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
Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST

Bloor Research has put out a story on IT Director that shows a lack of understanding of how the GPL works. A lot of people may think that if there is a lawsuit, the outcome is up in the air. When it comes to the 'GPL is Unconstitutional' concept, I haven't found a single attorney I respect who thinks that proposition can stand. So why does Bloor think there might be a problem? Reading the report shows it's because they misunderstand the terms of the license. They think the GPL robs you of your "Intellectual Property Rights" on any improvements and enhancements. That's not true.

Here's what Bob McDowall, Bloor's Financial Director, wrote:

"It is contended that under General Public License, 'free software code' may be passed on through improvement and enhancement to anyone but that the transfer is made under the original 'free terms' of the General Public License, namely that it is Transferred, 'unfettered' by any Intellectual Property Rights derived from improvements and enhancements. Other would argue that the principles of intellectual property rights override any such form of license. Unfortunately, there are commercial and legal risks in its use until this has been satisfactorily resolved by the litigation in a range of legal jurisdictions, where there is no certainty of consistent and clear outcomes for corporations to determine the risks with a strong degree or certainty. This will, unfortunately, but, undoubtedly, inhibit continuing growth and more extensive use of 'free software.'"

This is seriously wrong. No doubt it's an honest mistake on their part, but it's just wrong.

To put it in terms that they might grasp easily, the GPL works more like this: If I write an article and publish it, and you want to add material and publish the combined work, then you must get my permission, because I am the copyright holder of part of the combined work you have in mind to publish, and you cannot publish it without permission of all copyright holders. That's true whether my article was published under the GPL or not.

Normally, you would offer me money in order to get my permission as copyright holder to get me to agree to let you publish my work in combination with yours. But if I published my article under the GPL, then there is a simpler, cost-free way to get my permission. All you have to do is to publish the combined article under the GPL. You don't have to contact me or pay me.

Whether you want to do this is entirely up to you. You may have good reasons not to want to publish the combined article under the GPL. That's fine. However, you still need my permission to publish a combined article that contains my copyrighted work, and if the simple method of publishing under GPL is not for you, and you can't convince me in other ways to give my permission, then you can't publish the combined article.

After all, you are using my work, so it's only fair. The GPL is not public domain. It's a license that I have chosen to protect my work and direct how it may be used.

However, if they don't use my article but instead just publish the part they themselves wrote, even if inspired by my thoughts, they don't have to publish under the GPL.

It's their work in that case, 100%, so they can do whatever they want with it. But if they take my work, 50%, and add their improvements and changes, their 50%, then they have to respect the terms for using my work with theirs. Alternatively, they can leave my 50% out and just publish their part. The GPL doesn't take away anyone's rights. But you can't use my work, if it's made available under the GPL, unless you agree to do the same. The GPL is designed to build up a community pot of knowledge. You can draw from the pot, but only if you put something back. If you don't want to put something back, don't draw from the pot.

What SCO types would like to do is steal from the GPL pot and not have to give anything back. It's not the GPL that is the thief of people's rights.

You don't believe me? Let's take a look at the GPL FAQ. Here's the exact question that pertains:

"Q: What is the difference between 'mere aggregation' and 'combining two modules into one program'?

"A: Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.

"Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

Notice in this question, that the answer makes a clear distinction between GPL code and public domain code:

"Q: If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?

"A: You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public domain part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the public domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter where it has been."

The same goes for your personal improvements. They are copyrighted to you and are yours. If you can separate them out from the GPL code, you can do whatever you like with your code. It's yours. It's only if you want to distribute the combo that you need to respect the GPL and that's because the GPL code isn't yours. It belongs to someone else and that person has terms for you to respect on his copyrighted and then GPL-licensed code.

Note that you can use GPL code with your modified code as much as you please for your private, in-house use:

"Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

"Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. . . .

"Q: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company 'distribution'?

"No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

"However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."

I hope that clarifies. I'd explain why using the term "intellectual property" is confusing, but let's take this one step at a time.


  


Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights? | 404 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
Please record my mistakes for posterity here, so I can find them easily.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can you sign away your GPL rights?
Authored by: bmschkerke on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:06 PM EST
If I modify an in house version of GPLed software, and use it internally and
internally only, but I'm approached by another company that wants to purchase
this software. Can we broker a deal in which the new company signs away their
rights under the GPL to receive the source code along with the binary
distribution, and that they agree not to further distribute the code?

I'm not saying this because I want to do it, but because I see this as an avenue
that some may use to attempt to circumvent the GPL. If we add yet another
clause to the end user license agreement stating that the installer of the
software agrees to abandon all claims in regards to the GPL and receipt of items
guaranteed by the GPL, how do we pursue this?

I understand that the original authors whose work I would be using would be able
to sue me for license violations but what would a court decide? I have license
agreements with all my customers stating that they've waived their right to
receive the source code. Did I violate the GPL? In spirit, damn right. But
legally? Does the GPL cover this situation?

Brian

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another choice
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:10 PM EST
.It's their work in that case, 100%, so they can do whatever they want with it. But if they take my work, 50%, and add their improvements and changes, their 50%, then they have to respect the terms for using my work with theirs. Alternatively, they can leave my 50% out and just publish their part.

I believe there's a third option: The party who wrote the additional material can approach you and try to negotiate the use of your part under a different license.

GPL isn't an exclusive license.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Another choice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST
  • Another choice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST
Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:11 PM EST
Um, what are "Intellectual Property Rights"??? Here in the US we we
have government sanctioned monopolies for things called Copyright, Trade Marks
and Patents. Without defining what this article is really talking about, it
sounds like some type of "Nebulous Gobbledy Gook".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST
One thing I'm not 100% sure on is how you treat your *own* code once it hs been
GPLed.

For example, say I write a cool program to do something and then release it
under the GPL. I then write another program and use some of that GPLed code in
it. This second program I don't release under the GPL but sell as proprietry
software.

Can I do this ?

In other words, does the GPL prevent *all* users from leeching code, or is it
all users *except* the original author ?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST

Another bit of GPL FUD I've seen is "other people profit from the fixes I make to GPL code".

My understanding is that just because the original copyright holder can release their code under both the GPL and a commercial license (i.e. Qt, MySQL) doesn't mean they can distribute your new GPLed source under any other license. The only way they can include your patch in their commercial version is if they get a license (permission) from you or if you explicitly sign over your ownership of the code in question to them.

But of course, the people here knew that.

(BTW: IANAL, etc...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST
I posted a message on the IT Director site, which basically told him that he
would have saved himself some grief if he read the GPL before posting complaints
about it, providing the URL and a few places to start reading.

Also told him it was very misleading to use "free software code" and
"unfettered" in quotes, when they are not phrases used in the GPL.

Tom Z. (forgot my password)

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF asleep at the wheel...
Authored by: capitalist_pig on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST
I have been a long-time user and admirer of free and GPLed software, but I found
that I even misunderstood the license at times in the past. For example, I
thought that once the GPL touched a piece of code I wrote, that code must
forever stay GPL. This is not true, and has caused me to not use the GPL in the
past when I might have (e.g. GPLing "re-invent the wheel" parts of a
commercial app and distributing them as seperate modules so others didn't have
to do the same).

I personally fault the FSF for this. They've had an ample soapbox for many
years now and have not been aggressive or clear enough in clarifying what the
GPL means and coutering the FUD.

They have a FAQ here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

However, the FAQ is intimidatingly large (like some suit is going to sit and
read all that!) and does not address some of the questions that commercial
developers and users might have.

The FSF needs to make a *crystal* clear and concise FAQ for the GPL and the LGPL
and then climb upon the highest mountain and yell it out to all the land.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Taking Away Your Money?
Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
[Confusion regarding legalities] will, unfortunately, but, undoubtedly, inhibit continuing growth and more extensive use of 'free software.'
Ah, this guy needs to talk to Ernie Ball. One article, among several.
Ernie Ball ended up settling with the BSA over claims related to use of unlicensed software to the tune of $90,000.
I'm thinking under the you'd be foolish to adopt Microsoft software, the cashectomy they can cause could slow your business.

The Flatlander

A Microsoft audit has happened to my employer, too, and cost them a bundle. Inexplicably, they have not broken their M$ habit. Some folks NEVER learn, I suppose.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
Couldn't you just provide a set of 'diff's, license those, and tell the third
party where to obtain the original GPL'ed code?

This way you are not 'technically' redistributing the original GPL'ed code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST
I could be wrong but doesnt SELinux include IP rights?

---

Pixels keep you awake!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Offtopic: SCOX googlebombing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=scox

For some time the finance.yahoo.com page was the top result for a SCOX search on
google. Today the top result is a page on caldera.com hyping a SCO product
called SCOx. Seems odd that the top search result would switch to a SCO page
speaking favorably of a SCO product at a time when everybody hates
SCO(considering how google's pagerank works).

Btw, as of 2:27pm est SCOX is down 7.2% to $7.73

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does this mean?
Authored by: rmorrish on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST
From the article:
Whether the person or enterprise legally had distribution rights and whether what elements within the free software was the intellectual property of others, who had added value in the course the distribution chain.
Is this even a sentence? I cannot work out what the author is trying to say, although judging by the rest of the article, he is probably wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A devil advocates ...
Authored by: Thomas An. on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST
However, if they don't use my article but instead just publish the part they themselves wrote, even if inspired by my thoughts, they don't have to publish under the GPL.
Well, IANAL and my understndiong of the GPL needs refinement as well. So here I pose this question as I am grappling with the idea:

a) Suppose we turn back the clock. Imagine that the classical (pre 1600) world is like an "open science" community.
b) Now we have two individuals, the Newton-Leibnitz couple.
c) The Newton-Leibnitz couple has taken the "open-science" mathematical aspect and given it an insatiably brilliant twist to form "fluxions", or integral calculus as we know it.
d) The Newton-Leibnitz brilliant addition (lets call it component "beta") can not stand without the "open science" mathematical foundation (lets call this component "alpha").
e) The "open science" part alone cannot jump start the industrial revolution, create spaceships and bring Man to the moon.

The Newton-Leibnitz couple knows/suspects this and they want to charge for their inventive mathematical improvements.

So here we have a combined work (calculus) that is of greater benefit to humanity than the original component "alpha". And, yet component "beta" cannot stand on it own.

***Can they charge license fees and become billionaires under the GPL ?

P.S. For the sake of the argument, lets disregard the new findings that Archimedes was on the heels of integral calculus a few thousand years ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think the article was saying something different...
Authored by: booda on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST
Perhaps the article could have been written clearer, perhaps Groklaw could be overreacting. As I read the article, they're not getting the GPL wrong. They are saying that the GPL only works if you (you, your company, whatever) are 100% absolutely positively sure that the GPL code you're using contains 100% bona-fide GPL code. In other words, just because something is distributed under the GPL does not absolve you of liability should it be found at a later date that the code does, in fact, have some copyrighted code in it that is not GPL. Much as Professor Moglen mentioned in his speech a couple of weeks back, until your organization has some mechanism in place to verify that the code you are using is, in fact, 100% GPL, you risk being sued. You can take the chance that some other organization, such as the FSF, or ASF, or whatever, has a mechanism you can trust, you can develop your own internal method (with lawyers, auditors, software engineers, and clerks to keep track of all the paperwork), or you can just risk it. I think that's what the article is saying...and if I'm right, they actually do understand the GPL. They're simply saying that "using code you got from some guy's web site that used the GPL as the license does not absolve you of liability or risk, because how do you know that guy didn't steal the code from someone else, or make a mistake and use proprietary code in his own project?" Not "GPL == bad", but "GPL != no risk". booda

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 02:56 PM EST
This 'GPL is viral' argument is SOO lame.

