Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

What if SCO is Right? 666

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-think-about dept.
b17bmbr writes " What if SCO is right. Bruce Perens was quoted with this scenario. "it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source". But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What if SCO is Right? More

What if SCO is Right?

Comments Filter:

  • Really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:34PM (#5985861)

    If SCO were right, they would've given some evidence to the public by now. It's not like doing that would hurt their case.

    • Re:Really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cytlid ( 95255 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:45PM (#5985938)
      Actually it might... if they show the code in question, it can be changed... then they no longer have a suit. I think that's one of the things their afraid of. Part of their strategy is keeping that info hushed... hence the need for NDA's, etc... to the people they end up showing it to. In the end, ultimately, despite all the controversy, it probably makes the case for Open Source and Free Software stronger.

      • Re:Really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:47PM (#5985954)

        Changing it doesn't change previously released versions, so they would still have a case.

        • Re:Really.. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:57PM (#5986002)
          Not divulging only hurts their punitive damages possibilities... part of the responsibility if you have been wronged is to let the offending party know what the infringements are so the damages may be limited. Obviously, if protecting their code from being illegally distributed were fiscally important they would list the offending code so that it can be pulled from further distribution.
          If SCO's ultimate goal is to be purchased by someone with deep pockets why drag it out? I think they have an under the table deal with Bill Gates to drag this out. After they run SCO completely into the ground with this silly lawsuit then M$ will buy them at far above market value and then migrate to a Unix on the desktop.

          • Re:Really.. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by kardar ( 636122 )

            I figured out that Microsoft won't buy SCO for the UNIX license. At first, it seems that it might be good idea, especially if all of the UNIX flavors would have to pay license fees to Microsoft. It looks like SCO is EITHER trying to get bought OR trying to assert their IP rights. Is it possible they are doing both?

            Is it possible that 1)SCO is right about IP rights concerning Linux AND 2)SCO will continue to collect on UNIX licenses AND 3)If they sell out, that whoever buys them will benefit from UNIX and

            • Re:Really.. (Score:3, Interesting)

              by ibbey ( 27873 ) *
              I figured out that Microsoft won't buy SCO for the UNIX license. At first, it seems that it might be good idea, especially if all of the UNIX flavors would have to pay license fees to Microsoft.

              You're missing one significant possibility, though. Depending on the severity of the infringement (a big unknown), MS could buy SCO and use it against the Linux/Unix world. If they hold the license, they can refuse to grant licenses to anyone, making it illegal to sell Unix.

              Of course, this would be a blatant viol

      • Re:Really.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by treat ( 84622 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:20PM (#5986143)
        Actually it might... if they show the code in question, it can be changed... then they no longer have a suit.

        This is like the plaintiff in a personal injury suit refusing to see a doctor in case he might be cured and not have a reason to sue. I know that the court would not look kindly on such a case - does this sort of thing extend to SCO's lawsuits?

        • No need (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheAncientHacker ( 222131 ) <TheAncientHacker&hotmail,com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @02:15AM (#5989789)
          According to CNET tonight:

          Microsoft is acquiring the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.

          According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a high-stakes, billion-dollar lawsuit between SCO and IBM that could alter the computing landscape.

      • Disclosure would Nullify Trade Secret (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @04:09PM (#5987132)
        The reason they won't publically disclose the code in question is because they claim the code is a *Trade Secret* . The law requires they perform due diligence to protect their own trade secrets from public disclosure and also do everything posible to mitigate their own damages. If they publically release the code (even for comparision), they will legally destory their own trade secret. That's why they will only disclose it under Non-Disclosure Agreements.

        This brings us back to the question, did they already distroy the trade secret by publishing the open source of Linux? Although similar, this is a completely seperate legal issue from whether they already GPLed it.

        What might save them on this issue (and its a stretch but possible, and I would argue it if I was their lawyer) is that Linux was distributed by Caldera *before* it bought SCO or had any knowledge of what was in the SCO-Unix code . So Caldera had no more reason to believe that Linux contained Unix code than anybody else did. When Caldera bought SCO, they now had access to Unix code and whammo! -- they suddenly saw the infringement.

        The reason they are no longer distributing Linux is because they are trying to demonstrate to the court that they are taking the "due diligence" mentioned above to protect their trade secrets and mitigate their damage. The question is now whether they acted fast enough to stop the discloure and mitigate the damage. The fact that the spent a few months distributing "SCO Linux" after they had knowlege of the infringment might work against them. But to save themselves there, they might argue that they were under dueling obligations between their own interest and fulfilling contracts as Caldera/United Linux and therefore ended it as soon as practicable without breaching the previous contracts.

