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.
samba team... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
We could take up a collection and run a full-page ad in a national newspaper.
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Funny)
Sorry, but I'm at work and I only have access to Microsoft Paint right now. But maybe we can have a new
Re:samba team... (Score:4, Funny)
In a bit of a hurry there, but there you go [crc-lennox.qc.ca]
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if they want to, they can just get a GPLed copy from anyone, and be bound by it - the seperate licence thing is only really of any use to someone wanting to incorporate the code into proprietary software, etc.
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even under the GPL, there is a provision for a modest copying or production fee.
If SCO is distributing Samba, they must obtain a license to use it in some form or another. If SCO disclaims the GPL license, they have no other right to use the software. It is copyrighted code. At their discretion, the Samba team can choose to offer SCO the right to use Samba under a different, for profit license. This defeats the purpose of Open Source ideals in a big way. However, SCO cannot just dismiss the GPL and continue to use Samba.
The GPL is a legally binding license. It is built upon the copyright laws of the United States and most other civilised countries.
Repeat after me:
To say the GPL is invalid is to say all software EULA's are invalid. Without the GPL, Samba is UNLICENCED COPYRIGHTED code.
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: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: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:samba team... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry. The 'use' was supposed to be 'distribute'. The GPL has *zero* usage clauses. It only applies to distribution.
Also note... (Score:5, Insightful)
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
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 (i.e., by trying to extort license fees for Linux from all and sundry). However, those who bought from them are in the clear as long as they comply with the GPL. Am I wrong here?
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, Interesting)
A few years ago Anne had a BBC programme called "Watchdog" where they picked on scummy companies, usually trying to get those companies to honour warranties, refund crappy holidays etc. She's extremely sharp and quick witted. I think she'd wipe the floor with Mr. McBride.
Re:samba team... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is whether or not SCO's bluster is sufficient to demonstrate an across-the-board rejection of all GPL obligations. I don't believe that it is in the general case; but the copyright holder of the linux kernel could certainly use the extortion letters as evidence that the terms of the GPL had been rejected by SCO in the specific case of the kernel, and so they are in violation of copyright law if they distribute any kernel which contains non-derivative work. If Linus chose to sue SCO, he would have a very strong case, IMNLO (In my Non-Lawyerly Opinion.)
I like what the samba team has done here -- essentially asked them to clarify their position. I'll take a failure by SCO to negotiate a new license (assuming they still ship a version of samba) as evidence that they consider the GPL valid in general.
-Craig
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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?"
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Funny)
"That is an excellent question. As you well know, SCO is committed to maintaining the value of intellectual property rights. To that end, we have begun gathering proof that thousands of lines of our System V code have found their way into Samba software."
Nice response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice response (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
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]:
Of course they have a strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
The final components, "Sink face first in rancid dung in pit of hell. Writhe for all eternity." are an unintended consequence.
Re:Of course they have a strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
"... 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
Fight Back: Short SCOX (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Fight Back: Short SCOX (Score:5, Insightful)
That same organized campaign with the intent of informing potential investors of a legitmate, profitable investment opportunity is how most financial advisors earn their livings.
The good news here is that this effort actually accomplishes both ends. It simply remains important to place primary focus on the second.
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
SCO's view: GPL == Public Domain (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Two flaws with that arguement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Though they do share some things, they are fundamentally different in how they're structured, enforced, used, and in what they protect.
One can only hope that whatever judge and jury look at this thing can properly weigh each of the issues against the proper area of this "family" of law.
Re:SCO's view: GPL == Public Domain (Score:3, Insightful)
>trying to enforce them"
You are completely wrong about that. You fully misunderstand how copyright works in the US. You seem to have copyright confused with trademark dilution disputes.
You don't lose your copyrights just because you aren't suing people. Although certain corporations would love it if it were so... and they love it that people like you believe it.
Re:SCO's view: GPL == Public Domain (Score:4, Insightful)
Who do you have to pay when you perform one of Shakespeare's plays?
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...Distributed Beer Reward System. Could be a viable form of payment. I'd code for it.
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:SCO has no strategy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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...
NEW ACRONYM ALERT! (Score:5, Funny)
In light of your comment, I agree that many don't actually read the licenses, but feel they have a "well-enough" understanding of what it/they mean, thusly a new acronym.......*drum roll*
RTFL = Read the Fucking License
Re:NEW ACRONYM ALERT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:5, Funny)
So that is why they are using Miss Cleo for $699 a pop! And she comes with a CD too!
SCO reply (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO reply (Score:5, Funny)
I know it was a smple typo, but I love the word "infringle" you've invented.
Re:SCO reply (Score:5, Funny)
ahhh.... love the irony here.... anyway, let's have some fun with this.
smple
adj. smplest, smpler
this word contains smp, and is therefore property of SCO
Re:SCO reply (Score:5, Funny)
I'll pretend that I did that on purpose. Stupid Dell keyboard.
I'm thinking "smpler" is prounounced like "stapler" in "Office Space".
Re:SCO reply (Score:3, Funny)
in-frin-gle
v. in-frin-gled, in-frin-gling, in-frin-gles
v. tr.
- To infringe in some way by mingling copyrighted material with another work: SCO infringled Linux code into their Unix product.
ROFL.Well, what do you expect (Score:3, Funny)
All talk and no foreplay.
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.
Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
GPL destroying value (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:text of article (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
More satisfying response (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
Most tellingly (Score:4, Informative)
Samba team should... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Samba team should... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Samba team should... (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple. More authors who have put their software under the GPL sue SCO for misappropriation of their IP since SCO claims the GPL is invalid. Thus SCO will face a furry similiar to the slashdot effect but with lawsuits.
SCO sues itself (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO sues itself (Score:3, Funny)
Every time we mention SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They can't have it both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Heh, this can get funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Samba team suing SCO for copywrite infrigement ?
Re:Heh, this can get funny (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Heh, this can get funny (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to add some weight to my conjecture.
Soko
Re:Heh, this can get funny (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
(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?
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]:
Favorite Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been teaching myself Analysis, which requires
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Entrapment? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Gratuitous SP reference (Score:5, Funny)
"No, no. We need to freeze his hot heart with a cool island song."
And SCO is down (Score:3, Informative)
They're just handing them to us . . . a theory (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Drop SCO support from Samba (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drop SCO support from Samba (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL: Equitable Estoppel (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think most people understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
START INCLUDING STOCK SYMBOLS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
One question... about the whole case in general (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me - - - (Score:4, Insightful)
Win-Win Situation for MS (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
SCO and GPL Voilations (Score:3, Insightful)
check this link out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO against GPL? Not according their website... (Score:3, Funny)
Nyaaaa-haaa-haaa! *SCO curls mustache between index finger and thumb*
Re:SCO against GPL? Not according their website... (Score:3)
http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/featu r es/open_source_tools.html - that's the url, typed out completely. But there's a space in there! Here, use this link [sco.com].
Re:One has nothing to do with the other (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I appreciate your sentiment, I think the main argument is that SCO isn't just using GPL'd software.
They are modifying, re-releasing and selling GPL'd software. All of which is perfectly fine (under the GPL) but which is contradictory to statements made by their CEO.
That is, they support and exploit the GPL as long as it benefits them for their business model. In the case of Samba, to be free of the GPL they'd have to engineer their own SMB solution, and in such a way that it was not "tainted" by
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what the legal rights of the authors of GPL'd software would be if the GPL was rendered invalid?
Any laywers present? Would all that tasty code revert to the public domain? Would ownership fall to the principle authors (good luck determining that gor something like gcc or difflib)?
Same as they ever were... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyrights do not need to be enforced, though not doing so will severely reduce or completely cancel any damanges you can claim, as for instance the refusal to enable developers to remove any infringing code from Linux, as SCO is doing should they actually have any code in there.
The GPL clearly states that unless you can satisfy all claims of the GPL, the entire licence is null and void, which means that it can not be partially invalidated. Which means that noone (at least in the US) would have a valid licence to distribute anymore, and that the authors as the copyright holders individually would have to release each and every piece of code under a new licence, noone else has the right to.
This whole bullshit about GPL entering public domain, or reverting to public domain is pure FUD from SCO. If an EULA provision by Microsoft is held unenforcable (as has happened in Germany, I know) that doesn't mean that the work enters public domain. It just means that you must change the licence to one that is permitted within the legal framework (or as is likely if it really happened in the US, no valid licence at all. Then the rest of the world will continue to develop Linux, while shaking their heads at the US stupidity).
Kjella