczesniak.

    Samba Team.
    • Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chordonblue (585047)
      This is what I've been saying all along. The GPL is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is purely defensive. Free software is free - even to those we despise.

      For instance, it appears that China is using GPL'd software but not giving back the source on their custom binaries. What are you going to do about it? Right, nothing. There's nothing you can do about it.

      But that's not the point of Free software. Free is free as in freedom, like freedom of speech. It means we must tolerate those who will abuse it. T
    • Re:text of article (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rinikusu (28164) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:04AM (#6744953)
      "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."

      But isn't it true? It's undeniable that the GPL and Free Software *does* destroy value, but the key is destroying value FOR WHOM. For giant monolithic corporations that require absolute control to inflate their profit margins, free software is an absolute bane to their existence if that's their only business model (Microsoft, proprietary UNIX venders with no other line of income). For those who use Free Software to enhance value, their business model is still safe, they now compete by providing superior packaging (hardware and software support, see IBM, Sun, even SGI these days). You will never see a Free Software company reach the kind of marketcap of a Microsoft: Free Software has pushed software into the "commodity" zone. Software that is ubiquitously cheap, affordable, with high standards of quality (uhm, well, maybe one day (in terms of the overwhelming majority of OSS, anyway.. for every SAMBA, there's probably 10 turds or stillborn children on sourceforge)). It has enhanced the value for the END USER, rather than for the developer/owner/investor. It's a shifting of value, to be more precise, and a lot of people have a problem with that. One, you can measure with your bank account. The other is less tangible.

      Personally, I like my money green.
      • by DickBreath (207180)
        One man's "destroyed value" is another man's "low cost". So instead of saying "the GPL is about destroying value", they should be saying "the GPL is about lowering cost".
      • Re:text of article (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drakaan (688386) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:26AM (#6745203) Homepage Journal
        I disagree with the whole "destroying value" argument. In order to agree to it, I would have to assume that *only* the companies with the "destroyed" value are competent to produce the thing they're trying to hock.

        I *would* agree that GPL'ed software destroys the business model of larger software companies who have managed to find ways to get people to pay them a lot of money for ideas (programs), that might have been created by someone else, if not by them. The current corporate software market is kind of like:

        "Dibs!!! I was here first! Give me a quarter, and I'll let you ride my bike!".

        Then when somebody else comes along, doesn't like the looks of things, and decides to donate bike-building instructions to people they say:

        "[punch]No way! You can't ride that bike, you have to ride [slap]MINE, and you have to [kick]PAY me, dammit!"

        Free software companies won't have the same market cap as Microsoft, that's true. That's because they don't work the same way. Microsoft is in the business of selling software to people who don't know any better (a fairly large population). RedHat is in the business of selling services to people who are too busy to do things that they could otherwise handle themselves. Linux vendors will never have the kind of leverage available to apply to their customers that MS does, because those customers could support themselves if they chose to (in most circumstances).

        There's no less value in any of the products that vendors are selling, there's just less ability for them to overcharge for those products.

      • Re:text of article (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:30PM (#6745980) Homepage
        "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."

        But isn't it true? It's undeniable that the GPL and Free Software *does* destroy value, but the key is destroying value FOR WHOM.


        You might say that Pepsi Cola is "destroying" the value of Coca-Cola (compared to a monopoly), because they force them to provide it at a competitive price. But I've never seen Coca-Cola sue Pepsi because it's "destroying the value of our product".

        It's still not illegal to provide a better product than the competition, thus lowering the value of the competition's product. Yet. The argument is completely hogwash, and SCO is just pissed because they can't steal the work of others and profit off it. That's what they're after when they want GPL'd code to be public domain.

        Kjella
    • by OneIsNotPrime (609963) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:09AM (#6745019)
      Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.

      Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said :

      "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."

      In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.

      We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.

      Because of this, we believe not only that SCO must be prevented from the use of Samba software, but that team Samba must take up arms and engage in formal combat against SCO. We are already busy assembling hand picked teams of elite mercenaries, varying in expertise from explosives and combat strategy to torture methodology. We will be initiating our attacks at an undisclosed time within the next 96 hours, and will accept no terms of surrender except hari kari from every member of SCO, and their extended families/anyone they've breathed on in the last six months.

      Strictly bring it,

      Jeremy Allison,
      Marc Kaplan,
      Andrew Bartlett,
      Christopher R. Hertel,
      Jerry Carter,
      Jean Francois Micouleau,
      Paul Green,
      Rafal Szczesniak.
  • A good start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Custos (518206) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:45AM (#6744662) Homepage Journal
    Especially considering that SCO's latest big project has to do with using Samba to link up to the newest peice of overhyped Microsoft vapourware.