        • Re:Disclosure would Nullify Trade Secret (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Actually, the mitigation of damages doctrine is applied in reverse. It is SCO's duty to mitigate the damages of the party in breach. This means that SCO cannot attempt to prolong any offense in hopes of cashing in on more damages.

          Additionally, there is no law protecting trade secrets once the information is publicly available. Trade secret law only applies to the original individual who divulged the information.

          So SCO's claim that they cannot point out which part of already publicly available code wa

      • Re:Really.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wideBlueSkies ( 618979 )
        I can see the community having a quick turnaround if this were to happen. So lets say that a dedicated and generous team ove developers codes and tests replacements for SCO's alleged IP.

        How long would it take for the distros to get patches out there? Probably hours. Which would limit their liability significantly for past versions. IANAL, but if the distro owners can say that their OS' are fixed, then their liability is significantly limited.

        And future versions are not an issue.

        Ans SCO can go scratch the

    • SCO would be idiots to disclose the evidence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:05PM (#5986051) Journal
      The second SCO discloses the parts of Linux that violate their patents, kernel hackers around the world will begin writing around the problems as their highest priority project. By the time the case got to trial, the code in question would be nearly worthless, and the case would be moot.

    • Re:Really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bobzibub ( 20561 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:09PM (#5986076)
      If they gave evidence of some owned code it would likely be rewritten by the time it went to court. Then a rational judge would probably ask: "Why are we all here, exactly? Your code appears to be so very special that it was made redundant in the last week by a bunch of volunteers for free. So you'd like compensation for your precious code? Instead, why don't you go get a *business* plan!" = )

      -b

      • Re:Really.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:08PM (#5986463)

        So you'd like compensation for your precious code?

        I thought this was a copyright case - there are still damages, even if infringement has since stopped.

        • Copyright? Or Trade Secret? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @06:00PM (#5987859) Homepage Journal
          I thought that the major issue was trade secret violation -- much more likely IMHO. It would be plain stupid to copy code into a major GPL project.


          If it is trade secret issue, then this would be a bad thing for open source on PR grounds, but it wouldn't be a huge deal for anybody other than IBM (although losing IBM contributions would be too bad). It'd pretty clear to me that SCO in any case is making the most of the publicity to spread anti-Linux FUD.

      • Re:Really.. (Score:3, Funny)

        by jcast ( 461910 )
        This isn't true. Copyright law allows you to hang anybody you want by the gonads for as long as you want---go see the DeCSS case.

    • Re: Really (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homebrewed ( 154837 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:18PM (#5986127)
      If SCO were right, IBM would have already settled and/or bought SCO. Remember, IBM has SCO's source, the best IP attorneys on earth, and grep. I would assume they knew for sure within a couple of days of the lawsuit being filed whether or not there is any offending code in linux.

    • Re:Really.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by lovemayo ( 674154 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @05:56PM (#5987830)
      Well, thats what they said about saddam, too... about weapons of mass destruction. But AFAIK, they haven't found any yet...

  • Probably not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blaine Hilton ( 626259 ) * on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:35PM (#5985871) Homepage
    If SCO really is correct and this does become an issue of viral GPL, then it could possibly give MS a boost. However I personally think that the companies behind open source will still be pushing it, its only the companies that are currently thinking about open source business models that this may effect. I think its just more junk propaganda though.

    --
    Need to calculate [webcalc.net] something?

    • SCO wont be bound by the GPL licence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:06PM (#5986440)
      I dont think there's much of a case to support SCO being held to the requirments of the GPL in their "released software". They were inadvertently duped into it, and thus cant be held accountable.



      For example, IBM markets linux. Of course they did not write all of the code. Now suppose a devious linux developer were to insert say, all of some propriatey IBM application into the kernel code. If IBM does not check the code line by line they wont know it when they go to release the next edition of their variant of Linux that includes this new kernel. Thus IBM would have been duped in to releasing their own proprietary code. No reasonable person would think they were bound by the GPL.

  • It doesn't matter, the damage is done (Score:5, Interesting)

    by micron ( 164661 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:36PM (#5985879)
    Either way, the spectre of "intellectual property" has been brought up to Corporate America. Boards and CEO's who get gunshy when the litigation is aimed at them are going to be skeptical about liability and open source software.

    The point has been brought to the board rooms, and I don't know see what it can do other than hurt the cause.
    • The point has been brought to the board rooms, and I don't know see what it can do other than hurt the cause.

      I disagree entirely. If SCO wins, closed source loses and open source wins.

      SCO has sued IBM and given them an ultimatum that threatens to cut off the closed source AIX licence from IBM and possibly from their entire installed base of users as well. While it may be unlikely that SCO could (or would) pull the plug on these systems, the possibility has certainly been raised.

      In doing so, SCO has re

  • About as viral as accidentally giving away secrets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:37PM (#5985881)
    But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"

    Then they've still done it purposely, given away their code in a GPL product. They had the choice, and didn't have to. It's about as viral as phoning up your closest friend and saying "hey! I saw your mom giving head to my dad in the car" and complaining that the phone you spouted that into is a device for invading your privacy and letting your thoughts out to the world.

    If they did release their code as GPL, it was their choice. Read that. CHOICE.

    • Re:About as viral as accidentally giving away secr (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:25PM (#5986171)
      I don't support SCO, and I hope this matter is resolved in such a way as brings about their ruin, and IANAL, but... SCO's argument is that in good faith they redistributed code that they were told was an entirely original creation or otherwise GPLd under agreement with a copyright holder.

      If SCO's IP was in there, then those whom originally released the code acted in bad faith. You can't go around tricking companies into releasing their IP by executing bad faith deals and then claiming that it is too bad because they weren't forced to release the code in the first place. I doubt the court will support this mode of argument.

      I think what SCO will have to show is that their IP is in the kernel (the hard part) and then show that prior to them releasing the code themselves, somebody else released the code in bad faith claiming it was legitimately licensed under the GPL, that they had no reason to believe the claim false, and acting on the good faith assumption that it did not violate any IP then distributed it themselves.
    • If they did release their code as GPL, it was their choice.

      Ummm.... lets see now....

      1. Caldera releases a distribution of Linux.
      2. Caldera buys SCO.
      3. Caldera now has access to the source for both OSs.
      4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches.
      5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.

      Given that set of circumstances, I can't see how they made a choice to release the code.

      Of course, there is still an argument to be had as to whether that

      • As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.

        But what they did not do is stop shipping their Linux distribution as soon as they claimed IBM had leaked their code into Linux. If you assume that their lawsuit was filed legitimately, in that they knew there was proprietary code of theirs included in Linux, it then follows that they, under the terms of the GPL, were giving an implicit license to that code by continuing to distribute it. They didn't cease shipping their dist

  • Not what Microsoft were saying... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doctor7 ( 669966 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:37PM (#5985884)
    No it doesn't. If you're a software developer with proprietary code that you want to protect, then yes, you have to be careful about what you release under the GPL. But that isn't what Microsoft were saying, they were trying to worry the majority into avoiding GPL software. But the majority, even if they change the code, are not likely to have a reason to redistribute their changed version, so the terms of the GPL are irrelevant.

  • MS view not validated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by prgrmr ( 568806 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:38PM (#5985893) Journal
    Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"

    Not at all. Releasing software, whether under the GPL or the MS EULA is an intentional action. Any sloppiness resulting in disclosing and/or giving away IP is the responsibility of those doing the software release.

    The GPL is a tool. Consequences resulting from the use of any given tool are the burden of the weilder, not the tool.

    • Re:MS view not validated (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tmark ( 230091 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:45PM (#5985940)
      The GPL is a tool. Consequences resulting from the use of any given tool are the burden of the weilder, not the tool.

      Absolutely, but what this does show - in spades - is that companies need to be extremely circumspect when dealing with the GPL because if they're not, there might be long-ranging unintended ramifications to their business down the road.
      • This is the case with any license. Hell, release it under the BSD license (which microsoft _loves_) or under any other license, and you've just made your proprietary code public. The truth is, this has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with how a company manages its IP.

    • Re:MS view not validated (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:58PM (#5986009)
      Just look at what MS was claiming. They won't let third parties develop GPL code using MS tools because they claim that will make the MS tools GPL.

      Unless MS is somehow claiming that all code developed with MS tools automaticaly belongs to MS, their claim is absurd.

    • Re:MS view not validated (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arcus ( 143637 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:02PM (#5986033) Homepage

      That may well be the point of view of the law.

      But if so, I think it does rather validate the 'viral license' accusation, although not quite in the way MS seemed to be intending it to be taken.

      Here's the scenario: your company, a medium-sized software business, has a few commercial projects underway. One of your employees naughitly includes some of the code from the commercial project into some GPL'd project, which later makes its way into RedHat. Let's say over a few years she steals quite some bucketful of code. You don't notice, of course, because checking all your code against all of RedHat's source would be kinda onerous and not something that would occur to most people.

      Then your company starts distributing RedHat. Then you discover that you've been distributing your own code, inadvertantly, under the GPL, so there's nothing that you can do except fire and sue your employee.

      'Tough Cheese', you may respond. But if this is right, then it's going to make many companies quite wary about having anything to do with the GPL.

      Which I think would be bad.

  • Please don't support the FUD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:40PM (#5985900)
    It's so damned obvious that this is just a FUD-campaign.

    Why doesn't SCO tell us what part of the source are in violation? Simply because these parts don't exist.

    SCO is either paid for spraying FUD (by MS) or will be payed for stopping spraying FUD (by IBM, simply because the damage this FUD is inflicting is higher than the sum SCO will want to shut up) - or both.

    So please don't consider SCO seriously, they don't have a case [opensource.org].

    • Non-disclosure means that any company which is curious to know what they are legally responsible for has to agree not to let anyone else know. That means, basically, that if they tell you what code they want you to pay for, you can't throw it out and develope replacement code: By agreeing to their terms of telling you what they want you to pay for, you agree to pay for it.

      • Re:Completely wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SwedishChef ( 69313 ) <craig&networkessentials,net> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:29PM (#5986192) Homepage Journal
        A "non-disclosure agreement" is a contract and the terms of the contract determine what can and cannot be disclosed by one (or both) of the parties. I haven't seen the terms of the SCO non-disclosure agreement but whether or not it requires you to pay them regardless of your ability to reduce your liability by removing or re-writing the code would depend upon how the agreement is written. It seems to me, and IAMAL, that SCO's claims to be "damaged" is reduced if SCO refuses to let anyone know what the damage is, let alone fix it.

        Let's take an injury claim. If you help me paint my house and fall off the ladder and get hurt, then I am probably responsible. However, if you won't let me know what injuries you incurred then I cannot repair the damage. If you then take me to court and demand punitive damages to teach me a lesson for not fixing you, I can claim that you never gave me the chance to help.

        If you make me sign a non-disclosure agreement that stipulates that I must pay you regardless of whether I could easily remedy the damage, then that seems pretty unfair too. In the case of our painting injury, you could show me that your arm was broken but then claim (with supporting "expert" testimony, that only a heart replacement would truly fix you up and by signing the non-disclosure I would be obligated to pay for that. Nevermind that an emergency room doc could set the arm and cast it and you'd be fine in six weeks.

        Any company that would sign such a non-disclosure agreement (if it were couched in the terms you describe) would deserve what it gets.

        It seems to me that just the act of refusing to allow anyone to see the infringing material casts SCO in the light of trying to maximize damage to their intellectual property rights. In other words, rather than allowing it to be fixed, they want to take it to court and assign a monetary amount to the "damage" and add punitive consequences.

  • Well, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:41PM (#5985906) Homepage
    No one _forced_ SCO to release code without checking it, and the fact that they did reflects badly on their professionalism as a software company and even worse on their due diligence that they are meant to exercise in protecting their shareholders. If their code was eaten by the GPL then that was their fault.

    What other companies thinking of dabbling with GPL software will think will most probably depend on who wins the FUD war and how it gets written up in 'PHB Weekly' rather than the actual facts. Unfortunatly Microsoft employs lots of people like Stef (yes, the UF one) where as OSS software is championed by people more interested in Quake than golf.

    • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:22PM (#5986546)
      " No one _forced_ SCO to release code without checking it, and the fact that they did reflects badly on their professionalism as a software company and even worse on their due diligence that they are meant to exercise in protecting their shareholders. If their code was eaten by the GPL then that was their fault."

      I seriously doubt that. Had SCO released their code due to some sort of internal mixup, it would be their fault. But the chronology, according to SCO, is that IBM released SCO source code, in violation of the terms on which IBM was given the code, which led to that proprietary code being integrated into Linux as a whole. Only later did SCO release the code, and SCO was not the one to release it as GPL.

      Since SCO didn't label it as GPL, SCO's code was never licensed as GPL by the owner, hence, it was never legally GPL'ed. Whether or not SCO released their code, unintentionally, while leaving it as GPL is really irrelevent, since it was, according to SCO, never actually GPL'ed to begin with, and their actions merely resulted from IBM's violation of their IP.

      No one could ever, succesfully, argue in court that SCO "inadvertently" licensed their code as GPL. You cannot do such a thing inadvertently; if SCO did not know that their code was contained in Linux, the responsibility lies with IBM's alleged violation of SCO's IP, not with SCO itself. This is a very neat, cute scenario, but I can't imagine it would have any weight in court.

  • No, it absolutely doesn't have anything to do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:42PM (#5985918)
    with the GPL being viral.

    Take *ANY* other license, and put it in the same scenario.

    Company X steals code from company Y, and later licenses a library back to company Y.

    Company Y licenses the library to it's customers for $1 per seat. Later, company Y realizes that it's own proprietary code was stolen, adn they don't want to license it for $1. Are those to whome they have licensed code guilty? No. Company X is.

    I'm not putting it very clearly.. but it has nothing to do with the GPL. They took code, and released it under a license that said "anyone can use this". Later, they said "Oops we didn't realize that we had some code in there we didn't want to license to someone"

  • Perens is on SCO's side.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:43PM (#5985921) Journal
    Ok, no I don't mean that..
    But apparently it's what they'd have you think from this page [sco.com] quoting "linux leaders" Perens and RMS..

    It was quite a while since I saw such blatant FUD from a non-MS source..
    • Damn! SCO still not slashdotted. I've been visiting their site daily and looking for large files or pages. I hope I'm not naive in thinking that if enough people did this, they could end up paying more for bandwidth. I just want to do my part to cost the bastards some money.



  • Go to their website [suse.com]
    and see for yourself. Doesn't look like SCO even talked to them about
    this yet...at least that's what SUSE is claiming:

    SuSE responds to
    latest SCO actions

    The UnitedLinux code base -- jointly
    designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO --
    will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will
    honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless
    of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make.

    SCO's actions are again indeed
    curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public
    statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any
    attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE
    Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for
    ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements (open source or
    otherwise) are in place for all code used in our products.

  • Bruce Perens? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:44PM (#5985932)
    Doesn't he have a job to get fired from or something?

  • Only if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by weston ( 16146 ) <westonsd@@@canncentral...org> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:48PM (#5985960) Homepage
    Only if the GPL whacks you over the head with a nightstick and then releases itself with your other code while you're out cold.

    Remember: when you use GPL'd code in your business, you don't pay for it with cash. There's no direct monetary cost. The only cost is that if you create a derivitave work with it, you're essentially engaging in an IP cross-licensing agreement: you get to use the GPL code, but must make your own contributions available. There are costs and downsides to that, but businesses make that kind of trade all the time, and they'll do it with the GPL. Calling it "viral" is one spin... viewing it as cross-licensing agreement is another, and probably closer to reality IMHO.

  • good point, but not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rumpledstiltskin ( 528544 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:48PM (#5985961) Homepage Journal
    The blurb makes a good point about the gpl maybe being a viral influence on proprietary code distributors, but I think the more important point is corporate incompetence. If SCO mindlessly opensourced their Unix code, then it's their fault, not the fault of the GPL. If you plan to make money on something, particularly if you are planning on vending both closed source Unix and open source Linux, you should damn well make sure you're not using any dependent packages that would out code that you don't want outed. The idea that the gpl is viral extends to the idea that it is overly restrictive, preventing innovation because users of gpl'd code will be afraid to publish for fear that their Intellectual Property will not be protected. However, if you look at closed source licenses, you'll find that they could be viewed as just as limiting, by preventing access to resources that would allow for the creation of new ideas. The GPL is not viral; SCO was (probably) just foolish.

  • Yes and SO WHAT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:58PM (#5986008)
    GNU is a viral license. If you incorporate GNU code into your projects the price you pay is the loss of control the projects.

    The question is who's OX does this gore ?

    1. End users ? Not at all they arent distributing anything and they aren't selling software. If your General Steel or Home Depot you really don't care that your word processor is GNU or not.

    2. Developers

    A. Those that are selling to quote mass markets
    Yes it affects these people alot. Oddly enough though SCO is likely to be the first of a very small number to be affected. It doesn't affect open source companies that went into their business eyes open, just really foolish companies. Its not going to affect a company like windriver, SUSE, redhat. It could affect A CA, or an ADP. These are companies that seem to operate on a captive customer model, buying smaller software companies then milking their customers for all their worth.

    B. Those that are working on internal use projects
    The project isnt being distributed at all. The code doesnt get distributed. Bang simple no harm no foul. In the special case of governments the code might be required to made public as it is public property, no matter how its generated.

    Yes GNU and Open source is viral, but as far as costs go, the cost of being viral is very small, compared spending more on software then you do on hardware.

  • No, because it's not the "viral" part at work.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @12:58PM (#5986010) Homepage
    If they did release Unix code as part of SCO Linux, that would be intentional in the sense that they purposefully put it into Linux, not realizing the consequences. It would be equally stupid if they had released it under BSD, or any other "non-viral" OSS licence. Yhe code they released would either way be free for the public to use and reuse.

    The viral argument usually works the other way around - introduce a small amount of GPL code to a non-GPL program, and it will force the rest of the program to be be GPL'd. SCO has not been forced to GPL-licence any additional code as a consequence of GPL contamination. If they chose to insert non-GPL code in a GPL project, would simply be gross negligence and incompetence from their side.

    Kjella
  • Statements made by SCO CEO Darl McBride and senior vice president Chris
    Sontag indicate that SCO has been illegally selling and distributing software
    that is in violation of the GPL. SCO first became aware of the problem late
    in 2002, but has done nothing to protect customers or inform them about which
    parts SCO distributed illegally. The company claims this information would
    damaged their lawsuit against IBM.

