decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Monday, September 29 2003 @ 07:43 PM EDT

A Groklaw reader raises an interesting question after reading the interview with Ralph Yarro in Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune. One part of the interview particularly drew a reaction, namely when Yarro said this:

"'I grew Canopy out of Linux, period,' he says. 'Many of the people in our companies are guys who can easily stand up and say we, too, are contributors.'"

Our reader responded that maybe that isn't the safest source of Linux contributions, given what we now know:

"I happen to think that Bruce Perens hit the nail on the head when he said: "'Canopy Group never understood how to be our partners,' he wrote. 'They've chosen to screw us one last time on the way out the door.'"

Here's our reader's opinion and then a question for Canopy Group's Yarro:

" . . . Remove the participation of the Canopy Group, and Linux moves forward. Continue with them, and we will continue to see litigation. . . . The only way out is to begin to demand they (Canopy Group companies) indemnify all users of Linux products from their . . . bosses (the Canopy Group). If they refuse, then their contributions must be removed. . . . I think the community needs to demand from YOU that you indemnify all users of Linux and Linux-based products, or you simply stop all of your Canopy Group contributions. One or the other, make up your mind. . . . Are you willing to indemnify users of Linux? If not, why not?"

So, what do you think? Is it dangerous to accept contributions from Canopy Group employees -- or even ex-employees -- without indemnification against litigation from Canopy Group and from whatever Canopy Group company the employee works for when he or she makes the contribution? Would Canopy Group and its companies be willing to offer such indemnification? As our reader pointedly asks, if not, why not? And deeper still, if not, what then?




  


What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group? | 63 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Rejecting contributions from Canopy companies means we end up rejecting
Trolltech's contributions (ie, Qt), which is going to be a BIG hit.

From what I've seen from Trolltech, their employees are very gung-ho linux, and
don't like what Canopy/SCO are doing any more than we do. However, Canopy sits
on their board of directors.

Messy, messy situation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 08:36 PM EDT
i am not a coder.
i use kde and i love it
but i also want some assurances for the future
this is ridiculous claims by a dying company determined to go out causing as
much trouble as it can
they can try to convince themselves they have moral high ground but they better
be looking again because if i can understand after the little research i have
done then with their history they have no excuse for this behaviour


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is exactly what GPL is about.
Authored by: freeio on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 09:22 PM EDT
One of the claimed benefits from using code released under GNU GPL is that it
cannot be taken back. This will probably have to be proven is a court of law,
but this is exactly what the GPL is for. Is it viral? Absolutely, and it is
supposed to be that way.

Now it may be argued that Qt is dual licensed, and thus is ugly in that way. It
is released under GPL for use in GPL projects, or you can buy a license for use
in commercial projects. The choice is yours. But this is no worse than the
patented (read IBM) code which is released only for use in GPL projects. Either
way, you have to watch your non-GPL use of the code. All of my development is
released under the GNU GPL anyway, so non-GPL use is not my problem.

So is TrollTech somehow evil? Are they to be avoided? I would personally say
iut really doesn't matter because I believe that the GPL will stand the court
tests just fine. Professor Moglen seems to know what he is about, and the
wording is the way it is on the basis of 20 years of experience. Remember that
the GPL has gone through several revisions over time, in order to incorporate
lessons learned.

So no, I do not feel traitorous sitting here running KDE 3.x on my SuSE 8.2 box,
since KDE is GPLed and runs on a GPLed Qt library, on a GPLed GNU/Linux kernel,
along with all of the GNU tools etc. I will continue to use it.

The GNU GPL will stand the test. I do not much care who authored the code, as
long as they legitimately released it under GPL.

---
TRVTH

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 09:23 PM EDT
I think people who are wanting some kind of 'assurances' from Canopy are
suffering from 'the-sky-is-falling' syndrome. Your assurance is the GPL -
plain & simple. Canopy can not ignore their GPL responsibilities (despite
what they say). They will be taught the GPL lesson in court with IBM their
teacher...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 09:27 PM EDT
... And another point: What makes you think Canopy's word means anything? They
can say they won't but we know how that went in the past. You want a piece of
paper with Yarro's signature on it? - the GPL is the next best thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL viral?
Authored by: skidrash on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 09:38 PM EDT
I prefer to see the GPL as honey, not a viurus.

It attracts users by doing the job they need done.

And after they've partaken it gives them incentive to do the right thing, that
is, improve the commons, add more honey.

>> Is it viral? Absolutely

I can use this analogy in a positive sense but I really don't like to see this
analogy applied because there are always people who'll use it in the derogatory
sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canopy Company Employees
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 09:47 PM EDT
Where is is absolutely clear that the company is putting out something that is
GPL, I think it is safe. Even SCO isn't saying (at this point), that they can
choose whatever license they want post facto. They are merely saying that they
didn't know they were putting out that code under that license (ignore the ftp
sites).

I would be wary of contributions from individuals associated with Canopy, where
it's possible that Canopy could claim either the individuals stole the code
from somewhere else.

Even hiring ex-Canopy associated employees is dangerous. Chris Dibona and
others have stated that they won't hire these people out of principle, but I
think it's not out of the question that companies who hire these people could
be sued for stealing trade secrets, code, etc. At one point AT&T claimed
anyone who ever saw Unix source was tainted, and I fear SCO is going to make the
same claim.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Indemnification would be hypocritical
Authored by: mac586 on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 10:23 PM EDT
A review of the the kernel source, along with the history documented in CVS should identify any code contributed by Caldera/SCO or any other Canopy firm.