    Now all we need is for the Apache, X11 and all the *BSD groups to call SCO's bluff, thus drowning out the FUD.
  • SCO Resellers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MoxCamel (20484) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:45AM (#6744667)
    Quite frankly, if I were a SCO reseller, I'd be looking for the nearest life boat. (Unlike the Titanic, however, SCO actually steered itself into the ice berg.)

    Linux and the GPL could potentially provide that life boat, although it's been my experience that the average SCO reseller is neither ncapable of innovation nor independent thought. Cactus is a good example. Their main product, Lone Tar, is nothing that GNU tar and a couple shell scripts (mostly for the "bootable" feature) couldn't replicate. To companies like this, it's still 1993.

    • Re:SCO Resellers (Score:5, Informative)

      by FatRatBastard (7583) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:59AM (#6744891) Homepage
      Some [yahoo.com] ain't [yahoo.com] happy [yahoo.com] at all. There seem to be a small core set of ISVs / Developer that are sticking by SCO, but according to this guy things aren't looking too healthy on the "product" side of SCO.
      • Most tellingly (Score:4, Informative)

        by temojen (678985) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:24AM (#6745185) Journal
        2. There are FAR fewer than 1000 people here and FAR fewer sponsors than I was led to believe. No major discussion (some disappointment and some worry though) about HP pulling out of the Keynote...for everyone that made mention of the pull-out, 10 reminded them of who sponsored the little reception last night (HP). That was little comfort, since HP did a MUCH better job at LinuxTAG and LinuxWorld. No mention at all or concern about Intel (which I found to be, potentially, far more damaging to the attendees.).
        8. VERY few, if any, Europeans or Middle Easterners. No reaction to the defeat today in India, or the greater defeat last week in China. No Australian or New Zealand accents heard. The only French accents I heard were Creole (Louisiana) and French-Canadian. High concentration of attendees from Florida and California/Arizona and some from the Midwest. Pitiful turnout compared to last year of real VARs or potential customers and REALLY bad Vendor area.
        11. There ARE a few clueful participants here that are preparing to or have been convinced by the show today to drop SCO. They are tired of the impact on their businesses and they see real advantages in moving on without SCO. The many cheerleaders have not convinced them to stay. The many defections evident this year are worrying. The no-shows are worrying. Armed, uniformed guards in the show areas do not signal a healthy environment to them. Most of all, they see the products falling further and further behind, while the company continues to concentrate on this ridiculous lawsuit.
  • Samba team should... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tarius8105 (683929) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:46AM (#6744669)
    sue SCO for using their IP without a license...since SCO believes the GPL is invalid.
  • by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy@tp n o - c o .org> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:46AM (#6744670) Homepage
    You watch, SCO is getting ready to sue itself. It makes sense, when you really hunker down and think about it
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:47AM (#6744690) Homepage

    A fairy dies, and another pointy haired idiot buys some SCOX shares at an inflated price, using the psuedo-logic that if there's nothing there to refute, why do we keep refuting it?

    Enough already. They're little yapping dogs. Don't give them the attention they crave. There's no story here until and if they detail every last line of code and document why they think it's theirs.

    Shush. Shush now.

  • by Chordonblue (585047) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:49AM (#6744720) Journal
    ...or can they?

    At least for a little while I suppose. Darl(ing) can keep shooting his mouth off all he wants, it'll just make the court case that much more interesting.

    All this flap about how SCO hates the GPL is pure BS since they don't seem to have an problem using GCC and SAMBA. But when this all comes to court, they'll really have to decide which way it is - is the GPL legal or not? Because it's going to affect the future (if there is one) of their 'product'.

    Of course, I'm still cynical enough to believe that this whole thing is an exercise in legality. SCO isn't looking to the future, well unless you're an exec dreaming about tropical climates.
  • by dnaumov (453672) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:50AM (#6744732)
    Things could get really funny for SCO with this one... Imagine SCO goes to court, challenges the GPL and actually wins. What happens next? Well if GPL is invalid, then it's obvious that SCO is infringing on the copywrites of Samba developers by including Samba into their products.

    Samba team suing SCO for copywrite infrigement ? ;)
    • Well if GPL is invalid, then it's obvious that SCO is infringing on the copywrites of Samba developers by including Samba into their products.

      In theory, yes. However, few people are aware that SCO actually purchased the Samba Intellectual Property from Novell back in 1995. But you can't see the purchase agreement, because it's secret.

    • by Soko (17987) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:00AM (#6744901) Homepage
      I earlier hypothisized [slashdot.org] that SCO may try to prove that any code published under the GPL should not be covered by Copyright Law, but be put in the Public Domain. If they were (by some unfortunate circumstance) able to do this, then all of thier legal issues regarding the use of GPL code would vanish in a puff of smoke, and thier claims to all *NIX IP would suddenly gain a huge amount of credence. (For those of you wearing aluminum foil hats - Microsoft would be laughing all the way to the bank yet again, too...)