    SCO did not stop selling the infringing software until May 14 2003, and is
    still distributing it from ftp.caldera.com.

    Customers who purchased or downloaded SCO software demand the following
    things:

    1) A complete refund of the purchase price for any software SCO distributed
    illegally.

    2) Any infringing source code or intellectual property must be revealed so it
    can be replaced. Any source code or intellectual property that infringes and
    is owned by SCO must be released under the GPL or relevant license.

    3) If SCO wins or settles its lawsuit with IBM, a portion of the money must
    be returned to SCO customers who were put in legal jeopardy because SCO did
    nothing protect them.

    Many claim that the lawsuit against SCO is simply a bid to be purchased. If
    the company is purchased, the buyer may be liable instead.

  • The Viral GPL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:06PM (#5986056) Homepage Journal
    Of course the GPL is viral. There should be no question of this, but the question one should ask is "Is that a bad thing?". This was Stallman's goal. He wanted to screw up the software business model, which he succeeded in doing, but with the vary positive side effect of cuilding a cooperative culture of open software development with a fully functional service based business model behind it.

    Clearly the GPL has benefitted many people and businesses. The fact that Microsoft isn't collectively smart enough to figure out a business model that will allow them to benefit from it isn't anyone's problem than theirs, and certainly doesn't make the GPL a bad thing.

    The GPL established a structure where developers can leverage the vast amounts of work released by others for the relitively cheap buy-in of licensing the nw derivative code using the same license. This is not an unreasonable obligation by any streach of the imagination. As for it being viral, if you don't agree to the terms of the license, you are free to avoid building your work on top of code licensed in this way. In the case of SCO, of they were so neglegent as to fail to observer the license constraints they were adopting, through contributing to GPL-licensed software, this is their own fault. This does not in any way reflect poorly on the license. It is written in plain language, and the text of the license represents possibly the most widely distributed and available legal contract in history.

    The nature of the GPL supports a specific development and business model which is inconsistant with certain other models. If Microsoft, SCO and others wish to benefit from software developed under this model, they must accept the simple and streight-forward license terms.

    For an entertaining afternoon, print out and compare the GPL to the Microsoft .NET Studio EULA. It speaks for itself.

    --CTH

    • Re:The Viral GPL (Score:5, Informative)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:34PM (#5986211) Journal

      He wanted to screw up the software business model, which he succeeded in doing, but with the vary positive side effect of cuilding a cooperative culture of open software development with a fully functional service based business model behind it.

      Umm, actually it was the reverse: He wanted to build (rebuild, actually) a cooperative culture of open software development, which had the side effect of potentially screwing up the software business model.

      All of his speculations about how business models could be created around open source were an afterthought, an attempt to figure out how he could have the open software world he wanted, and had enjoyed so much at MIT, without making programmers unemployable.

  • Gentlemen, you fscked up. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:08PM (#5986068)
    Hmmm... It sounds like Microsoft's FUD definition of a "viral" license, but here's what I have to say about that: You're an electrician and you wire light switches in your town. One day, you get a helper and you teach him everything you know. Now he's doing a better job at it than you, so he's getting all the work and you're screwed. Is teaching a "viral" act? After all, the knowledge is now duplicated?

    In order to support his family, the electrician needs to wire light switches all day, every day. Electricians don't wire one switch and live off it forever for the virtue that the switch has provided a solution to a problem. However, management at companies like SCO don't realize that software is the same way. At SCO, they made some breakthrough 20 years ago and think that they need to continue getting paid for it forever. I'm sorry to say this, SCO, but like the electrician, you need to continuously make breakthroughs, you need to continuously make new solutions... you have to stay ahead of everyone else through continuously improving good management, continuously improving good project planning, continuously improving good software... continuously improving EVERYTHING. You can't write some "hello world" 20 years ago and charge every Linux user 200 bucks "royalty" for it now. It's yesteryear's news. It's stale. Nobody cares. And quite frankly, your code probably sucks anyway and will be replaced faster than shit going through a tin horn. Try firing your stupid management and putting people in place who will encourage new ideas and new development, and harbor success through good products and good marketing, instead of trying to weasel a profit through litigation, whining like a bunch of babies and making your company look pretty damn stupid. Hell, you people should quit your jobs at SCO and go work for Microsoft. At least over there your actions will fit in better with the mission statement.

    What do I have to say about the "viral" GPL? Like any other action that you can make in life, you have to think before you act and you have to be responsible for your actions. At SCO, "Gentlemen, you fucked up." And now you and your all-Godly shareholders will suffer the consequences of those actions... NOT THE LINUX COMMUNITY.

