Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy 612
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.
text of article (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO users depend on GNU (Score:5, Informative)
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]:
SCO against GPL? Not according their website... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason, everybody seems to think the GPL requires everything to be on a FTP site...
And SCO is down (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SCO Resellers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:2, Informative)
Two flaws with that arguement. (Score:5, Informative)
2. The GPL allows much use, only violations need to be enforced.
It would be a bad day for IP if they rule that poor enforcement of copyright == public domain.
Most tellingly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Drop SCO support from Samba (Score:4, Informative)
Re: SCO has no strategy (Score:3, Informative)
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]:
Considering the ethics of the current SCO, would you trust them to deliver products they promise?
Re:samba team... (Score:4, Informative)
SCO can also *say* what they like about the GPL, its only when they stop complying with the terms can anyone do something about their use of the software - like take them to court to see who a judge agrees with.
I think the 'person' taking SCO to court to see whether the GPL is effective or not is in fact SCO, in a roundabout kind of way with their IBM litigation
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously though, I appreciate the support but please
don't send more email. I'm trying to separate out all
the RC1 bug reports and fix them at the moment
If you want to do something useful, complain to the SEC
about SCO's obvious stock manipulation strategy.
Cheers,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has no doubt modified the Samba source to suit it's use in their products. If they don't ship the source, or make it available, then they aren't complying with the GPL's terms. In which case, they have no right to distribute it.
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Informative)
From www.mysql.com: Commercial licenses for either version can also be purchased from MySQL AB, for those who don't wish to be bound by the LGPL or GPL. For more information on licensing MySQL Connector/J, please contact us. MySQL AB also offers commercial support for MySQL Connector/J.
How is that different from licensing Samba to SCO to distribute it in a non-GPL way?
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they may continue to use the software without accepting the license. They simply may not distribute it. The software defaults to plain copyright under these conditions.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
Re:text of article (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft does more than just sells software to people who don't "know any better". In fact, I know a bunch of people (including myself), who buy Microsoft and we DO "know better". It's just that we use our computers as tools and want a minimum of hassle and $199 represents a HELL of a bargain compared to spending our nights fucking around with what really is a really good Server OS. The old saying really is true: "Linux is only free if your time has no value." My time currently goes for $15/hour (not much, I admit), during normal business hours, and really has no set price outside of those hours: my spare time is "priceless" in the sense that the last thing I want to do when I'm not working is WORKING on a computer. Redhat also does the same thing, to an extent. I certainly could not roll my own distribution and their work into hardware auto-detection and setup saves me countless hours of "fiddling". It's not that I'm too busy to "do things myself", it's just that I don't feel like doing it myself. I'm lazy, overweight, and American and we've got nukes to prove the point (why invade a country when you can just blow it to smithereens at the push of a button? hrm...).*
No company has the power to prevent you from using someone else's software unless you were stupid enough to sign some sort of contract stating otherwise. And even if you did, I have my doubts as to the legality of such a contract, much like you don't have the right to sell yourself into slavery. However, I'm no lawyer, nor am I the legal system, but if I see a piece of software that I think sucks or think I could do better, or I think is too expensive and that it would just be easier to write my own version (or even maybe "That's an interesting program, I'd like to see what it takes to write that..."), MS is not going to stand on my doorstep and beat me up because I'm doing it unless I'm violating their patents or copyrights (and that in itself is worthy of another long, lengthy, passion filled debate, see DMCA). Witness that it seems most "OSS" projects are quite literaly clones or functional equivalents of "commercial" software (OpenOffice, Apache, KDE/GNOME, etc). While on occasion we really get some innovation (I think dashboard is pretty innovative in concept, I hope they really can deliver), the point is that people are "publishing better bike plans" everyday. (caveat: A lot of those better bike plans are no such thing). I offer freshmeat and sourceforge for your perusal to discover this for yourself. (and again: It's not necessarily a bad thing, either).
From a strictly monetary point of view, Free Software kills value. No one says that's the only point of view you have to have, and indeed I mentioned that there's actually a trade-off involved (human interest value vs. quantifiable monetary value). Some people hold the first with more value, others the latter (see various dictators that would sell their own people into slavery for a few more bucks.. life is cheap, we'll make more, but money buys really nice things).
*I use Windows 2k because it works. I also have another system with Redhat9, and it mostly just works, as well. If Redhat 9 didn't find/support my hardware, or meet most of my needs, you can bet your sweet ass I'd have Win2k or XP on the new machine pronto.
Corrected URL (sigh) (Score:2, Informative)
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&ac
Hehe, I guess I should have used that preview button after all..
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:1, Informative)
That is if you don't mind having an entire industry of your peers hate the shit out of you.
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Informative)
SCO loses only the rights to distribute the kernel (Score:5, Informative)
As I read this, SCO has terminated their right to distribute their Linux-based OS (and anything using Samba...) by attempting to sublicense to others under a non-GPL license
See that little bit in Section 4 that says 'the Program'? That means that each GPL license applies to the code it is with, rather than a blanket provision on all GPL software. So SCO has almost certainly violated the Linux kernel GPL license by attempting to sublicense the kernel but that does not remove their rights to distribute Samba 3 under the GPL.
Still does nothing to remove the hypocrisy of their situation, but quite frankly if the court of public opinion counts for anything, SCO is going to be feeling the draft of departing VARs and customers for a long time. Last one out switch out the lights. Although "better take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure" has a nice ring to it. :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:samba team... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Heh, this can get funny (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright holders of the Linux kernel are within their rights to say that the mere definition and announcement of a new license on top of the GPL invalidates SCO's rights to redistribute, and the word 'automatic' implies that those rights are lost even if the copyright holder does not know yet what SCO is doing. As for the idea that "we never tried to enforce the sublicense," I would argue that imposition of the new license by itself shows an intent to enforce its terms, and that the copyright holder explicitly forbade this by licensing his work under the GPL.
Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the FSF, has written that the FSF has used its rights as a copyright holder on GNU software to tell distributors to remove 'click-wrap' licenses that attempt to sublicense GPL'd software. The FSF has never sued over these violations, nor has it waited until a distributor tried to enforce their click-wrap licenses. The FSF contacted the offender to say that he was in violation of section 4 of the GPL, and in every case, the offender brought his product into compliance, probably because he read the GPL and talked to his attorneys.
Yes, they can terminate the license (Score:5, Informative)
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:SCO has no strategy (Score:3, Informative)
AC, I hate to point out the obvious, but when you want somebody to email you, it helps if you provide an address.