      This seems to add some weight to my conjecture.

      Soko
      • by fishbowl (7759) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:45AM (#6745400)
        If you get hard precedent that asserts that distribution under the GPL automatically surrenders your copyright and casts your work into the public domain, then you can use the same argument to severely weaken, say, the Microsoft EULA.

        Distributing a creative work under a clearly articulated license does not equal surrendering your rights to copyright, or any other rights.
        You have articulated a distribution agreement. It is your copyright that secures that agreement.
        But the agreement itself is not a surrender of your copyright, and if you want to claim it as such, you will need to arrange a hearing with each and every individual copyright holder to settle the question of law.

        If you manage to get a court decision that invalidates the GPL fully and puts all GPL work into the public domain, it would have to be so broadly worded as to threaten anyone else who distributes software or anything else licensed like software.

        If copyright cannot back our distribution license, then it cannot back yours either. You think Microsoft would allow this for Media Player? Or Oracle for the database server? They distribute software freely with a license that is backed by copyright as well.

  • Which is worse? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by azaris (699901) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:50AM (#6744744) Journal

    (Allegedly) taking source from someone elses commercial product and appropriating it in your public domain product?

    -or-

    Taking a product from the public domain and appropriating it for your own commercial purposes?

    -or-

    Taking source from the public domain, incorporating large bits of it in your commercial product, claiming suddenly you own it and threatening to sue everybody who took advantage of the same PD source because both your code looks similar?

  • by eric76 (679787) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:52AM (#6744771)

    One of the SCO articles of the last few hours quotes SCO users as saying that SCO's utilities are useless and they depend on GNU to be able to do anything.

    From SCO users divided over GPL [infoworld.com]:

    "The OpenServer compiler is crap. Without (the GCC) they would be up the creek," said Hans Anderson, the director of software development with Price Data Systems in Louisville, Kentucky.
    • Favorite Quote (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mooncaller (669824)
      "We as a reseller feel that we want to protect our market," said Jay Davidow, a reseller with Winnipeg, Manitoba's Profit Master Canada Inc. "Giving away our software would not be a good business case." The proprietary world would have created adequate alternatives to the GCC, had the free software not driven development tool companies out of that market, he noted. "You had companies that made developer tools, but where are they today? They don't exist."

      I've been teaching myself Analysis, which requires

  • by Dark Lord Seth (584963) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:55AM (#6744824) Journal

    The Samba released a version of Samba with a security hole big enough to sneak a small african country through. Following the disclosure of the exploit, the Samba team released a patch which, according to the grinning spokesperson of the Samba team, "... is vastly incompatible with any SCO product or system.". Further commentary from the Samba team is unavailable as no one was able to regain composure after laughing at the latest SCO news on slashdot regarding the security hole.

    "I find this unacceptable and immoral!", according to Darl McBride, who further commented "Have we sued them yet? Have we? No? Sue them! ... What do you mean, 'no legal grounds'?! Goddamn you Chris, you lazy bastard! Just think up some crap for a reason to sue them! Hey, is that mic still on?". Currently, in another barrage of lawsuits, the SCO group filed suit against the Samba team but refuses to disclose what they are actually suing for and also sued this press agency for using copyrighted SMP code in our programs. Our resident VB coder was puzzled. "Is that even possible? Maybe you should ask the HTML guy..."

  • Fuck EM! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trolling4Dollars (627073) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:56AM (#6744843) Journal
    Just make it so that the Samba code won't run on SCO's products. This is the wisest approach because it's tit for tat. If we pussyfoot around saying that we're going to stick to our ideals while other people abuse them, then we are nothing more than doormats.
  • Entrapment? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BrynM (217883) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:56AM (#6744847) Homepage Journal
    SCO sells me Linux (Caldera). They let me take it home and install it. They then sue me because I have their (alleged)roprietary/copyrighted/patented material, saying that I am breaking the law for using what they sold me. They tell me that the license that they sold it to me under is illegal, so I owe them money for a new license, while they still utilize that license themselves in the manner that they said that I can't.

    Isn't that entrapment? Do you have to be a law enforcement agency to entrap? If it's not entrapment, could it be considered extortion? Since they sold me the license, are they an accessory to the crime? If we are guilty, arent they too?

    I usually have a more level head than this, but I can't hold it back any longer; Fuck you Darl. If your were standing in front of me, I'd bitchslap you myself. Twice.

  • by TClevenger (252206) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:56AM (#6744849)
    I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff.

    "No, no. We need to freeze his hot heart with a cool island song."

  • And SCO is down (Score:3, Informative)

    by edgrale (216858) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:57AM (#6744859)
    As seen here [yahoo.com] SCO is down some 2.39% today. 10 bucks for air is still a lot.
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:06AM (#6744976)
    I really have to wonder what is going on at SCO. It's like they're comitted to undermine themselves. I've heard of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, but in this case it seems every part of the body is pretty confused.