I don't know how existing Caldera/SCO/Canopy contributions were incorporated into the kernel. Were the contributions subject to the same legal review and scrutiny as IBM's? If so, and the copyright/license is consistent with the GPL, do we need to do anything?

If there is any doubt about contributed Caldera/SCO/Canopy code, find it and replace it. Insure the replacement code is copyrighted by the FSF and is licensed under the GPL.

As for indemnification, why bother? Asking for indemnification seems hypocritical to me. We either need it, or we don't.

Side note - KDE and QT, developed by Trolltech, are dual licensed. GPL for non-commercial use on Linux, MacOS, Windows, Solaris, BSD, etc. Also, the SCO allegations concern the Linux kernel (SMP, journaling file systems...), not the desktop!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't accept any Canopy stuff
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 10:40 PM EDT
I think you're an idiot if you accept any canopy stuff or ex-canopy employee
stuff, into any GPL project

The bottom line, is even Canopy's company formed for Linux, and until recently
solely for Linux, is prepared to turn on Linux/GPL/FSF if it suits them for
short-term advantage.

If they can do it, with Canopy's approval and even encouragement, so might any
other Canopy company. Trolltech included.

Yes IBM may give SCO a GPL lesson in court, but wouldn't it better to avoid the
risk of another one of these disputes in future?

If it were to happen again, the Canopy funded entity will be better positioned,
better funded, not so self-contradictory, and may not have got a tangled past
with GPL stuff. Furthermore, our side, may not have a such a strong protector as
IBM. Canopy, if they survive to execute a future attack, are bound to have
learned some lessons from the SCO sotry.

The Open Source community can do just fine without Canopy's help. Let the
Canopy companies go on doing whatever it is they want... but the rest of us are
safer if we keep them ALL at arms length. It is not as if we actually need their
stuff, or have no alternatives to their stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: shaun on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 11:22 PM EDT
Cut and paste from a previous post of mine:

Troll Tech has worked very hard to distance themselves from the Canopy/SCO
situation and for good reason. If SCO does win Troll Tech will be hurt severly.
Unfortunately for Troll Tech the association with Canopy is one they can't
simply leave behind since there are stock shares involved.

We need to keep in mind that not all associated companies of the Canopy group
support SCO and they really can't do to much about it. Troll Tech fortunately
is not controlled by Canopy since the lions shares of the stock holders are very
much PRO GPL supporters. Even with Canopy having a seat on BOD has very little
influence since it is only one seat.

I do agree with the idea that Linux maintainers should review all material
submitted by companies that are under Canopy's umbrella but it needs to be
tempered with common sense. Disqualifying a contribution because the company in
question is associated with Canopy is poor judgement. Most of the companies that
fall in this category were not privy to the SCO situation until it happened.

Troll Tech relies on the GPL and LPGL to make money. If SCO is successful
(unlikely) Troll Tech takes a hit.

Troll Tech may have tried to or is trying to buy the stock options owned by
Canopy. Do we need to watch these companies? Yes, but we also need to remember
that these associations were existing prior to SCO starting their FUD and lies.
It would be prejudice to assume that they are directly involved in this and I
don't believe in quilt by association.

Noorda and Love had entirely different attitudes towards OSS than the current
regimes of SCO and Canopy do. Noorda is probably to sick to deal with this
correctly (my understanding is he has a very bad case of Alzheimers.) Love has
disassociated himself from SCO completely and has spoken out (for the most part)
against their current course of action. This is certainly not what he envisioned
for Caldera when he co-founded the company.

Most of the current Canopy interests were put together when Noorda was running
things and not Yarro.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 12:13 AM EDT
It seems to me that there is nothing to be gained by not taking contributions
from companies associated with Canopy. Is the removal of their code *ACTUALLY*
going to stop the threat of baseless frivolous lawsuits? I guess such an
argument would make sense if you think the whole SCO bunch of FUD started
because there really is illegally copied SCO code in the Linux kernel. I for
one think it's an outright lie, or at best a tremendous blunder on their part
because they are unable to check the origins of their code well enough to figure
out that the code they used in their convention was from "The C
Programming Language" by K & R.

I am personally convinced that the only code from SCO in Linux is that which
they knowingly and willingly contributed and have knowingly and willingly
distributed with Caldera Linux.

To be blunt I think that SCO has no case whatsoever, and not a leg to stand on.
That has not stopped them from spreading FUD in their pump & dump scheme, so
why would removing the code from other Canopy companies help? If we expect them
to go SCO on us, then surely we can count on them to litigate whether there is
any possible case or not - i.e. whether we still use any of their code or not.

On the other hand I wouldn't blame any programmers that want to switch over to
writing apps for GNOME instead of KDE out of fear of Trolltech turning a quick
180. Is there anything actually legally binding about their announcement to BSD
liscence their stuff if they're bought out or whatever?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly OT but:
Authored by: kpl on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 12:39 AM EDT
Anybody have a (Current) and complete copy of
the M$ Eulas for Windoze XP(pro) and Windoze 2000(pro)
I use neither, and would like to read through them
but I would like current ones, since they made changes
to them recently.

---
--------------------
mv sco /dev/null
--------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: D. on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 01:28 AM EDT
There have been several comments about TrollTech and their licensing. They use many acording to their website But looking at this puts things in a different light. grok? (understand, my work environment has no 'desktop' and 80% of the time no X11...) 'tain't needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About Kernel Contributions from Canopy Group?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:48 AM EDT
You either have faith in the GPL or you don't. I have faith, more faith in the
GPL than anything said or done by SCO or any other company in the Canopy group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )