|
|
| Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses - OSDL Conference |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:38 AM EST
|
A lot of you wrote to me about an article on companies needing to check to make sure they are not violating the GPL and other FOSS licenses by grabbing code they shouldn't. The International Herald Tribune republished the article, putting a headline on it, "Business users worry that open-source could mean open season for lawyers." Next, we'll probably find it on Microsoft's "Get the Facts" page, I expect. FUD on display. Companies do need to honor the GPL and other FOSS licenses, but the article put a spin on it, attributing the need to do this to fear SCO might sue over FOSS code, particularly over GPL code. That is so far from plausible, I got a lot of outraged email about it, and properly so. SCO does not own GNU/Linux. If companies wish to look for code SCO claims to control, they need to look for Unix, not GPL, code. And you can narrow it down still further, by looking for Unix code that IBM allegedly took as a first rung on a ladder of methods and concepts and derivative code. . . well, you need to ask SCO to explain their ladder-to-riches theory. I surely can't. Nobody gets it but SCO. While you are at it, ask them what code they are talking about, will you, so you can hunt for it? I personally don't know if I'd bother, the way their lawsuits have been going (clue to journalists: SCO lost the DaimlerChrysler case miserably but say they may appeal), but if I wished to be a stickler and were terrified of SCO instead of laughing at them, I'd hunt for the code they are alleging they control. Didn't you get the memo? SCO told the court that their SCOsource license isn't about Linux code after all. It's only, they say, about Unix code SCO claims not to own but to have contractual rights to control, according to some theory of theirs that the courts will have to parse its way through to determine if they have any such rights in the first place, code which they say IBM had no right to donate to Linux, despite IBM developing and owning and copyrighting the code themselves and having a 1985 Side Letter Agreement with AT&T telling them they, IBM, owned all such modifications and derivative code.
For you skeptics who are just positive you heard SCO tell you it was all about Linux for a year and a half, here are SCO's exact words nowadays, in their recently filed Memorandum In Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (8th Counterclaim), the one about the GPL and whether SCO violated it and is now therefore violating IBM's copyrights [PDF] on IBM's code in Linux. Call it the flip side of SCO's allegations. Personally, I'd be more afraid of IBM than SCO any day of the week. SCO seems to share my assessment, because in this document it pledges allegiance to the GPL and swears, hand on heart, that we have it all wrong -- SCOsource isn't about Linux at all, at all, at all:
"First, SCO has not 'repudiated' (or 'renounced') the GPL. . . .
"Second, SCO has not 'forfeited' . . . its GPL copying rights by charging for its Intellectual Property License for Linux (the 'UNIX License'), beginning in August 2003. IBM asserts that SCO has thereby 'collected, and attempted to collect, royalties and licensing fees from Linux users in excess of the fees permitted by the GPL.' . . But what IBM attacks are SCO's licenses for its UNIX rights and releases of potential claims for the infringement of those rights -- not licenses of Linux. . . .
"1. SCO copied and distributed the Linux kernel and other related Linux software for years prior to 2003, when SCO discovered that IBM and others had misappropriated SCO's copyrighted UNIX code by contributing it to Linux without SCO's approval. Promptly after this discovery, SCO suspended all sales and marketing of its entire Linux product line. Declaration of Erik W. Hughes (11/30/04) ("Hughes Decl.") ¶3.