  • If they're right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:11PM (#5986092)
    It's a set back, and a minor one at that. The code they have (what they didn't give away when they released their distro and what hasn't had the patent expire on it) will be pulled from Linux, rewritten to be patent free, and we'll all move on. The point is this doesn't effect the spirit and ideals of free software at all. Neither does SCO have a patent on computing as a whole.

    On the other had this might kill Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake. Yes, that would be bad. But unlike the traditional software world where a company dying means their product goes by-by, we've got the source. Heck, the core members of Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake could probably just start up another company doing the same thing. Again a set back, but not the end.

  • Worst case (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:14PM (#5986106) Homepage
    If SCO is right, and if SCO manages to prevail in court, then expect to see 'Red Hat FreeBSD' fairly quickly.

  • Evolution of SCO claims (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:18PM (#5986129) Homepage Journal
    At first, they claimed that IBM violates their Unix Licence by adding something of Unix source code to Linux. That was only something about violating a license, and had very little to do with linux, GPL, or Caldera selling linux all this time. For this point I can't say that SCO or IBM will win, and if IBM should stop selling AIX, as the point could be how was written the ibm-sco contract. As far things were in this direction, they were not doing nothing extremely wrong.

    But then the focus switches to Linux, how it could have inside "stolen" code, and how everyone could be violating their IP... and there the things are more darker for SCO. Either the offending code could be replaced, or they validated the code addition releasing that code with the GPL license, or they are plain wrong. In any case, I hope the bribe they got to do all of this is enough to live the rest of their lives because no one will buy something from them ever again

  • SCO's lawyers are probably thinking... (Score:4, Funny)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:33PM (#5986206) Homepage Journal

    That if they draw the Linux community proper into a legal battle, that in court the judge will see SCO's lawyers, all sharp and buttoned down, representing tireless innovators who are meekly trying to defend their intellectual property, and on the other side, will see unwashed, smelly, hairy anti-capitalist hackers trying to rape and pillage all of the intellectual property in the world in support of some fanatical anti-business ideal.

    The judge doesn't even have to hear an argument, he slams the gavel, case closed. SCO wins.

    Boy, do they have another thing coming.

    If there's one thing that hackers like to tinker with besides technology, it's law.

    I'd watch it on C-SPAN with a bucket of popcorn.

  • The SCO problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by linuxislandsucks ( 461335 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:34PM (#5986213) Homepage Journal
    SCO has this problem..

    Pretend for a moment that someone completely independently codes a processof one click ordering-although they can be sued for infringing on Amazon's IP this cannot be confused with copying code..and even then it comes down to is the Patent a valid one..

    Waht we know for sure that Kernels and OSes are different enough in the unix ful world that one solution while have some code the saem and solving the smae problem can have vastly different code foot prints on various OSes o fboth Unix and Linux..and thus saying 20 lines matches has no meaning in this scheme of things on the basis of patent infringement it has to be base don the full code footprint and its effects for thsoe 20 lines of code..ie ho wimport are thos e20 lines towards meeting the ful infringment conditions..

    To complicate matters if SCO Group by accident distrbuted code under GPL via their Linux distribution they have already violated the first conditions of a trade secrecy by not keeping the methods secret..

    Apple had the same problem with Microsfot in the late 1980s and early 1990s in that Microsoft did copy or come up with code independently that was tghe saem as Apple's but it caqme down to how important was that code to the IP rights that Apple was claiming infringment on..and notice Apple lost that battle..

    and also notice Apple is still in buinsess for basing the decision to sue or not or settle on business economic conditions. SCO Group should follow tha texample...

  • If this case had any merit... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mattbee ( 17533 ) <matthew@bytemark.co.uk> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @01:57PM (#5986376) Homepage
    Why wouldn't Microsoft be eyeing SCO for a buy-out? If that's what SCO are so desperate for, Microsoft acquiring the rights to UNIX IP through SCO would give it the leverage it's been desperate to have over Linux. I'm not sure what the kinds of timescale to expect on such a move, but you'd think MS' lawyers are looking carefully to see if this case has any merit, to take full advantage if they think it will hurt the Linux business community.

    I agree with a previous poster though-- if specific pieces of code are singled out for infringement, which could take years to bring to a legally enforceable position, they'll be replaced with unencumbered code within a fortnight.
    • First off, SCO has footbulleted their IP seventeen different ways from sunday. This is just a rehash of the BSD legal baggage and it won't avail SCO anything against the likes of IBM. Two, they're claiming damages without revealing where in the gigs of code that make up a Linux distro where the problem is. Three, they picked on IBM which as someone else pointed out is like starting a fistfight with a train. Fourth, they've distributed this code themselves for YEARS; they just found out about this now.

