Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Software Government IBM Linux News

The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux 219

Posted by timothy from the kumbaya dept.
karvind writes "PJ of Groklaw has written an insightful article on benefits flowing from SCO's litigation: GPL stands up in court, the community bonded more tightly than ever, encouraged increased support for FOSS and last but not the least heightened awareness of the benefits of using GNU/Linux systems. Article is also on Yahoo and NewsFactor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux More

The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux

Comments Filter:

  • GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @07:48AM (#12261139) Journal
    The GPL was not "tested in court" the lawsuit was a contract dispute between SCO and IBM. Though i think it may have resulted in a few more PHB's hearing about linux and maybe being curious how it could save money to switch.

    • There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:01AM (#12261173)
      The GPL is so robust that, when violators are confronted with it, they invariably fold. It has been a complete non-issue. Even SCO does not argue that the GPL is invalid, only that the FSF and IBM haven't enforced it fairly.

      The GPL is a work of sheer genius.

      • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The license itself may be a work of sheer genius, but the idiotic, uncompromising fanaticism and elitism of the GPL crowd drives people away.

        Free software is not always the solution. Proprietary software does not need liberation. You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software. Making profit is a good thing.

        • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Corpus_Callosum ( 617295 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:41AM (#12261284) Homepage
          The license itself may be a work of sheer genius, but the idiotic, uncompromising fanaticism and elitism of the GPL crowd drives people away.
          They generally are uncompromising, elite fanatics. But I would hardly call their behavior idiotic. What drives every GPL swinging fanatic is the lucid realization that if the source is closed, the software will eventually rot and die. Why would anyone in their right mind want to depend on anything that is guaranteed to rot and die? If we take software to be the bricks and mortar of the world's communications and data infrastructure, then we also have the additional variable of control. Do you want private companies controlling world infrastructure? These are the central themes of the open-source religion and for people that give a damn, they are strong themes.

          Free software is not always the solution. Proprietary software does not need liberation. You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software. Making profit is a good thing.
          If the proprietary software is something that is expected to exist for a long time, participate in public data infrastructure and/or is of very high importance, then there are some very compelling arguments that it should indeed be liberated.

          It is not even completely clear that you can make more money with proprietary software. The largest and most profitable computer company in the world is open-sourcing practically everything these days, they believe it is good for business. You know the one, with three blue letters?

          • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DashEvil ( 645963 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @09:12AM (#12261461)
            Uh, IBM makes most of its money off hardware. The fact that it uses Open Source software to leverage that hardware is quite irrelevant. Your point is misleading.

            How about we compare corporations like Red Hat to Microsoft. I think that argument is much more compelling.

            • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Informative)

              by mrhartwig ( 61215 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @09:36AM (#12261623)
              Actually, no. IBM makes more money off services than either HW or SW. I didn't find their 2005 annual report quickly, but the trend toward services (vs. HW) has been going for several years now; here are the 2004 revenue numbers:
              • Services: $42.6 B
              • HW: $28.2 B
              • SW: $14.3 B
              • Financing: $ 2.8 B
              • Other: $ 1.1 B

              Adding that up, it looks like services top HW & SW combined.

              I believe IBM's use of OSS to leverage their services business is quite relevant. I do suspect that the majority of their services don't have anything to do with OSS, but my (uninformed) opinion says the % is growing, and will continue to grow for a while.

            • Only if you choose a company which isn't Microsoft.

              For the one Microsoft, there's literally one-hundered thousand broken companies whose product now lies abandoned.

              For the one Microsoft, there are one-hundred companies which are doing worse than RH.

              For the one Microsoft, there are one-hundred companies doing marginally better than RH.

              For the one Microsoft, there are even half a dozen companies or so which can be compared to Microsoft.

              So it may be a compelling comparison, but it too will be misleading.
            • How about we compare corporations like Red Hat to Microsoft. I think that argument is much more compelling.