1. If you don't want to use GPL-ed code, don't use it! You are not forced to use
it. On contrary M$ tries to force you to use (or rather buy) its proprietary
code.

2. If you use GPL-ed code, you are only forced to release your code under the
SAME conditions, you can even charge money for stuff you might have got for
free. On contrary you can't use M$ code without paying them a huge sum, sign
NDAs and selling your soul. And of course, you are only allowed to publish this
stuff in binary form.

So, which one takes away more of your own IP rights?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarification, please?
Authored by: The_Pirate on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST
I have been approached by a couple of developers from the firm, where i work.
I'm one of the very few there with 'hands-on' Linux experience, and of course i
would like to see GNU/Linux in use there.

I got a couple of questions on the GPL, and tried my best to reply:

-GPL code used/modified and ONLY used in-house?
Doesent matter. Code never leaves house, no need to tell anybody about it.

-GPL code used/modified and sold?
Of course GPL. Customer gets code if he wants.

-GPL coded program chit-chatting with own program?
GPL is GPL. Our own is our own.

So far, i think i'm still on the tracks (please correct me if i'm wrong. I don't
understand legalese very well).
But here came one i couldn't hack:

-Our code developed on e.g gcc or KDevelop?

If we write 'clean' code, just using standard header files, not using the QT or
GTK+ libraries, will this code be GPL, due to it's development/compiling on a
GPL'ed tool?

I cannot work it out. I know i should probably ask a lawyer, but i think i'll
get a more honest answer here. And, since it seems to be (remotely)
on-topic....

Tennis, anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hypothetical Question:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:12 PM EST
Suppose you provide a CDROM with a GPLed program, both binary and source code
versions. You also provide a binary only program which is not GPL. The end
user is required to run the non-GPL program which then "patches" the
GPL program to create a hybrid that the end user can use. Would this be a
loophole that someone could use to circumvent the GPL? Since the program is not
"distributed" past the end user due to non-GPL license requirements,
it would technically not tie the end user to any onerous restrictions. Plus
there is no actual co-mingling of code prior to the end user's actions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Read Bloor's License... It is a hoot!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST
The materials on this website (the "Site") are provided by Bloor
Research as a service to its customers and may be used for informational
purposes only. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced by
an method whatsoever, without the prior written consent of Bloor Research.

....User submissions: Any material, information or other communication you
transmit or post to this Site will be considered non-confidential and
non-proprietary ("Communications"). Bloor Research will have no
obligations with respect to the Communications. Bloor Research and its designees
will be free to copy, disclose, distribute, incorporate and otherwise use the
Communications and all data, images, sounds, text, and other things embodied
therein for any and all commercial or noncommercial purposes.


Now how do they explain that their License for their webpage really does say
that they own your submisions and may use them however they want without your
regards and then turn around and claim that the GPL has issues!!!

It's not just the GPL. The entire SCO mess is becuase the old AT&T License
had derivative cluases in that that could be misinterputed in such a way (By
SCO) that one could think that they own your work if it touches theirs. Several
modern products indeed really do have such clauses in them. I have a piece of
software on my desk right now where that is indeed the case, and it is
copyrighted 2003.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST

I suggest everybody read Eben Moglen's speech at havard again.

He explains it all very, very well.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Use the sample!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:42 PM EST

I've found it's always more easy to show what goes on on sample.

Let's do it! We'll compare two ways of doing things: GPL way and Microsoft way.

Ok. There are two virtual machines: Kaffe (GPL-licensed by Transvirtual) and Rotor (Microsoft-licensed).

In both cases you can download source and improve it. No problem (or so you think - see P.S.).

Now we want to sell our perfect improved virtual machine.

Our options in case of Rotor (Microsoft way):
1. Beg Microsoft for forgiveness (as any change was already illegal) and hope it'll condescend and give you permission to sell your improved virtual machine.
2. No other option is available.

Our options in case of Kaffe (GPL way):
1. Beg Transvirtual for forgiveness (you ask them to go against their beliefs) and hope they'll give you some other choice and you'll be able to keep your code for yourself. 2. Distribute your code under GPL. No need for begging.

Now, obviously "Microsoft way" (beg and kiss the dust) is good and non-burglarious. And it is available with GPL as well. How addition of other option makes GPL more burglarious?

Once put this way users usually agree there are nothing to be afraid in GPL - or if there is then Microsoft's way is much worse trap then GPL so we need to declare Microsoft's way unconstituonal first and then start on GPL.

P.S. In case of Rotor it's technically possible to download and modify Rotor's code. But without proper license it's illegal - you are warned!

P.P.S. Rotor is used as example. Situation with Sun's JVM is the same and you can use a lot of other samples from many other companies as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: AutoZone response due tomorrow?
Authored by: OldPro on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST
On Tuxrocks there is a summons from SCO onto Autozone with a Serve Date of 3/4
and a notice that response must be received within 20 days. Is that 20 business
days or 20 calendar days? Is Autozone's response due tomorrow?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarify the Fog of FUD
Authored by: ausoleil on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST
There are a lot of misunderstandings of the GPL even without the FUD clouding
the air. That much can be easily ascertained by reading responses to this
thread, which has replies even by GPL veterans who say that at times they have
had problems understanding the GPL and its' ramifications.

To offset that issue, there should be a plain-English (no offense, but not in
legalese) that explains the GPL in thorough detail. Also, with links to lawyers
who can delve into specifics should it need to get that far.

Yes, this information is available, but to the great unwashed masses, but
apparently it is hard to find. Making this information readily accessible,
perhaps a link within the GPL itself, would be useful.

The GPL is not difficult to understand as EULA's go. Clarifying the fog of FUD
would offset many of the misconceotions purposefully propogated by certain
parties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proprietary rights supersede the GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:17 PM EST
When proprietary code gets inappropriately GPL'ed, the whole GPL-thing collapses
of course.
The measure to apply in that case ( i.e. the party feeling infringed upon has to
solve its problem directly with the GPL-contributor responsible for the
infringement ) is in a legal way cheap, not to say worthless when it comes to
protect the work of others.
By denying any liability in such issue the GPL-author jeopardizes the valuable
work of thousands of developers because the GPL, de facto, exposes their work to
contamination.
But that again is a risk any developer is aware of before making a contribution:
it is a good faith gesture. But strictly legal it is potential suicide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

slashdot article ... Kahle vs Ashcroft: Copyright Battle Continues
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST
Slashdot has an article about a new suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the current system of unconditional copyright is unconstitutional.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST
I think that if you approach the GPL in an open-minded honest manner, you really
have very few problems with its interpretation because the intent is understood,
however if you approach the GPL with dishonest intent i.e to try and circumvent
the provisions it encompasses and generally attempt to steal other peoples work,
you will certainly run into problems, and that's what the SCOs and the M$s of
this world don't like, it denies them the opportunity to show how clever they
are, stick a nice fat smug grin on their faces and tell the real people, ie the
ones who actually put the hours in, and get the work done to go "spin"
on it while we rip you off - legally!

The GPL IMHO is a thing of beauty, its simple, easy to understand and it's
intent is plain for all to see. If you don't like it, then don't use it, no
one's forcing you to.

CPW

IANAL - thank god!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What If You Simply Release the Code to Another Org?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST
Let's say I give my program to Company B and I'm Company A. And I give Company B
the source code under terms of the GPL. Is it ok, in this instance, to not
release the source to the public? I would think so.

Any takers on this one? Any precedent on this one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, GPL experts, do I have this right?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
Original Program:

program1.c
#(c) someone else, distributed under GPL
main(){
// do lots of stuff
// slow square root algorithm
// do more stuff
}

My revision, which I want to distribute non-GPL:
program1.c
#mostly (c) someone else, distributed under GPL
main() {
// do lots of stuff [block-copied from program 1]
// output=fastsquareroot(input) // this line (c) me
// do more stuff [block-copied from program 1]
}
fastsquareroot(input) //(c) me
{ // super fast square root algorithm }

It's my understanding that I cannot do this if I ship a ready-to-run binary. Is
this correct?

But can I do this?

program1.c
#mostly (c) someone else, distributed under GPL
main() {
// do lots of stuff [block-copied from program 1]
// output=squareroot(input) // this line (c) me
// do more stuff [block-copied from program 1]
}
squareroot_program1.c
squareroot(input) //
{ // [slow square root code block-copied from program 1] }
fastsquareroot.c
fastsquareroot(input) //(c) me
{ // super fast square root algorithm }

and distribute the modified program1.c and .o and squareroot_program1.c and .o,
a makefile to build it, and the build program1 executabel, under GPL and put my
proprietary fastquareroot.o and a makefile that uses it on the CD, distrubuted
under another license? Can I charge a zillion bucks for the CD (because it
contains my proprietary code), assuming I make all the GPL stuff available for
free on my web site?

I assume I can.

-davidwr.geo/yahoo.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

I dont understand what all the confusion is...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST
The GPL is very simple. When you distribute a piece of
software under the GPL, you are giving others both the
right to further redistribute the specific software in
question, and setting a basic requirement under which that
are granted that right. If you choose to later make the
same software available under a different license, as the
copyright holder, you can do so; this does not invalidate
the rights of those that already received the original
software under the GPL, but does not restrict your ability
as the copyright holder to add your own changes to your
software now under a new license or force any future work
you do to be under the GPL either.

When someone combines your software, when received under
the GPL, with their own software, and choose to distribute
the combined work, the combined work must also be
distributed under the terms of the GPL. However, this does
not mean they loose their right to their seperate work, for
they could choose to remove the GPL'd code they added to
make a combined work and distribute their own work
seperately under any license they see fit or choose as the
copyright holder to their seperate work. Unlike what SCO
may wish to believe, this is how copyright for derivitive
and combined works actually functions.

As such, I see no means to "loose" ones rights, except to
an explicit distribution of a work that was authorized for
release under the GPL, or when combining ones works
with/modified from an originally GPL'd work, in which case
no rights are being "lost" since in fact a right to
anothers work is being "gained", and the "cost" of that
right to use another's work that is under the GPL is to
also use the GPL for your work.

It's really simple, and I dont see what all the fuss is
about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fear of the GPL
Authored by: drh on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
Many companies do not want to use the GPL. This is not
because of the viral nature, or competition, or other
things as mentioned here. They do not want to use it
because they are afraid they will lose control of the
code. Lets take an example...

Lets say that a mythical company, lets call it NVidia,
creates a video display card and want to market it to the
Linux community. NVidia has designed the hardware to work
with a specific set of software features, so they feel the
need to control the development of the drivers. They want
drivers to accurately make use of the hardware features
thus presenting their video card in the best light so that
they can sell more video cards. But if they release their
driver under the GPL, anyone can modify the code, perhaps
to the detriment of these features, which could cause bad
press and loss of sales.

How can we, the Linux community using the GPL, provide
NVidia with a sense of security in the development of
their driver?

By allowing NVidia to create and operate it's own
"Sourceforge" site devoted to the driver. In this fashion,
NVidia can have a certain amount of control over what code
gets put into it's drivers, and can guide programmers
towards the best use of the hardware features. After all,
nobody else except NVidia will have as intricate a
knowledge of that hardware.

Lets also say that in order to get this video card to
market quickly, NVidia used code licensed from a 3rd
party. This code could not be included in the GPL
distribution. NVidia could say what the expected
functionality of that code was expected to be, and allow
the Linux community to develop its own version of GPL code
that either duplicates or surpasses that requirement. This
new code could then be incorporated in the "official"
driver release, replacing the proprietary code, and
allowing the entire driver to be released under the GPL.

NVidia benefits from this arrangement by having the
ability to sell cards to the Linux market, and also being
able to maintain some control over the code. The Linux
community benefits by having another choice in video
cards. End users everywhere will benefit should NVidia
cease to exist, the drivers for their hardware will remain
available (try finding Windows drivers for Number Nine
cards sometime).

Could this be an acceptable compromise to all involved?


---
Just another day...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT:Intrusion on www.gnome.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST
Message

[ Reply to This | # ]

Funny as ....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
Copied verbatim from the Yahoo SCOX message boards:

After a down day like this, you KNOW a press release can't be far behind. We all
know cash is tight at SCO, therefore I offer the following, free of charge as a
gesture of goodwill from the Linux community:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SCO has recently discovered that NASA's Mars probes are violating SCO's IP
rights. The probes are running embedded Linux, which means they must have SCO
Unix inside. SCO owns Unix, and therefore SCO owns Linux, the Mars probes, NASA,
and the entire planet of Mars. The SCO vs. NASA lawsuit will be for $10
Billion.

Our legal department is still trying to determine the extent of Martian IP
infringment, and we must solve some logistical problems: (1) locate the
defendants, (2) serve papers, (3) determine which court has jurisdiction. We
will sue a Martian within 30 days. Those who have ignored our threats in the
past will realize that we are not bluffing. We believe that the Martians are
possibly the only life form in the galaxy that can be convinced to buy Linux
licenses. We anticipate $20 billion in revenue in 2006 when we send Chris Sontag
and Blake Stowell to Mars for the purpose of delivering Linux licenses and
collecting fees from the Martians.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Funny as .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 09:07 PM EST
Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST
Is it coincidence that there's a Microsoft ad in the middle of the report?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Coincidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST
Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: richardpitt on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST
Somewhat OT - but gives a bit of an insight into what goes (has gone) into the
programs in your Linux system (you _are_ running Linux, aren't you?;)

Old SCO systems had a "what" command which I recall was a binary. It
looked inside a binary program file and showed the header comments of various
things used in the creation/compilation of the binary - typically version info,
copyright notices, modification dates, etc.

It appears this command did not make the jump to Linux, so a few years ago I
crafted a simple shell script that does pretty much the same thing:

-----
#!/bin/sh
for file in $@
do
echo $file
strings $file | grep "^@(#)"
done
-----

put the above into a file (the stuff between the ----- lines) and set it
executable. Then for any binary (say in /bin /usr/bin /sbin /usr/sbin for
example) you can say:

what {binary-program-file}

you may have to be root to read the contents of some files but many are readable
by all.

and get back a list such as I got from my current Red Hat 9 system for the
C-shell program 'csh'
# what csh
csh
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.


You can do this on whole directories of files:

what /bin/* | more


Some of them are enlightening - giving an instant picture of the fact that a
Linux distribution really does come from many different sources and copyrights.

Some output is rather esoteric and not terribly useful and many of the binaries
are either "stripped" (no useful strings left in them to reduce size)
or the use of the @(#) string as a marker has changed or been dropped - I don't
know.

enjoy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: KevinR on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST
As I see it these are the two fragments which make the discussion hard, as the language is ambiguous in quite subtle ways, and subject to interpretation. I have highlighted the key words in bold.
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space [1], that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough [2], exchanging complex internal data structures [3], that too could be [4] a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

To address these in turn:

1. The shared address space is a fair indicator, but it does interfere with all static Library situations and some dynamic library implementations.

This was doubtless the reason Linus originally used a tweaked GPL to loosen things up a bit. I also read that the same was done for some of the Gcc related Library Code which has to be built into an application to get it off the ground.

The LGPL was also written to help people give extra freedom with library code, although I have read some comments that the LGPL is less liked by the purists because it allows this extra freedom of use.

2. Intimate Enough - is not a good definition.

The intent may be to prevent people spliting an application in two and GPLing the boring bit while keeping the guts proprietary - and the other side of an interface. The choice of words lacks rigor though.

3. Complex data structures - is rather wide open.

I can see how it would fit in the artificial program split I mentioned in (2). But what if this is a real interface using documented RPC calls, or complex Socket Interfaces, or its a database application and the database if GPL but the application is not. And before anyone shouts I have read quite a lot on this - but the answers differ.

4. could be - Again I would have hoped for a better definition.

This is like the other discussions I have seen which emphasise dependancy between the program and the GPLed tool. The problem with dependancy is that it is unpleasant to define. If I have an application that uses a database, but I want to use a GPLed database engine. Well the two are separate, they communicate via a well documented API but the dependancy is there and could be quite intimate.

-----------

I think more tools should clarify their licenced usability better - like Linus did. Or perhaps the GPL should have a types of interface/use appendix which is completed for each product. So a library or tool could declare if it can be used by a non-GPL application and in what ways.

The question interests me because I am a designer/developer/programmer by trade, and I could write applications for niche markets. But if its a small niche, there are not many Users to fund me via support and upgrade charges. So I need to sell them the application. But they could not afford (say) a proprietary database to run it on. It is then crucial to know what the boundaries of use are.

The same applies when you read the licences for things like MySql and the RedHat Distribution. There is much that is clear, but there are things that aren't, especially if IANAL.

PS: This is meant to be a serious point. IANAT.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Retep Vosnul on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST
This piece (PJ's) should be put up as a poster in every IT office out there.
It's clear and clean and tells every commercial IT manager exactly what they
need to know to stop fearing or doubting the GPL and GPLed software.
The GPL is truly a license that GIVES more that it TAKES.

But it is more then that.
I discovered this little gem for myself a couple of weeks ago.

I have ( as hobby ) started a new project for server based solutions for
schools. I have at least one "customer" that had this wish. Okee, so I
start doing this in my free time.
I myself have never before really contributed anything substantial to the
community in the form of extentions or enhanchements to GPLed software so this
project I really want to put out under the GPL.

Now the fact that I WANT to put this out under the GPL at some later version
that globaly does what I want it to do makes me REALLY REALLY think about how I
program this and that piece of code. It forces me to think hard about certain
systems I need in it or comments to explain some of the stuff.

In short my choice to link my project to the GPL prevents me from coding really
ugly hacks and in the end makes it a lot easier on myself too.

I know that not all people are the same. Maybe there are people out there that
GPL stuff and really don't care how ugly there code is.
But if only the presents of the GPL and the prospect of this code being public
and seen and possibly even worked on by others make me , A utter chaotic
hack/bash/fling/wing IT ubernurd ( not my own words ), coding that much better
and cleaner then I normaly do for the fun of it ( or sometimes even for the
company ) I really can't make an other conclusion then the following.

Not only does the GPL grant more rights then take them.
The GPL REALLY tends to make people push the envelope on code quality. Open
source software simply works great because it's designers are forced to produce
the best they can offer and innovate upto the limits of the currently possible.

That the GPL is a great and safe license to work with/under was clear to me, But
this I believe gives open source in general its real power.
This is what gives us the edge.

Retep Vosnul.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just in case no-one has looked at the article recently...
Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST
It looks like one or two (OK most of) the comments people have sent in reply to the article at IT-Director are pointing everyone to Groklaw for the info on how wrong the article really is !

Click here to go straight to the reader comments..

Go PJ !!!

mark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: New filings on tuxrocks
Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST
Frank has got a couple of new documents extending the time for Novell to respond
to the motion to remand and for IBM to respond to the 2nd ammended complaint
until Fri 26th. As far as I can see Novell's answer in support of the motion to
dismiss was still due last Friday so hopefully that was filed and will appear on
pacer soon.

There is a slight error on the Novell one - the index says it refers to the
motion to dismiss but the document actually refers to the motion to remand. This
is probably the courts mistake again and hopefully Frank will annotate it with
the correction as he did with an earlier incorrect entry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Accidental" GPLing
Authored by: emmenjay on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 07:01 PM EST
A scenario that I have heard discussed is this:
  • I have a (non-GPL) product.
  • I accidentally include a piece of GPL code (thinking that it is public domain)
  • My code is now irreversibly GPLed.
I believe that to be false. My understanding tould be this:
  • By including the GPL code, I am in breach of copyright.
  • I need to rectify the breach
  • I can do this by
    • GPLing the whole product
    • Removing the GPLed code from my product
    • Getting permission from the owner of the GPLed code
My point is that I have options. I have not just lost all of my (non-GPL) rights by a single mistake.
That's my opinion, but IANAL
Somebody with more knowledge want to confirm (or deny) that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Software patents
Authored by: Thomas An. on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST
...as I was reading and thinking about software patents, here is an idea that
poped up to mind:

How about software patents be made to last only 1 year (or 2 years at most)
instead of the insane 17-20 years ?

Would that be a plausible compromise between the FOSS and the closed source
world ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Expands Legal Campaign, Threatens Federal Government
Authored by: JustFree on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 08:10 PM EST
It is good that we have Groklaw. It clarifies misconceptions of what the GPL is, and how to use it.

There has been discussions about what if you include code that is GPL and distribute it without returning to the GPL. A company that develops software and is unaware of its originals are in serious legal difficulties. The company is putting itself in risk, both with the quality of the software and the author discovering that their sources code has been misappropriated. Lawsuits are expensive, and the damage to the companies public relations would deteriorate.

It appears that more people are becoming aware of SCO Groups strange antics. Here is an articl by The Mac Observer that sums up everything.

At this point, there really isn't much more to say. It's quite clear that SCO either has no case, or has the worst legal counsel ever. Considering SCO's use of David Boies' law firm, it's most likely the former. If SCO had any case at all, it would have waited for the results from the IBM case, then used that win as a precedent to sue everyone that it has sued since. Instead, SCO is firing scattershot into the dark, trying to get as much press as possible, hoping to do as much damage as possible while it is still able.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Am I dumb?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 08:50 PM EST
Maybe I'm dumb, but I thought the GPL doesn't take away rights at all, but
instead gives rights compared to proprietary licenses. For example, if some
people write a book under a proprietary license, I can't give away or sell a
translated version without having an agreement with the authors. But if the
book is GPLed, I can give away a translated version without having to ask the
authors. I just can't sell it without asking the authors to issue the book
under a second license. So what rights did I lose?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"You are wise to be leery, Timothy" ??
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST
I am not a lawyer, neither am I a troll. You may be upset halfway through this post; please, stick around until the end. Thanks.

First, I want to point out how balanced and gracious our fair (in all senses of that word) hostess PJ is:

"This is seriously wrong. No doubt it's an honest mistake on their part, but it's just wrong." [Emphasis added]

She challenges the claim, not the author - and then follows up with facts and careful reasoning.

That said, I think there is something to look at in the paragraph PJ excerpted. What McDowall is saying is, on some level, correct:

"It is contended that..." There are people who make these contentions. Some have ulterior motives. Some are misinformed. And some, I think are sincere. I believe that they are mistaken, but that does not make them intellectually dishonest.

"...there are commercial and legal risks..." PJ will agree, I think, that anyone can sue anybody for anything, on however vaporous a claim, and if they hire strong counsel and give him a blank check, they can drag lawsuits out for years, and perhaps scare defendants into settling. For existence proof, there's this really cool site called Groklaw where they’re covering a couple of doozies. (And where they picked the WAY wrong defendants.)

Defending such a lawsuit costs big, in both $$ and $%#@*!!. Someone who is considering whether or not to attract the attention of the juggernaut must needs take thought on it - particularly if it is not just himself, but his family, or his company, that he may put in harm's way. If he acts conservatively in the matter, I cannot say that he is wrong to do so.

An ethical attorney takes oath to do her best for her client - to advance their interests, by means of any skill, knowledge, trickery or outlandish legal theory she can use to do so, second only to her duties as an officer of the court and to whatever the opposition can do to stop her. If she does any less, she shouldn't take the case. (On the flip side, if the opposition can reduce her to a greasy spot on the courtroom floor, they can do so with a clear conscience.)

The GPL is unprecedented - in many senses, but here in the legal sense: it has not been upheld in a court of law. I agree with Eben Moglen that one reason for this is its clear and unambiguous language and firm footing in law. I wish I could agree with the reader above that "...no lawyer worth his salt is going to even try to contest it...", but the fact is that Philadelphia lawyers thrive on this stuff. I think another reason that it hasn't been taken to trial is that, until recently, there weren’t enough bucks in it to be worth the hassle. Now there are. And if a Philadelphia lawyer can't get through clear and unambiguous language up front, he'll try to blindside you from left field with a theory of, oh, say, slander of title (to pick an absurdity at random).

And until the GPL has been held enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction and upheld at appeal (to establish citable precedent), honest lawyers have to advise their clients that, yeah, it looks good on paper, but it hasn’t been tested in court yet, and yeah, you could be the first. Which brings us to a third snippet: "This will, unfortunately, but, undoubtedly, inhibit continuing growth and more extensive use of 'free software.'" Most Grokkers would say that should not be true, but I think few would say it is not true.

If free software did something no commercial software did, business might take the risk. If free software did something ten times better than commercial software, they might. And if the risk were better understood– if the lawyer said, "Yeah, it's a bet, but it's a damned good one"... It's a marketing problem, this is.

Which is part of the reason Groklaw is here (correct me if I'm wrong, PJ): to air the issues, to collect and present the facts, to balance what is - and is not - available from the mainstream media. To be around long enough to be discovered by the folks need that information. (And, yes, to advocate for free software, but honestly.)

In my estimation, Groklaw has a higher information-to-noise ratio than most Web sites - and vastly higher than most sites dealing with issues as emotional as this one. (The responses on this topic alone demonstrate that.) We need to keep it that way.

So, friends, think about what you're about to post here. There are lots of folks who stop by here to listen, but not to speak. Bear them in mind. You are preaching to the choir, yes, but not just the choir - to the whole cathedral. And some of those visitors in the back pews are nervous and haven't yet decided to join the congregation.

Don't let's scare 'em away, hey?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"IP" Rights?
Authored by: icebarron on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST
As found on http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa--3.html

Robert Braden of the Internet Activities Board reflects on this collaboration:

"For me, participation in the development of the ARPAnet and the Internet
protocols has been very exciting. One important reason it worked, I believe, is
that there were a lot of very bright people all working more or less in the same
direction, led by some very wise people in the funding agency. The result was to
create a community of network researchers who believed strongly that
collaboration is more powerful than competition among researchers. I don't think
any other model would have gotten us where we are today." (RFC 1336)

To: Robert Braden
I thank you. Yours is one of the many voices of the past that ring clearly even
now in the present. If you are reading this Mr Torvolds you have struck a nerve
that runs deep.
I included the above reference because it is exactly what it states itself to
be...RFC (request for comments).
Alright, now the comment. There are many people who would like to forget the
past history of the NET, and given the short memory of some organizations, and
the tendancy of some to try and siphon off the cream while not agitating the
milk,it is needful to place reminders occasionally. I am of the belief that IP
rights are a smoke screen to the real agenda. All of this is made possible by
the combined efforts of many organizations and individuals. I will respect
someones opinion even if I don't agree as long as they don't try to trample on
my own in advancing theirs. In order to argue a point, they must use rumor and
bluster. We as a community have asked them at the beginning to show us what
offends in order to make it right and proper. As honorable citizens that is our
duty and commitment. The results have been to delay, divert, and to control. I
will not be robbed of the heritage that is in the past by shysters, nor will I
allow any organization or individual to bully me into submission with threats of
litigation. If you are offended by my forwardness, I mean no harm or threat to
anyone. I am not a lawyer, nor am I anything other than just another voice among
many. The contributions made by all individuals former and present included, are
not to be trappled under foot by strong arm tactics, nor will it be shuffled
under a rug by bland and far fetched legal theories. Please relieve the world of
your offensive business model and return to the present task of communicating
with your customers while you still have some.

Dan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Redhat Q4 Earnings Results -- thestreet.com
Authored by: Drizzx on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST
Click here for the article

A few quick quotes from the article:

Shares of Red Hat were recently up $2.10, or 10.8%, to $21.51 in after-hours trading Tuesday after closing up $1.08, or 5.9%, at $19.41 in the regular session.

Revenue rose to $37 million, up 43% from a year ago and 11% from the previous quarter.

New subscriptions to Red Hat's enterprise version of Linux totaled 87,000 in the fourth quarter purchased -- far surpassing analyst estimates in the range of 40,000 to 45,000. The company also added more than 4,000 new customers in the quarter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The article & the ad
Authored by: StLawrence on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 10:20 PM EST
I read Mr. McDowall's "analysis", and right in the middle was a big
blinking Microsoft ad. Coincidence? You decide...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO stock down
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST
SCO closed down another .56 (6.72%) closing at 7.77 link

It just keeps going down. Is there a bottem to this stock?

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL and SCO's Theory of "End User Liability"
Authored by: penfold on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST
I have been trying to figure out how to express my largest problem with SCO and
their claims for months now. All of the double-talk and long-winded ways of
saying nothing aside, my problem boils down to their apparent end game... taxing
Linux.

They believe, or at least they SAY they believe, their IP is in Linux illegally.
They start litigation proceedures against IBM, and before any meaningful
discovery is accomplished, they start sueing end users.

Meanwhile, the people that wrote and improve the Linux kernel in particular and
the OS community in general have all asked for specifics so they can address
them, to which SCO refused to do. (SCO even ADVERTISED in interviews that they
didn't want the situation remedied.)

Now, SCO painting themselves as the robbed victim, essentially claims that
someone stole their work. When the alleged thieves make an effort to remedy the
situation, they do not get any cooperation.

And now we find ourselves at the crux of my indignation: SCO is going after the
law abiding, legitamite users. This isn't even the case of the RIAA v/s Napster,
where the RIAA obviously didn't give permission for their work to be freely
distributed by one and all. This is a case were everyone has the RIGHT to share
the product, among many others.

Everyone who has used, copied, and/or modified OSS software does so with the
authors' permission and encouragement. If anyone claims otherwise, all they have
to do is show the GPL, and get on with their lives.

Now SCO has always been claiming that Linux users owe them money to use it. It's
obvious they want US$700 X millions of installs at a minimum. It's a scheme that
only a CEO could come up with, and only one based on the Looney Tunes would even
explore.

So the plan is obviously to leap frog the alleged wrongdoing, go after a token
"thief", and then pull money out of the users before they know what is
going on.

I personally believe that if they had any serious claims, they would have
handled it much differently. The method that makes sense to me would be:
1) Annouce the problem and identify to the developers exactly what those
problems are so they can be fixed.
2) Identify the specific infringers (IBM, SGI, whoever) and seek damages through
negotiation or, if necessary, litigation.
3) Any infringements that are cannot be remedied have to be taken out of Linux,
and offer a version that has a "SCO tax" for the code/features that
were removed.

IANAL et al, but that makes sense to me. SCO's antics make great headlines, but
that is about it.

There is one nagging question that I wish could be answered, but I know won't...
Looking back over the past year, I wonder what Darl would have done differently
if he knew then what he knows now. Since the Dec 5 court hearing, I have a
mental image of him sitting at his computer daily clicking on his
"Favorite" muttering, "Curses to you PJ! I would have gotten away
with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!" (Black hat and pirate mask
would be optional of course.)

---
Blood from a turnip? That's easy! Try getting SCOX to produce evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ Advice pages may be all right
Authored by: borneo on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 01:01 AM EST
I thinks there are cases thats emerge from pasts discussions about the GPL. It's
the right for an author to licence his works.
It's for sure where it can breaks.
It's has been put some pretty goods comments about the nature of the contract
that ties a programmer with the firm he worked for yet.
Now come on to another case.
I've found some very usefull piece of code that's come from young people or
students still in their minority age. Actually they don't have any rights to
licence anything. Only the parents have this rights to some extents. I'm not
sure they even may agree legally to a form of licence that's strained the
opportunity for the child to get royalties in the future !
In France there is a strict procedure for allowing youth actors to play and the
way parents and agents must deal with the contracts involved.
I'm pretty certain they have to asks a judge first to monitor a council, in
some countries at least.
BTW, Young people don't mind about Laws and proprietary and they first come to
code by some cut and copy expertise.
From this point of view, there is a need for more accuracy on who really owns
the code.

I will suggest lawers that are friends to free software and asks sometimes here
in Groklaw how to help, to come in touch with project developper's on
Sourceforge. I guess they will be welcome.
Firms like IBM or Novell who contributes to free sofware through their
programmers may well considers to delegate some of theirs experts in laws too.
The free sofware people need really a "web" of lawyers with nodes in
law unniversity, friendly firms, retired experts that give free time to
contribute.
So the SCOG lessons will be useful at last and PJ will be the one thats show
the way to get some bonuses of something that's look so bad at first sight.

Pj, perhaps you may help the "would be free programmers" with some
Q&A pages whose title may look like this :

" So you want to contribute to free software ?"

1/ How free are you ?

a/ are you a minor ?
b/ do you have a job in relation of writing software
c/ do you know well your job contract
d/ ....

2/ how free is your code ?

a/ did you copy some so-called freescripts you found on the internet ?
b/ did you had access to closed source software in the past ?
c/...

IANAL and french

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 04:06 AM EST
If the GPL takes away your rights what in *whoevers* name is SCO's
interpretation of their license agreement do???

[ Reply to This | # ]

IT-Director Article has diappeared (was Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Rights?)
Authored by: Till Poser on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 04:18 AM EST
Just after I posted a reply to the article, it seems to have been removed.
Searching for McDowall's articles on the site does not yield it in the list.

One of the main problems I had with that article was that impenetrable prose,
the lousy syntax and the lack of quality control. I'd be ashamed to post such a
wreck on USENET, let alone post it on what seems to be the calling card of a
research company.

--
Till Poser

[ Reply to This | # ]

Selling GPL software?
Authored by: reformedLurker on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 06:35 AM EST
Just to double check, you are allowed to sell GPL software as long as you:
a) Hand over the source code (assuming the SW I'm selling is 100% GPL, written
by other people)
b) Sell it under the GPL (i.e. with no further licensing attached to it)
?
I think this is quite difficult to get your head round (assuming I'm not
completely incorrect, of course). I suppose it goes back to the idea of SW no
longer being the thing you sell. You sell support.

Or am I wrong? ;-)


Long time lurker and (anonymous) poster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the GPL Take Away Your "IP" Obligations?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 06:37 AM EST
I think this would be a much better title to cover the ongoing discussion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BLOOR RESEARCH ARE LYING SCUM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST
Yesterday, over twenty-five comments posted - all critical of their slipshod
article.

Today, all those comments were deleted but one.

DO NOT TRUST BLOOR RESEARCH. ARTICLES IN IT-DIRECTOR.COM ARE NO LONGER
CREDIBLE.

[ Reply to This | # ]

so, how to violate the GPL:
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST
It all depends on what you sell...

incorporate company X
take gpl'd code
make it 'binary only' after modifcations (no source)
now sell the *COMPANY*, not the code to customer 1
customer 1 now owns COMPANY, has code (but no source)

optionally the cycle repeats by selling the company
to customer 2 etc..

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.07 seconds