  • Fixing code doesn't change the suit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:14PM (#5986491)
    LINDON, Utah-March 7, 2003-The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal action against IBM (NYSE:IBM) in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.

    http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=10 32 73

    What seems to be fogotten here is what the lawsuit really is about. It is not simply about UNIX code being used in the Linux kernel, as seems to be the opinion of the vocal majority here. The suit alleges that IBM committed breech of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The alleged inclusion of UNIX source code by IBM into the Linux kernel is the EFFECT of IBM's alleged actions--it is simply EVIDENCE.

    Removing the evidence does not change the fact that a crime was committed. Sure, the Linux kernel could be rewritten as needed if there is UNIX code inside, but then you need to update each and every single machine using the violating kernel and destroy all copies of the kernel that have the code incorporated in them.

    Like a sign on my profesor's door says: "Binaries may die, but source code lives forever." If the code is out there, it will be out there forever.

  • SCO's big mistake (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Black Copter Control ( 464012 ) <samuel-local@bcgre e n . com> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:32PM (#5986599) Homepage Journal
    I think that SCO's big mistake is that they didn't -- as soon as they realized that there was UNIX code in Linux (or as soon as they decided that they would go after IBM et. al) -- shut down their distribution of Linux. By saying, at the same time that they were going after IBM that they were comitting to continue distributing Linux, they also comitted to distributing the impugned Unix code under the GPL.

    It gets a bit more interesting, though. By claiming to go after non-IBM users, they're also effectively limiting distribution of GPL code that they've been distributing. This leaves them in violation of the GPL -- so they've now lost all right to distribute the impugned GPL code. This means (for the moment, anyways -- until and unless they describe which Linux code they're accusing of containing their IP) that if they try to distribute any Linux code, they'll be open to Copyright lawsuits themselves.

    Time for the FSF lawyers to get their suits ironed.
    (this all, of course, presumes that there really is Unix code in Linux -- which is still a question.)

  • The people who build Linux don't want SCO's code (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hqm ( 49964 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @02:42PM (#5986634)
    The thing that makes SCO so evil in this is that the people who make Linux distirbutions don't want any proprietary code, and they take pains to avoid it. If there is some proprietary code in there by mistake, the just and correct response is simply to remove it, and if it is critical, replace it with "clean" code written from scratch, like 99% of the system already is.

    It's not like some proprietary code vendor stole some of SCO's code. The GPL crowd makes a lot of effort to keep their code free. It's like the difference between hitting someone with a car on purpose or by accident. If you accidently do harm, and you have taken extremely careful precautions to avoid harming others, you should not be charged with the same kind of crime and be subject to the same penalties as someone who harms another on purpose.

    SCO needs to be punished somehow in this whole affair. I imagine no one is buying their aging properietary flavor of unix anymore, so perhaps the best punishment is to drive them all the way out of business. That means any company which uses SCO legacy code should switch to something else (Linux, BSD) *today*!

  • Common code doesn't mean Linux took from SCO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jkorty ( 86242 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @04:18PM (#5987189) Homepage
    Just because (and if) there is common code between Linux and SCO UNIX doesn't mean that the Linux camp 'borrowed' the code. It could have just as easily been the other way around. In fact, given the public nature of Linux code and the hidden nature of SCO's, that is more likely to be what happened.

  • viral gpl? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abe ferlman ( 205607 ) <bgtrio@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Sunday May 18, 2003 @04:35PM (#5987327) Homepage Journal
    But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"

    We've been through this before, it's a vaccine, not a virus [slashdot.org].

    It keeps companies from mixing in their proprietary bits then claiming a proprietary interest in the whole work just because they contributed a piece.

    This was no accident; SCO deliberately distributed their code under the GPL. They didn't contract the GPL like a virus, they deliberately and knowingly ingested it like a pill. Now they're whining because they weren't good enough to compete so they're delaying their imminent demise through the court system.

    If the GPL does indeed stop SCO from pursuing this course of action, it won't prove Microsoft's point. Rather, it will prove that the GPL is doing exactly what it was intended to: embrace? sure. extend? great! extinguish? GO FUCK YOURSELF.

    If

    • Re:viral gpl? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alomex ( 148003 )
      SCO deliberately distributed their code under the GPL.

      Really? How do you know that? There is no evidence that they knew exact copies of their copyrighted code were contained in the distribution.

  • SCO adds on top of page (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @05:00PM (#5987482)
    Leave it to slashdot to bash SCO and then accept their advertizing money.

  • Virus=Micrsoft view? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Sunday May 18, 2003 @09:46PM (#5988917) Homepage
    The first reference to the viral nature of the GPL that I could find in Usenet was dated Nov 11, 1989, well before Microsoft even had GNU in the radar scope.

    google news [google.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close