              Before we run off comparing anyone to anyone (and anyone to Microsoft is silly and irrelevant for obvious reasons), let's take a moment to question the motivation for making assertions that OSS is stupid because proprietary software is more profitable.

              First, whether a company is pushing proprietary or open source, using standards (e.g. open systems) or not (closed systems) essentially amounts to

        • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:42AM (#12261287) Homepage
          I don't see the point.

          The GPL crowd drives some people away. Some Microsoft fans draw me away. Apple fans drive other people away. So what? Everybody is attracted and repelled by one thing or another.

          IMHO, proprietary software is not a solution, it's sometimes a necessary compromise when there's no other alternative. In that sense it works well for vertical applications. For nearly everything else, I'd say it's a big disadvantage since usually you get stuck with a single vendor and lock-in.

        • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nickco3 ( 220146 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:48AM (#12261305)
          You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software.

          That all depends on whether you sell software or buy it. If you are not a software salesman, your bottom line will be better with open source.

          Making profit is a good thing.

          Let's all nail shutters over our windows to make the power company more profitable.

        • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:4, Insightful)

          by stankulp ( 69949 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:24AM (#12262330) Homepage

          "The license itself may be a work of sheer genius, but the idiotic, uncompromising fanaticism and elitism of the GPL crowd drives people away."


          You can say the same thing about Microsoft's "Business Software Alliance." [com.com]

        • Re:There's a reason it wasn't tested in court (Score:5, Insightful)

          by belroth ( 103586 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @01:49PM (#12263213)
          You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software. Making profit is a good thing.
          This is true if you are talking about companies that sell software. Companies that 'merely' use software while carrying out their real business to make money will have reduced overheads. In this case it's quite possible to make more money with FOSS than proprietary software, making money is indeed a good thing.

          For example I've been writing software for over twenty years and none of it has ever been sold, it's all been in-house to support the business functions of the various companies for which I've worked. FOSS is very useful as it means I don't have to squeeze any more budget to pay for proprietary software which may be 'end of lifed'.

        • If you expect fanatics to stop being fanatical on EITHER side, you're nuts.

          The major difference here is that the fanatics on the proprietary side of things tend to spend millions on flawed studies and buying news reporters to spread untruths, whereas the fanatics on OSS generally rant about it on forums.

          Which is more dangerous? I guess that's a matter of opinion.
        • You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software.

          Just how much of the software written, do you think gets SOLD, in boxes? 90%? 75? 50%?

          Try around 10%. Most software is written by programmers in corporations for internal needs, or written for specific, custom contracts, not intended to be sold again.

          But, don't believe ME. Go and ask everybody you know that writes software, and add it up yourself. Get a decent sampling size, and you'll see what I mean.

          Micros

    • Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:25AM (#12261239) Homepage
      None is needed, as the other post says.

      If I understand it correctly, it works like this. When a company is about to go to court, they realize that the GPL is the only thing that gives them the permission to distribute the code. If they try to argue that the GPL doesn't apply, then they suddenly have nothing in their favour at all and are clearly guilty of copyright infringement.

      No wonder it never went to court, because it's clearly an unwinnable situation.

      • Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)

        by Xformer ( 595973 ) <avalon73@ c a e r l e o n .us> on Sunday April 17, 2005 @09:32AM (#12261591)
        Clearly an unwinnable argument, that I clearly remember SCO trying to use earlier in this whole mess. Their lawyers tried to proclaim the GPL as invalid, and that argument was tossed pretty quickly.

        Therefore, the GPL was tested in court, and it stood rather well.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:GPL (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dmaxwell ( 43234 )
          Promissory estoppel at the very least would kick in. The developer would also have to 'splainin' to do why he licensed under the GPL in the first place. Contracts are binding on both parties to an agreement. A license binds the the licensor as long as the licensee is in compliance. A compliant licensee who has become dependent on the software may even be able to sue the reneging licensor for damages.
          • A license binds the the licensor as long as the licensee is in compliance.