    So, they blast GPL while using GPLed code. They make outrageous claims they don't back up. They show source code comments (with some scrambled) and then a chunk of relatively un-unique code that's been out and about in the world for decades.

    I've started developing a theory here:

    Essentially, at some point, they got the idea to take on IBM or Open Source. Maybe it was the result of seeing some similar code. Maybe it was a moment of inspiration. I'm not sure.

    But once they comitted to that strategy, they stuck with it. They had people look for similar code, without checking its origins. They looked for ways to re-intepret the GPL and copyright law no matter how ridiculous they sounded.

    In short, this is what we want/assume to be true, lets look for evidence for it.

    Of course from the outside they look like greedy, unethical dimwits. But by now, comitted to their strategy, they not only don't want to back down, they probably can't . . .

    Which, is ironic, because at this rate they're being so outrageously stupid that I feel they'll end very badly - as in lost lawsuits, being sued, perhaps even an SEC investigation.

    Just thoughts and a theory.
  • by jrumney (197329) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:12AM (#6745050) Homepage
    The FSF decided that dropping SCO support from gcc would hurt users more than SCO. But dropping SCO support from Samba on the heels of this announcement would hurt SCO a lot more. I say drop SCO support from all future Samba releases, so SCO has to deal with the hassle of patching it themselves every time. And make lots of superfluous architectural changes to make patching hard. Make sure there's some major new functionality or a security fix in there that SCO will want to use, so they can't just stick with the old version.
    • by interiot (50685) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:35AM (#6745290) Homepage
      Doing this, and especially being very successful at it, will make business decision makers aware that by using open source products, they are placing their company at risk of the whims of young individuals who sit at home in their underwear everyday. We want adoption of the free software foundation's ethics and more players to the OSS table, not fear of young punks.
  • by HaeMaker (221642) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:19AM (#6745129) Homepage
    Our word for the day is Equitable Estoppel [findlaw.com]. SCO can't say in court that the GPL is invalid and then turn around and distribute software under the same license. If the GPL is invalid they would have to go back to the Samba team and get a "valid" license before they could distribute it.
  • by sgage (109086) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:23AM (#6745162)
    ... what a huge affront the very notion of the GPL is to the dominator paradigm that runs the show these days. (Excuse me for using the word paradigm, but sometimes it works.)

    The whole concept of cooperation and sharing is completely off the radar of these people, and if it should happen to appear, it appears as a hideous threat to all that is sacred in their dinosaur minds.

    This conflict goes back a long way, and this is just the latest manifestation.

    The REALLY interesting thing to me is the collection of corporate entities that have endorsed open source. Or that there even ARE corporate entities that have endorsed/cultivated it.

    I fear there will be no resolution soon...

    - Steve
  • Authors! Make sure you include stock symbols if you want your stories to be picked up by news agencies! Without those symbols you have exactly zilch chance of being noticed by news bots. Reuters press releases would work well too. We have to get this info to investors, not just sit around and moan about it!
  • by Transcendent (204992) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:32AM (#6745263)
    SCO is selling Linux licenses now... what happens after they loose the battle in court? ...do the people who bought licenses get ther money back? Does SCO get sued?
  • by richwmn (621114) <rich AT techie DOT com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:34AM (#6745281)
    that Robert Heinlein predicted the current state of affairs in his story "Lifeline". I find particularly relevant the judges response to a suit filed to stifle a new technology -- "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." - The Judge, "Life-Line"
  • by LilMikey (615759) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:47AM (#6745430) Homepage
    Anyone notice that, no matter the outcome, it's a victory for Microsoft?

    If SCO wins case and GPL banished -- General state of disarray and panic in community, MS FUD campaign comes to a head while a new license is created and software stripped of SCO code.

    If SCO wins case but GPL upheld -- Microsoft's "We respect IP, Linux is for thiefs" crap is reenforced. Valuable time and market share lost while code is stripped.

    Say SCO gets trounced, GPL upheld, victory for Linux and Open Source -- Microsoft points and yells "See, GPL IS viral! SCO released Linux and now that code is GPLed!"

    Regardless of the case outcome, MS FUD is the winner.
  • by Sparcler (600274) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:47AM (#6745443) Journal
    I was thinking that SCO is trying to clam that the GPL is invalid because the have already violated the GPL by incorporating GPL code in to there proprietary products. If you think about it if the GPL is invalid why would they have to comply with its terms. It sounds to me like they are trying to justify there own code copying. It may turn out that part of the code they claim was copied is actually GPL code that they copied and are now trying to claim ownership of it.
  • check this link out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hansoloaf (668609) <hansoloaf AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @11:57AM (#6745572)
    SCO Open Source Tools [sco.com] Found it under talkback posted on that page. Talk about ultimate hypocrisy.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...