"2. In light of the legal issues arising from the misappropriation, SCO began offering its Intellectual Property License for Linux (the 'UNIX License') for sale beginning on August 5, 2003. . . The UNIX License is a license of SCO's UNIX software, not a license or sublicense of Linux or of any IBM-copyrighted work. . . SCO has never attempted to license or sublicense Linux or any IBM copyrighted work, or any other GPL-licensed code. . . . None of the documents listed in paragraph 66 of IBM's 'Statement of Undisputed Facts' represents an attempt to collect royalties or licensing fees for Linux or any IBM product:
a. SCO's May 2003 letters to Fortune 1000 companies. . . stated that SCO intended to protect and enforce its 'UNIX intellectual property' and did not attempt to license Linux or any IBM work;
b. SCO's May 14, 2003 press release . . .warned that 'SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux' and did not attempt to license Linux or any IBM work;
c. SCO's July 21, 2003 press release . . .announced that SCO would soon be offering 'UnixWare® licenses' for the specific purpose of resolving intellectual property issues arising from the unauthorized contributions of SCO's proprietary code into Linux, and nowhere in this release did SCO make any attempt to license Linux or any IBM work;
d. SCO's August 5, 2003 press release . . . announced the availability of the UNIX License, which permits 'the use of SCO's intellectual property' in Linux distributions, and this release does not reflect any attempt by SCO to license Linux or any IBM work;
e. SCO's August 10, 2003 agreement with Computer Associates . . . granted a 'license to use SCO UNIX rights' on a Linux operating system, and did not license Linux or any IBM work;
f. SCO's October 14, 2003 invoice to Leggett & Platt . . . for an 'IP Compliance License' does not even mention Linux and did not license Linux or any IBM work;
g. SCO's December 19, 2003 agreement with Questar . . . granted a license to use 'SCO IP rights' which were defined as SCO's UNIX rights and expressly excluded Linux, and did not license Linux or any IBM product;
h. SCO's December 22, 2003 press release . . . announced 'new initiatives to enforce and protect the company's intellectual property rights,' and this release does not reflect any attempt by SCO to license Linux or any IBM product;
i. SCO's December 19, 2003 template letter . . . restated SCO's belief that SCO's proprietary code had been illegally copied into Linux, and this release does not reflect any attempt by SCO to license Linux or any IBM product;
j. SCO's January 16, 2004 letter to Lehman Brothers Holdings . . . stated that legal action would be considered unless Lehman purchased a UNIX license, and this letter does not reflect any attempt by SCO to license Linux or any IBM product.
k. SCO's March 1, 2004 agreement with Everyones Internet . . . granted a license to use SCO's proprietary UNIX code, and did not grant a license for Linux or any IBM product;
l. SCO's March 3, 2004 suit against AutoZone . . . alleges infringement of SCO's UNIX copyrights and does not reflect any attempt by SCO to license Linux or any IBM product;
m. In August 2004, SCO contemplated raising the price of its UNIX License . . . , and SCO did not attempt to license Linux or any IBM product;
n. SCO's SCOSource division sells the UNIX License . . ., and neither this division nor any other part of SCO has ever attempted to license Linux or any IBM product."
Well, how do you like that? *Now* they tell us it isn't about Linux. Their "Intellectual Property License for Linux" wasn't about Linux. It was their goofy name for their "UNIX License". Go figure. They certainly had us fooled, didn't they? Didn't they just? With all the media hype, you can hardly blame folks for being confused now. But if you are hunting for GPL code out of fear of SCO, I believe they have sent you on a fool's errand. IBM will file its answer to this, barring any further extensions, on January 14. If you would like to read their 8th counterclaim, about copyright infringement, it's here and their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on this counterclaim, which is what SCO's document is answering, is here. IBM's Redacted Memorandum in Support of their motion, which explains the GPL pickle SCO now finds itself trying to explain away, is here. I look forward to IBM's reply very much. If I were EV1, I'd be mighty interested in all this, too. What, exactly, did they think they were buying? I viewed the article like this: that Black Duck Software has a product they naturally want people to buy, but the FUD was over the top. There is no more danger in using the GPL than in using any other licensed software, Black Duck marketing notwithstanding. I realize it could be the journalist who put the spin on the ball. Whoever did it, it's unattractive. The bottom line is always the same: If you steal someone's code, there will be consequences. That's true for the GPL (if you distribute the code -- you are free always to use any GPL code in-house without any consequences at all), but it's not unique to it. If you steal Microsoft's code, there are consequences also. You do have to respect other people's intellectual property rights, as lawyers call them. That's true for all licensed code, including the GPL. If, in the past, some didn't take the GPL seriously enough, they do need to wake up and smell the coffee. But SCO has nothing to do with companies needing to pay attention to FOSS licenses, except perhaps that their stepping like fools straight into quicksand helps other companies to know where not to step. By all means, study up about FOSS licenses so you don't do what SCO did to itself. OSDL, realizing that a lot of folks simply don't know the difference between all the various licenses or what their responsibilities are but want to learn about this subject, is having a seminar on that very subject at the end of January. Larry Rosen, Eben Moglen, OSDL's Diane Peters, and Alston Bird's Jim Harvey will be there, the latter talking about the SCO litigation. You recognize the name, I'm sure. Think Autozone. Harvey also was a panelist at the end of October at another seminar where the upshot of it all was their conclusion that a lot of the worries about using free and open source software can be alleviated by educating folks on licenses and how they work. I remember the seminar, naturally, because an attorney on the panel, David Byer, a partner with Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault LLP's patent and intellectual-property practice group, was reported to have said this about Groklaw:
"SCO's open-source prosecutions also mark a new kind of litigation, one that involves a community of defendants who use the Web as a tool for real-time communication, says David Byer, a partner with Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault LLP's patent and intellectual-property practice group. Their most prominent tool is Groklaw.net, a Web site and blog created by paralegal Pamela Jones with the help of volunteers who post immediate responses to any new developments in SCO's various cases.
"'It's an extraordinary thing to watch, to have evidence provided within minutes of arguments being brought in court,' Byer says. 'This type of response will be with us for a long time.'"
Encourage your boss to go to the OSDL seminar, if possible. If you are the boss, and you have any uncertainty about this subject matter, I hope you go yourself, and if you do, kindly tell us all about it. The more everyone understands, the less worries they will have and the less damage FUD can do. Knowledge is the antidote to FUD. Here's the OSDL press release.
***********************************************
Open Source Software Licensing/Legal Track
Beaverton, Ore. - December 27, 2004 - The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a global consortium dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Linux® in the enterprise, today announced the creation of a Open Source Software Licensing & Legal education track at its upcoming Enterprise Linux Summit - January 31 through February 2, 2005 in Burlingame, CA. The track will focus on OSS Licensing and the impact of OSS on enterprise computing as its use becomes more prevalent.
''Currently there are knowledge gaps among some of the most Open Source-savvy users about how OSS licenses work,'' said Diane Peters, General Counsel for OSDL. ''Open Source Software affords users extensive flexibility with respect to usage and distribution. But each license carries certain obligations that must be understood.''
The OSDL- Enterprise Linux Summit legal track is designed to cover a range of OSS License topics necessary to help attendees make more informed choices about OSS acquisition and use. An application is pending for approval of this activity for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. The track consists of the following tutorials and conference sessions:
Open Source Licensing Strategy
Instructor: Larry Rosen, Attorney, Rosenlaw & Einschlag
Open Source Licensing Implementation
Ira Heffan, Associate, Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP
Karen Copenhaver, EVP and General Counsel, Black Duck Software
Open Source Licensing Issues
Larry Rosen, Attorney, Rosenlaw & Einschlag
OSS Licensing and Best Practices
Karen Copenhaver, EVP and General Counsel, Black Duck Software
GPL v.3 - Issues of Substance and Process
Prof. Eben Moglen, Columbia Law School; General Counsel (pro bono), Free Software Foundation
SCO Litigation: Implications for OSS
Jim Harvey, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP
The tutorials and conference sessions were developed by and for lawyers involved in the OSS industry, and for those whose business interests include OSS in the future. Attendees who would benefit from this specialized legal education track are those who work for or advise OSS users and developers. This includes corporate and outside legal counsel for IT vendor companies, line of business mangers for OSS/Linux product companies, corporate counsel and outside legal counsel for enterprise users of OSS/Linux and OSS/Linux-based products.
OSDL's Enterprise Linux Summit is scheduled to take place January 31 - February 2, 2005 in Burlingame, CA, USA. As a whole, the Summit conference sessions are designed to address the needs of senior level IT managers, corporate developers, ISVs and others who want to learn more about successful enterprise deployment of Linux solutions and how to successfully integrate Linux into their overall IT infrastructure. For a schedule of conference tutorials, sessions and more details, visit http://www.osdllinuxsummit.org/index.htm.
OSDL is a member-supported, non-profit organization dedicated to the acceleration of Linux. The Enterprise Linux Summit is sponsored by OSDL and its member companies. The base conference fee is $595.00. A $50.00 off the base price, early bird discount is available to all until December 17, 2004. A $100.00 discount off the base price is exclusively available to OSDL members. Base prices for the tutorials are $250.00 per half day session, or $400.00 for the full day. To register, visit http://www.OSDLLinuxSummit.org.
About the Open Source Development Lab
OSDL - home to Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux - is dedicated to
accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux. Founded in 2000 by CA,
Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel and NEC, OSDL is a non-profit organization at
the center of Linux supported by a global consortium of more than 40 of
the world’s largest Linux customers and IT industry leaders. OSDL
sponsors industry-wide initiatives around Linux in telecommunications,
in the enterprise data center and on corporate desktops. The Lab also
provides Linux expertise and computing and test facilities in the United
States and Japan available to developers around the world. Visit OSDL on
the Web at http://www.osdl.org/.
OSDL is a registered trademark of Open Source Development Labs, Inc.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. Third party marks and
brands are the property of their respective holders.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:47 AM EST |
Seasons greetings PJ!
---
Supporting Open Sauce since 1947 ;¬)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:29 AM EST |
A programmer (either in-house or out-sourced) can include open-source software
much more easily than they can MS or other proprietary software.
Simply because it's available.
However the consequences, usually in practice just "remove it", are
not really worth worrying about.
So it's still FUD.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:34 AM EST |
Ths seems like the old telephone game to me. When I first saw an article about
the Black Duck software and companies using it, it was about proprietary
companies needing to make sure they were not using open source code in their
products. But somewhere along the way, it seems to have become a piece that
sounds like a warning about open source.
My question is how do you educate the reporters and journalists so they
understand the difference and get out of the rut they are in?
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:49 AM EST |
Sorry this is off topic so delete or move me as you need.
There is no time for reflection because it has become apparent that this is war:
We will never surrender.
Ms Jones: Good to see you back!
O and.... I'll be back
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:58 AM EST |
If it wasn't about Linux, what about charging $699 for every CPU that ran
GNU/Linux? I'm a missing something or am I just confused?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:17 AM EST |
This is the part of SCO's reply that has spooked everyone.
IBM (nor anyone else) has ever answered this claim:
IBM also ignores the context in which SCO has made its forward-looking
assertions regarding the enforceability of the GPL. In its Seventh Counterclaim,
IBM asserts a state law claim for breach of contract based on the GPL. In
response, SCO asserted the following affirmative defenses:
* "The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation
such taht enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or
otherwise barred as a matter of equity." SCO's Am. Answer to IBM's Am.
Countercl. at 16 (Mar. 11, 2004); accord SCO's Answer to IBM's 2d Am. Countercl.
at 20 (Apr. 23, 2004); Plaintiff SCO's Response to IBM's Third Set of
Interrogatories at 39; and
* "The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or
voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
SCO's Answer to IBM's 2d Am. Countercl. at 20; accord Plaintiff SCO's Response
to IBM's Third Set of Interrogatories at 38.
In addition, in response to IBM's claim for "Breach of the GNU General
Public License" (IBM's 2d Am. Countercl. at 33), SCO "denies the
applicability or enforceability of the GPL" (SCO's Answer to IBM's 2d Am.
Countercl. at 16). Indeed, SCO submits that the interpretation of the GPL that
IBM proposes in its instant motion is unenforceable for several reasons. But SCO
has not asserted, either literally or in the context of its responsive
pleadings, that the GPL did not authorize the licensees thereunder to copy and
distribute the licensed material. Such defensive assertions in litigation do not
remotely qualify as a party's decision to "repudiate" the contract at
issue. In sum, none of SCO's assertions could reasonably be construed to
preclude SCO from arguing (and proving) that, under the GPL, SCO was authorized
to copy and distribute the material at issue.
UNDECIDED[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Doesn't spook me - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:27 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:34 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:38 AM EST
- Wrong Part - huh - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST
- Wrong Part - huh - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:53 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:50 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:36 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
- Wrong Part - not! - Authored by: tanstaafl on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 10:59 AM EST
- The irrelevance of your (and SCO's) argument here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
- So Let's See, GPL'd Copyrights Can Be Hijacked? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:39 AM EST
- Confusion of license author and code author - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST
- *yawn* - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- Wrong Part - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST
- Lame troll - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 10:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:31 AM EST |
Referenced article looks like a candidate for a parody, somebody page Scott.
SJG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST |
There is a link problem with the last link in the article.
The text indicates http://www.osdl.org. The hyperlink goes to
http://www.groklaw.net. The correct link for Open Source Development Labs is
http://www.osdl.org, as the text indicates.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- grammar glitch - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: smtnet1 on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST |
| In SCOs Linux License They sure
look to me like they are Licensing Linux
2.3 Provided Company
provides the Linux System information and pays SCO the applicable right-to-use
license fees required as included Section 1 of Exhibit A to this Agreement, SCO
grants Company the right to use all, or portions of, the SCO Product only as
necessary to use the
Linux Operating System on each Linux System for which the
appropriate CPUs have been licensed from SCO.
And what about
their Linux License FAQ
2. What is the SCO IP License for
Linux?
End user customers who purchase a SCO IP license are granted
the right to use SCO intellectual property in binary form as contained in Linux
binary installations on end user systems. This license only applies to the use
of SCO IP in these compiled and linked object code versions of Linux. The
license does not grant any rights to SCO IP in source code form either
separately or as a component of a Linux source code distribution. The SCO IP
license enables end users to continue to run their applications without
interruption.
This not only sub licenses Linux but it also
imposes restrictions on distribution that are incompatible with the GPL License
that Linux is distributed under.
But are they talking about actual code in
Linux?
It certainly looks like it from this part of the
FAQ
6. Why doesn’t SCO just simply publish this code so
that it can be taken out of Linux if it is indeed infringing? And why do you
require a non-disclosure agreement to view some of this infringing
code?
Intellectual property forms the basis of the value of any
software vendor. IP is confidential throughout the industry to protect
competitive advantages one vendor has over another. Other industry vendors such
as Microsoft and Apple do not routinely contribute their IP as vendors spend
millions of dollars creating a competitive market.
SCO has confidentiality
clauses in all of our contracts with more than 6,000 licensees that specifically
state that this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published
this UNIX source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.
So they are claiming that there is UNIX source code in
Linux. Also of interest is this part
8. Is HP in violation
of any SCO contracts?
To our knowledge, HP is protecting the UNIX
source code that has been licensed to them.
If SCO own all
UNIX derived code produced by their licensees then surely they also own all of
the Linux contributions of HP. SCO are claiming that they own IBMs NUMA RCU and
JFS contributions so whay not HPs?
And then SCO show how they do not
understand the GPL
12. Doesn’t the SCO IP License for Linux
violate the terms of the GPL?
No. SCO’s IP license is a binary,
run-time only license that does not violate the terms of the GPL. The license
only allows Linux customers to run SCO’s UNIX software as it is found in
Linux. It does not subject SCO’s UNIX source code to the terms of the GPL.
SCO have continued to distribute Linux under the terms of the
GPL License even after they claim to have found code they own or control that
has been put in Linux without their consent. By continuing to distribute Linux
under the terms of the GPL, in full knowlege of the terms and conditions, SCO
have made it clear that there is no code in Linux that needs an additional
license. ---
I have a Linux License, the GPL, why would I want another? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:46 AM EST |
There are several occasions where what can only be "paid
for articles" appear in supposedly reputable news
organisations (CNN is another one).
I wonder if anyone can through some light on how these
articles get into theese publications. Do US and other
news organisations accept payment or payment in kind for
favourable or unbalanced articles? Note that this payment
may be "in kind" eg. "we will put a lot of advertising
revenue your way if you put out a lot of articles
favourable to us or cancell it if you report truthfully".
Considering the sums involved, this will be quite tempting
to any advertisement reliant organisation in which the
news reporting division is not completely independent.
This is going to be an increasing problem with big media
conglomerates with other interests than news reporting
controlling news organisations. Other countries will also
start to control and manipulate the news we hear. For
example if CNN has satellite broadcast interests in China,
and the Chinese government threatens to block CNN's
broadcasts if news it doesn't want to hear reported in the
US isn't toned down, do you think CNN won't tone those
reports down? I think that CNN would, and probably has
already toned things down in the past to placate the
Chinese and other governments.
Are freelance journalists who are paid commissions to
peddle FUD able to slip these into the publications
because there is inadequate monitoring of correspondent's
journalistic accuracy. Again, considering the small
salaries of journalists and the prevalence of such
practices in the IT media, I would be surprised if this
didn't happen in the news media.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST |
So what is this 364-1 item? Trying to reset the clock on the summary judgement?
'Substitution' is definitely the right word to describe what SCO is doing here
with its shell game.
-----
364-1 Filed: 12/23/04
Entered: 12/23/04 Exhibits filed exh - -/-/- - - blk 1578975
Docket Text: Substitution Exhibit 19 filed by plaintiff SCO Grp RE: [348-1]
declaration of Jeremy O. Evans
here's the earlier one:
348-1 Filed: 12/01/04
Entered: 12/02/04 Declaration decl - -/-/- - - blk 1566686
Docket Text: Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans Re: [346-1] Memo in Opposition to
IBM's Motion for Summary Jgm on Breach of Contract Claims (Portions filed under
seal)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST |
"First, SCO has not 'repudiated' (or 'renounced') the GPL. ." SCOG
pleading
In the words of Gabby Hayes: 'Sayin' it don't make it so.' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:11 AM EST |
In my opinion, it seems to me that the SCOG was simply a trial (no pun intended)
approach for Microsoft to see if they could abscond with GPL covered Linux code
for their own products.
It isn't Linux that Microsoft hates/fears. It's the GPL. It doesn't allow them
to mooch others work, make minor tweaks and call it their own new wonderful
invention without giving back to the community.
SCOG failed. Therefore Microsoft's trial of approach failed as well.
It appears that Microsoft's management as well as their accomplices in the IT
media have decided that FUD is their most effective weapon.
When are we in the Open Source community going to hold those IT writers
accountable that practice write-and-run yellow journalism?
Granted Groklaw does an excellent job, however this is just one site.
On the positive side, I've seen Microsoft cronies ratchet up the level of
Astroturf and whining on various sites.
This is pretty strong evidence that the IT media pundits are going to have
become increasingly inventive when trying to worship Microsoft and make it look
like real journalism.
I'm seeing a rise in the stories saying one of two things:
1) Firefox extensions are insecure, as they're not signed! Oh No! (There are so
many ways to use digital sigs and other mechanisms to cover that issue, that
this is just idiotic. Not to mention the fact that having Verisign on their
extensions hasn't exactly helped Microsoft with their insecure bloatware
disguised as an OS and a browser that costs companies millions to deal with)
Next non-issue!
2) IT writers are also saying, "Just you crazy Open Source people wait....
Longhorn will beat you guys next time!" Of course the same IT media people
that are writing that, have never even used Longhorn as it's not out yet.
(Of course the same IT media and Microsoft rely on the paid-for analysts working
for Acme Analyst Group who have degrees in French literature to proclaim to be
experts in OS development as well)
(Caveat: the same IT media people said the same thing about Windows2000,
WindowsXP, and Windows Server 2003 etc. etc. to no avail. Linux has gained even
more market share since then)
Me thinks Microsoft will have to become increasingly inventive in their
financial statements. The revenue losses will begin to be noticeable after
awhile. You can only shift around assets for so long. Taking money from
investments as revenue for product sales doesn't play nicely with the SEC either
boys. Believe me, they are beginning to notice.
Of course all the above is just my opinion ;-)
Wishing all a very happy and safe New Year,
Nick
---
Not an Attorney.
Views expressed are my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my
employer or its affiliates. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JScarry on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:36 AM EST |
As Pj pointed out If you steal someone's code, there will be
consequences.
That's true for the GPL (if you distribute the code -- you are
free always to
use any GPL code in-house without any consequences at all and as long as it
stays in-house there is no problem. The risk of violating
the GPL comes when an
in-house project is seen as a potential revenue
source and it is put on the
market.
Years ago I worked at a large company and I saw a lot of in-house
code. The
code that was intended to be used for a long time or was
mission-critical was
very well documented. The code that was done as a one-off
or short-term
project was barely commented. This was especially true of code
written by
end-users instead of the IT staff.
It seems likely to me that
some of those projects could be turned into
software for re-distribution
outside the company. The origins of the code
would be obscure and GPL'd code
could be inadvertantly released.
The remedy would be to remove the
offending code, so the risk is a bit
overstated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST |
This stuff is all well and good to the intellectually curious and involved.
The businessman wants to do business. The FUD scares him with the prospects of
distractions, lawsuits and even lawyers.
The businessman will simply ask someone he trusts about the FUD [or someone he
can sue] and then ask them what is the safest thing to do. (Stick with M$? Pay
them off?)
What is needed is some counterFUD. We see all the M$ litigation in the recent
article. In each and every one of thoses suits, a party could have also sued a
M$ end user. Someone should sue a large M$ end user instead of just M$. That
would certainly balance the FUD. Imagine suing the US, Dell or G2 for some IP
M$ snuck into their software. I'm sure IBM can find something in Windows to sue
an end user about. M$ will be quick to defend and indemnify. What a great
headline: "Using Windows and Office can get you Sued!"
Obviously instability and insecurity is not enough to taint M$ products.
Litigation surely would.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST |
| Looking at the original article itself...
Henry calls up a
pair of windows crammed with identical lines of code. He quickly picks out an
open-source file that is using borrowed code that can be traced to a popular
website devoted to macabre puzzles.
''Uh-oh," he says, shaking his head in
recognition. ''Deadly Room of Death. This is something we don't want in our
product."
It seems to me the original programmer originlly copied
in a game to be used as an Easter Egg in the product, and Henry was complaining
he did not want that sort of functionality in the program, rather than license
issues.
DROD seems to be distributed under the MPL 1.1 - not GPL - so
therefore this does not directly effect GPL at all! However, I believe it is
still wrong for the original programmer to include MPL code in the manner he
seemed to originally do.
It is also worth noting that the program at fault
in the article was not the free one, but the proprietary one. That goes with
my experience in the industry in so far as much that proprietary software
companies have far less regard for other people's IP than free software
ones.
Web Sig:Eddy Currents
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Egg on face - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 03:35 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
This is another off topic and i again ask your indulgence to put it in the main.
Again your rules are my rules: delete, move, whatever.
A post in a past forum upset me more than I should have let it and I've been
short with some in this one as I have become suspicious of posts that say one
thing and could be taken in other ways. I know i am not the best wordsmith
myself and have been ambiguous and probably unnecessarily fair and resonable at
times. So anyone I have misunderstood tonight/today I apologise to.
That said I believe the battle lines have been drawn. Groklaws has become famous
and fame has its price. From here I see more trolls and apologists, whether as
anomymous cowards or with niks and i don't believe that I am being paranoid. I
really believe that a war has begun particularly now that Microsoft has been so
explicitly mentioned.
That is not to say that we should not be fair and resonable. I think we should
go out of our way to be so. We believe and trust in the law or we will work to
change it. We can say that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and that the
preponderence of evidence says they have some of the worst business practices
seen to man. We can even say that SCO is full of it and are laughable in their
court filings but we must never bring personalies into it.
i am not a zealot but I am passionate: GNU/Linux stands between world domination
from a monopolist with a dubious quality product and that of a rich techno
ecosystem that can thrive and strive for quality through competition and
innovation. Although really I wish it would all go away and we could go back to
a simpler life that is not going to happen. What is happening is that technology
has become part of the political new order and without diversity we can can only
have dictatorship. In a reverse Machiavelianism (The Prince) "we must keep
them scattered and poor"... well maybe not poor but scattered and no one
company in charge of our communications should ever prevail and have total
influence over us.
So waht you might ask has this got to do with SCO vs IBM. Well nothing and
everything. That might be Groklaws roots but it has never been the theme from
where I stand. Its not about copyright or even patents its about freedom and the
rule of law that is both fair and just (whatever justice is). Computers are
ruling our lives however and we must keep our freedom. Communications in this
century is as meaningful as the machine in the 19 century and to treat what is
happening here as just an isolated law suit or too is to be fooled.
I am not anti anything let alone capitalist but for now I'll end with this:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must keep our
freedom.
Thank you for your indulgence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Well court papers notwithstanding SCO still refer to it on their front web page
as "SCO IP License for Linux"!
and on this page the word "Linux" occurs 13 times yet
"Unix" occurs twice! Even the name of the page is
"linuxlicense".
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
So it appears designed to confuse the reader,
Stephen Lewis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: spuluka on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST |
| I viewed the article like this: that Black Duck Software has a product they
naturally want people to buy, but the FUD was over the top. There is no more
danger in using the GPL than in using any other licensed software, Black Duck
marketing notwithstanding. I realize it could be the journalist who put the spin
on the ball. Whoever did it, it's unattractive.
I just visited the Black Duck Software web site. They
do not appear to me to be the source of this over the top combination of SCO
claims. They seem to offer a legitimate suite of tools to manage IP rights in
source code.
They have a database of GPL and other public source code that
can compare to your proprietary product code and look for matches. They are
trying to help people keep legal in the use of code. They do not claim that GPL
code is a problem other than the MISUSE of that code by your employees. They
are reminding people that GPL is NOT public domain.
There is NO mention of
SCO that I can find. I'm guessing that some reporter is conflating the two
stories on their own to make a better headline. ---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 04:30 PM EST |
"1. SCO copied and distributed the Linux kernel... when SCO discovered that
IBM and others had misappropriated SCO's copyrighted UNIX code... SCO
suspended all sales and marketing of its entire Linux product line."
I sold my house before the property market picked up. Oops... I have no
redress either.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 04:49 PM EST |
The following is true, of course:
The UNIX License is
a license of SCO's UNIX software, not a license or sublicense of Linux or of any
IBM-copyrighted work.
The only bit that is missing is
the code. Which code would that be? Where is it? Which lines exactly in
which files? And please, no BSD and/or public domain stuff, OK?
Now
seriously, for a change... Given that SCO attempted to put restrictions that
aren't in the GPL on the distribution of the Linux kernel, both through
their licence fees and through the notices on their site that prohibit
free Linux kernel distribution, the court will find that they have acted
outside the scope of the licence they have been given (the GPL). And that is
plain and simple copyright infringement.
Too late to sing praise
to the GPL now, Darl. Things have been done that shouldn't have been done and
you're going down. Bye... ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
I haven’t been commenting much lately as the whole "SCO" thing looks to be a
no show.
i.e.
TheWorld: Please Show Us The Code!
SCO :
#Silence#
But this article by Robert Weisman was so BAD (the
more I read the more furious I became) that I used the feed back form at
http://www.boston.com/help/feedback/#form
and sent an email to
webhelp@iht.com.
Re: Business users worry that open-source
could mean open season for lawyers
By Robert Weisman The Boston
Globe
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
This is a very badly researched
article.
1. Just so you know, SCO told the court that their SCOsource
license isn't about Linux code after all.
2. So many factual
inaccuracies that I will just point you to a blow by blow list at
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041229023816401.
3. Reading
this article I was embarrassed on your behalf, all this FUD has been debunked so
many times.
If you want the truth contact Pamela Jones (PJ@groklaw.com)
and arrange an interview.
I find it amazing that you are associated
with this article as I have always had a lot of respect for your journalistic
standards.
Best Regards
---
Linux used
ideas from MINIX
MINIX|UNIX
UNIX|MULTICS
MULTICS|CTSS
CTSS|FMS
In science, all work is based on what came before it.
Andy Tanenbaum, 6June04 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 02:33 AM EST |
The proliferation of similar, but different, FOSS licenses is a serious
problem. There are about 50 more-or-less "free" software licenses in use,
according to the FSF's page on free licenses (which I know is incomplete).
Nobody except a few lawyers can keep track of the exact requirements of every
one of these licenses. Then there are many non-free licenses that contain the
words "Free" or "Open" or "Shared" in their names, with intent to mislead us
about their nature.
The best thing that could happen in the FOSS
community would be a reduction in the number of licenses. This is a very
difficult goal to achieve, because it means persuading a motley assortment of
headstrong individuals to abandon "their" carefully-crafted (but often
half-baked) licenses. Maybe someone could generate a list of, say, 5 licenses
that lawyers agree are clear and unambiguous; then we can all ask the authors of
differently-licensed software, "Why are you still using a half-baked license?".
Maybe you have a better idea.
What we have now is a mess, that's for
sure. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 06:39 AM EST |
The problem is not so much that it is difficult to
understand the number of OSS licences out there - there
are a hundredfold times that number of proprietary
licenses, and they are a lot more complicated than OSS
licenses. Yes it would be nice to have fewer OSS licenses
so we could spend more time programming and less time
managing licenses, but the real problem is not that but
the fact that different OSS licenses can prevent code from
being shared between licenses.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes it is - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 04:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST |
It is very ignorant and foolish to believe that a digital signature verification
can not be falsified. In windows, it is a piece of cake, as an article at the
2nd Annual NIST PKI Research workshop, in 2003, shows:
http://middleware.internet2.edu/pki03/presentations/11.pdf
To believe that a valid signature verification run in windows is a solid proof
of origin of the code, is a worse type of security risk that to download
unsigned code.
rezende (not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