            That is not quite true. It is possible to revoke a license given in the past (even if done in breach of contract* - although this will have the consequence of liability for damages in contract), however as you point out there may be an estoppel. But to get an estoppel you have to show that you have relied on the license in a way that makes it unconscionable for the licensor to retract the license.

            If you have only used the software

          • Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Vengie ( 533896 )
            Are you in law school or AYAAL? You actually made sense..... [you might want to explain what estoppel is next time though, since all of five people understood it, present company included.]
          • promisory estoppel: A doctrine in which a non contractual promise may be made enforceable to avoid an injustice.

        • "They own the copyright on the entire thing, so unilaterally announce that anyone using the software now needs to pay a licensing fee."

          You cannot retroactively revoke existing licensed software.

          All new users of that software would be bound by the new licensing fees, but all copies in existance that were licensed under the GPL, are still covered by the GPL, and can be redistributed under the clause of that license.

          Just correcting your minor inaccuracy...

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re:GPL (Score:5, Interesting)

              by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:51AM (#12262484)
              "The situation I propose is that the original developer announces that anyone using the software now needs to pay a licensing fee, claiming that the GPL is not a valid license to begin with..."

              Also not possible, since the GPL is simply a license to copy and redistribute copyrighted software, if the GPL is revoked, I still have been granted rights to the version I was given, via the U.S. Copyright system. I am free to do whatever I wish with it, including rebrand it as my own and sell it as a competing product.

              When the GPL is stripped away, what is left is a stronger legal standing, not a weaker one. Trust me on this, We've been fighting 3 cases of GPL violation with our FSF-appointed attorney in towe, for the last 4-5 years now. Commercial companies seem to think because we're "spare time hackers", we can't afford attorneys, and that they can pick and claw at whatever pieces of our code they wish. They are sorely mistaken.

              In the case of a GPL investigation, if the violation of that license is proven to be accurate, all rights to continue to use that GPL'd code are revoked, making EVERY SINGLE SALE OR DOWNLOAD of that GPL code from that point, a United States Copyright Violation, subject to fines of $20,000/USD to $200,000/USD per-incident. Its VERY expensive to violate the GPL.

              In one case, the vendor took our project, every single piece of it, slapped their own names on it, removed ours, stripped out the licensing, put their icons on it, and began selling it to "partners", without letting them know that it was based on GPL code (and without transferring that GPL license to those "partners"). Since they were openly advertising that it was "their" product, written by them (they gave copies away by the thousands at "beaming" kiosks at tradeshows), this was now what is called a "Lanham Act Violation", otherwise known as "...false designation of origin". When we approached their "partners" and asked for source, we were directly threatened by the CEO of the original violating company with bankruptcy and other things. I quote: "If we end up in court, I will bankrupt these guys! I have millions of dollars of investor money to play with..."

              It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and ignorant companies like this continue to be, but the number of GPL violations continues in the industry every single day, there are thousands of known violators out there right now, just waiting for someone to slap them with an injunction and a subponea to audit their source code.

              Once someone grants you rights to a piece of software, it cannot be revoked after the fact.

              • Re:GPL (Score:2)

                by m50d ( 797211 )
                Also not possible, since the GPL is simply a license to copy and redistribute copyrighted software, if the GPL is revoked, I still have been granted rights to the version I was given, via the U.S. Copyright system. I am free to do whatever I wish with it, including rebrand it as my own and sell it as a competing product.

                Whilst I agree with much of your post, this is wrong. If the GPL is found to be invalid, then you cannot rebrand or distribute the version you have. You can carry on using it (you don't nee

        • Re:GPL (Score:2)

          by AJWM ( 19027 )
          The original developer can't do that (retroactively decide that the GPL is invalid and demand license fees from everyone he distributed software to), for several reasons.

          First is "promissory estoppel". The initial distribution and license grant is an implicit promise not to sue the recipient; even if the developer secretly didn't think the GPL valid, he acted as though he did, and the recipient has to assume that the developer/distributor was acting in good faith. The law provides that the recipient is
        • You are right this would be a good test case.

          However courts have already upheld that people can split rights. In other words I can sell you the unlimited right to publish something while still retaining the right myself. Proquest is a company that often enters into these types of arrangements.

          The problem would be for version 1.0 where does Developer have any standing that User doesn't? In other words the courts might just simple say that Developer "sold" a copy of his rights for $0 to "User" and thus

    • Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)

      by gvc ( 167165 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:28AM (#12261248)
      I cannot parse your sentence. I think you are saying that SCO v. IBM does not test the GPL. It certainly does. IBM's eighth counterclaim says:

      "124. SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights by copying, modifying, sublicensing and/or distributing Linux products except as expressly provided under the GPL. SCO has taken copyrighted source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and copied, modified, sublicensed and/or distributed those products other than as permitted under the GPL. SCO has no right -- and has never had any right - to copy, modify, sublicense and/or distribute the IBM copyrighted code except pursuant to the GPL."

    • Insightful? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The references to being tested in court is for the part Pamela mentions about SCO wrapping themselves in the GPL flag in court against IBM charges of copyright infringement. Also, one of the other cases had an element of GPL in it iirc.

      And in Germany, the GPL has been ruled on in two cases where the GPL was held to be enforceable. I believe Stu Cohen or Eben Moglen have used those two cases as examples of cases that are going to be used in international law as a basis for future decisions, and will prob

    • Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @09:21AM (#12261516) Homepage
      You don't seem to quite get how the GPL works (as don't many, many people, including Darl McLies). Apologies for the slightly reactionary tone of that sentence, but it's important to understand exactly what it is and how it will be used in court... read on:

      The GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. As such it will never be 'tested in court' in the sense you describe. However, it is a (perhaps the only) defence against a charge of copyright infringement, where the code user cannot demonstrate some other license to use the software[1].

      In fact, SCO is using it as its defence in the 8th (iirc) counterclaim, which is where the court then will determine if SCO has fulfilled all the licence terms. That is all the 'test' it will ever get, and all we will ever need.

      Once you understand that, the idea suggested by Darl that all GPL works should be declared Public Domain becomes clearly visible as the idiotic idea it is: it would involve stripping copyright from hundreds (thousands!) of works for the benefit of exactly the same type of people who are currently having copyrights extended so they can continue to make money off long-dead artists (eg Sonny Bono).

      Justin.
      [1] AFAIK there is nothing to stop the owner of some code both relieasing under the GPL and simultaneously licensing it for commercial use for money. After all, why should the owner of some code not do as he/she wishes with it?

      • OT: rights of owners (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        After all, why should the owner of some code not do as he/she wishes with it?

        You know, where the author of GPL -- Mr. Stallman -- lives, right? Cambridge, MA...

        The dominant view of property in that town may be very different from yours. For example, this is the city that had the most anti-landlord legislation for years (resulting in great tenant-landlord animosity, of course). After the state-wide referendum repealed most of it several years ago, many people in Cambridge keep campaigning to put them bac

      • Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 )
        You *probably) know this, but your wording seems unclear, so for the benefit of other readers, I shall clarify.

        Actually the GPL has nothing to do with 'using' software (eg running an application, loading and booting an OS, etc). Default copyright doesnt place any restrictions on someone merely 'using' a program - only proprietary EULA's go there (and it is controversial as to wether those are/should be binding at all).

        The GPL merely covers copying all or part of the source code of a GPL'ed program into an

        • Re:GPL (Score:2)

          by aug24 ( 38229 )
          You're right, I read that a dozen times to make sure it was accurate, but still used the code-writer's sense of 'use'. Damn, and thanks.

          J.
        • A nitpick.

          The GPL might end up apply to use. To "use" software you have to make a lot of copies and some derivied works. Up until now these have all fallen under "fair use". You sell the copy on cdroms so that people can copy to their harddrive then to ram then to caches, then create derived works in JITs, microcode....

          What some commercial companies are arguing is that these fair use rights should be restricted. So for example buying a license to OSX does not permit you to run it under PearPC. Since

          • Re:GPL and use (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 )
            No.

            If you read the GPL carefully (it seriously sounds like you havent - I suggest when you have a bit of free time that you pop over to http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt and read it through - its quite interesting, and may well clear up a lot of confusion you have) you will note that it applies only to taking the GPL'd source code, and adding it (or adding other code to it) to produce a new program. It specifically says it does *NOT* apply to the act of loading the program onto hardware (which

            • Re:GPL and use (Score:3, Insightful)

              by jbolden ( 176878 )
              You perhaps should try to be less condescending until you are sure that you really are the one explaining obvious things to me. I was addressing an issue that comes within the GPL:

              This License applies to any program or other work which contains
              a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
              under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
              refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
              means either the Program or any derivative work under cop

      • Re:GPL (Score:2)

        by AJWM ( 19027 )
        [1] AFAIK there is nothing to stop the owner of some code both relieasing under the GPL and simultaneously licensing it for commercial use for money.

        You are quite correct. See MySQL, Qt (TrollTech), and others for concrete examples.
    • Pamela specificly mentions where the GPL was tested. SCO made claims about how the GPL was invalid. IBM counter claims that if that were the case SCO was in violation of various copyrights and SCO folded.

      The GPL won't really be "tested in court" until someone is sued for refusing to release source code. The CherryOS case is one among a large number of examples of how fast everyone faced with a clear cut GPL violation has folded. The only disagreement I've heard between the legal community and the FSF i

  • Bonded more tightly than ever, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aendeuryu ( 844048 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @07:49AM (#12261140)
    the community bonded more tightly than ever

    *cough cough BITKEEPER cough*

    • Re:Bonded more tightly than ever, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:04AM (#12261181)
      Bitkeeper along with Apple's lack of contributions back to the BSD community (yeah yeah "darwin, darwin", I mean compared to IBM's and other ppl's contributions linux) has to be the best example of why the GPL kicks the ass of these other licenses and off proprietary.

      Mention anything in favour of the GPL and some BSD troll will try and make out that you are some group-thinking slashbot who hasn't considered the issues. But no, I have considered the issues, and the GPL works out damn fine.

      And on another BSD troll issue, they always look down on linux because it's a "toy". Yeah well let's just have a look at the troubles in FreeBSD 5 then hey? Linux, although certainly not perfect (take note of what I just said please), is nothing to sniff at technically.

      Now I don't mind the BSD licence, it's cool. Most BSD guys are cool (again take note). I just hate that part of the BSD culture which looks down it's nose at the GPL like anyone who supports it is some script kiddiot. There are reasons for it, damn good reasons.

      And yes there are linux ppl trolling BSD also, but they are normally full-on joking rather than being serious like the BSD elitist trolls. "BSD is dying" isn't half as bad or serious as some poncy "you are an inferior being because your linux "distro" is a toy next to the awesome power of my SMP implimentation on my *BSD box"

      fuck em if they can't take a joke.

    • Re:Bonded more tightly than ever, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gclef ( 96311 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:06AM (#12261186)
      Honestly, I think the Bitkeeper thing is about a legitimate concern. I understand the fight there. I think part of what SCO did was make the community focus on those sorts of fights rather than the more petty ones (*cough cough KDE vs Gnome cough*). There's no way a group this size will never have fights, but a common enemy makes you prioritize your fights a bit better.

    • Re:Bonded more tightly than ever, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bitkeeper?

      Who cares. That's just kernel politics bullshit. It's happenned before (smp support disputs for instance), they'll end up creating something better then bitkeeper anyways.

      Seriously. It realy doesn't matter very much anyways. The free version of bitkeeper is still aviable, and now people have a good reason to build a free replacement/improvement.

      You mistake Linus's personality flaws with something that actually matters. It doesn't.

      If you look back into history a similar thing with SCO.

      If SCO d
      • If SCO didn't price their Unix so expensive that no normal person could ever hope to afford it, there would of been no reason to start Linux in the first place...

        Um, maybe, maybe not. Linus was using MINIX, which was pretty much free. One reason he developed Linux was because the license for MINIX didn't let him update and improve it except through patches... conceptually, though not genetically, Linux was started as "MINIX Improved".

        Now he has said that if BSD had been ready a year earlier there woudln'

  • Gamer's Advisory: Cursed Boomerang of SCO (Score:4, Funny)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @07:59AM (#12261166) Homepage

    ... is not effective against charging penguins!

  • And more concern (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @08:02AM (#12261178) Homepage Journal
    "will i be sued if i use this free software"

    Microsoft is placing full page ads based on this angle in trade magazines now.

    While the reality of being sued may ( or may not exist ), they are doing their best to instill the fear of it into businesses, so they will stay with 'safe' software.

    With all the free press, its only helping Microsoft do this.

    • I read that as "will i be sued by Microsoft if i use this free software"

      Am I the only one? Is Microsoft announcing it's intentions to throw rocks at the gears? I can see some Microsoft black-project to get some independant [ehum..] developers to sue big companies for some triviality related to an open-source license to try to drive the point home.

      Never mind me, I'm just paranoid..
      • After reading the 'ad' I sort of had that same feeling: 'we might sue you, best be careful what OS you choose'.

        Once they hold all the key patents they can. Will they? Who knows, but they could. A percieved threat looming overhead will influence a lot of smaller companies decision. They cant afford to be 'right', and have to fight it legally.
      • No, it actually means:

        "will i be sued by Some near-bankrupt COmpany shilling for Microsoft if i use this free software"

      • Paranoid? No. In fact, you're behind the times! You've just described the past couple of years in SCO vs. The Civilized World.

    • Re:And more concern (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I think the big issue is the continuing availability of technology. Will the tools one uses to build a firm be available next year. Will there be predictability in costs and upgrades. With MS products, this predictability generally exists, and if it changes, there is often a long enough window so that firms can change tools. This predictability is what forces MS to keep older OS alive, and nuetered the MS attempted to force firms into yearly upgrade cycles.

      So, the issue is not so much who will pay for

    • The big lie behind this FUD is that by using M$ software, or any propriatory packages, you are somehow covered against being sued.

      However, people may remember not long ago, M$ SQL Server developers were being threatened with lawsuits, due to a patent conflict. See this Register Article [theregister.co.uk]...

      The licence of your software really bears little relevance to how likely you are to be sued IMHO.
      • Oh, i agree its not just an OSS problem and effects any software ( or hardware ) that you buy.

        Im just restating the push of the Ad campaign and the angle they are using.

        Even if Microsoft did promise to come to you rescue and pay your legal bills, it still doesnt help you when you cant use said software any longer and business suffers..
  • And they married and had many children.

  • As everybody knows (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sad_ ( 7868 )
    PJ in the article says everybody knows that GPL software has no risks (or no more risks then other software). Well it's not true, a lot of of CIO still don't know and/or are still thinking of linux as if it was 1995.
    If they were not like that, the article she wrote would not have been necessary. So, it is a good thing she wrote it, but there is no boomerang effect, just yet.
  • Ignoring the GPL for a moment...

    Copyright law says you can't copy something without permission from the copyright holder (personal and fair use notwithstanding). Period.

    The GPL does nothing more than _GRANT_ permission to people that agree to abide by its terms. Period.

    That's it. If you don't agree to the terms, you don't have the permission that it grants, and you have no more permission to copy it than if the GPL weren't there at all, but the work was still copyrighted.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Close