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
My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 09:23 AM EDT

I wrote an article for CIO Today, "The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux," which I consider my answer, from way up here on the high road, to all the mean-spirited FUD from SCO and its lackeys. I list all the benefits I see flowing from SCO's litigation. I hope you enjoy it. It's also on NewsFactor and Yahoo News picked it up too.

One of the benefits is that now the world knows that the GPL stands up in court. SCO ended up proclaiming their allegiance to it, as I recall. They still distribute GPL code. This month's SCO partners newsletter included this:

Part 4 Bandwidth Management

Squid provides a flexible set of options to identify and sort web browsing by user, site visited or even time of day to name a few of the many possibilities. Once the browsing activity has been identified a bandwidth limit can then be placed on it by using Squid's Delay Classes.

The Squid documentation explains the purpose of bandwidth management as

"Delay Classes are generally used in places where bandwidth is expensive. They let you slow down access to specific sites (so that other downloads can happen at a reasonable rate), and they allow you to stop a small number of users from using all your bandwidth (at the expense of those just trying to use the Internet for work)."

Squid is licensed under the GPL, which isn't unconstitutional after all, I see.

So it is possible to distribute GPL code, even if you are a proprietary company. Even if the company isn't beloved by the FOSS community. Of course you have to do it in conformance with the license.

Here's more proof of the GPL's legitimacy: a very complete account of the GPL case in Germany, where the court has enjoined Fortinet from distributing two of its products, after it was alleged that they not only used GPL code from GNU/Linux in their proprietary product, they used cryptography to try to camoflage the deed:

The ruling could prevent the security appliance vendor from further distributing its products until it complies with the open source licence.

Fortinet was accused of using cryptographic techniques to conceal the presence of Linux code in its FortiGate and FortiWifi products, as well as not releasing its source code under the terms of the GPL.

The company's use of Linux was deemed by the court to be in violation of the GPL under which Linux is distributed.

The case was filed in Germany against Fortinet UK Ltd, the UK subsidiary of Fortinet Inc, by Harald Welte, a Linux developer who also runs the gpl-violations.org website.

The site aims to raise public awareness about past and present GPL violations, and has resolved 30 such cases in the past months.

Fortinet said in a statement that they thought they were going to resolve the issue outside of court and that the litigation was unnecessary. I guess that depends on how you view the GPL. It's certainly necessary to let companies know that it's a license that needs to be complied with. Welte writes more in his blog:

Legal action was made possible via the "intrd" code, on which Werner Almesberger signed me his rights a couple of months ago.

To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet is not using any of the iptables/ip_conntrack/... code, but something different. We'll see how that is integrated into the kernel network stack as soon as they release the full corresponding source code in accordance with the GPL.

I'd like to thank my lawyer Dr. Till Jaeger from JBB Rechtsanwälte and Jürgen Lüters from Intranet Engineering, the technical expert in this case.

Obtaining (better: Applying) for a preliminary injunction is a tremendous amount of work, so this really is the last possible option if all other options have failed.

See, I think this is why certain very closed and proprietary minds assumed that Linus must have done something like that. Except he didn't. SCO have now spent two years vainly trying to find any such violation, at great cost and annoyance to the world at large. It's called projection.

I read a study once, where the researchers left something of value on a table and left each subject alone in the room. Some immediately pocketed what was not theirs and some didn't. Later, all the subjects were asked to guess how many had stolen the object. The ones who had taken it thought a much higher percentage would do the same than actually had. And the honest ones thought most others would be honest like they were, and they miscalculated the percentage too. So, what I got from the study is that you tend to think others do whatever you do.

The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight imagines that someone who is big and famous or powerful has to be behind Groklaw, because it couldn't be just a blogger -- and a female at that (for some reason that really seems to stick in their craw) -- and a group of willing volunteers, because they couldn't do what Groklaw has done. But they will have to accept it, because it is true. And I would strongly encourage them to look into this Open Source phenomenon. Maybe it could help their business. It's a powerful thing.

Heh heh. All right. I just couldn't resist.


  


My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany | 538 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Nick_UK on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:18 AM EDT
I read this earlier from the link on the right, and I
laughed about the 'love letters at work' in MS Doc...

Nick :-D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:20 AM EDT
For current events, legal filings and Nasdaq delisting rulings.

Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:21 AM EDT
If required.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL is untested, actually
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:34 AM EDT
Nice pro-GPL writeup, PJ, but the fact is that the GPL is still untested
in the U.S. courts, who do not subscribe to precedents set in Germany.
No one knows what the U.S. courts will decide when the time comes,
but we do know from historical evidence that it probably will be completely
contrary to the reasonable positions normally taken by the European courts.

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Transitory Answer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:35 AM EDT
1) Why is it that the GPL always "stands up" in a foreign court
located thousands of miles away from U.S. jurisdiction?

2) SCO never claimed the GPL's sec. 2 (b) was valid or enforcable.
They still claim it's preempted by U.S. law.

3) Daniel Ravicher is ultimately responsible for Groklaw's genesis.

4) This post will be deleted in 30 seconds.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: The article (well written)...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Good job with the article PJ. Thanks again.

I would only comment that you could have put more links up for those that wish
to try Linux. Knoppix is just one option these days.

Can we expand on others, with comments as a future referance for writers to link
to? Does Groklaw have such a place? Kinda like a dinners guide to resturants
only for Open Source Software... in an easy to read format?

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT
PJ; I recently had two thoughts which you covered nicely:
1) Having met Darl, I can only agree that his male ego is seriously bruised by
being bested (especially by a woman).
2) I read about what he said (regarding you), but did not know what these
comments were. I recenly read an article which covered some of his comments. I
can only conclude that he will reveal your true identity when he finally gets
B_____'s (I admit I forgot the name) suitcase.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing the Fake
Authored by: Observer on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT
I've done a good bit of D&D style role playing, and I've done both male and female characters (it's interesting to look at the world through different eyes), but you can usually tell when a male is roleplaying a female. No, I don't think there is some gaggle of male Linux zealots and paralegals creating a phony persona called "PJ", not that I make any pretext of being an expert on the "fairer sex". I think it's pretty funny that SCO and their supporters (some of whom are female themselves) have such a hard time believing that a girl could be behind Groklaw.

---
The Observer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blank page on CIO Today
Authored by: yooden on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 11:39 AM EDT
I only see the the top banner, no content. This is true for both the article
link and http://www.cio-today.com. I use Firefox 1.0.1.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT
It's always difficult to believe that great things can be the result of just one person working very hard.

Writing something as complex as an operating system kernel would seem to be an impossible to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or understanding of the requirements.

Writing a well researched article a day and maintaining a complex web site might seem impossible to someone who gets by on bluster and a reputation of suing anybody who gets in the way of his progress.

Real rocket scientists know that it's mostly a matter of getting the plumbing right.

---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Read The CIO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Pamela, you are priceless. Keep up the good work!

Oh, and thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 12:34 PM EDT
Heh heh heh... projection is a powerful thing. Lots of folks seem to
think that free software is impossible. On a corrolary note, I have
heard it said that "we attribute most to others that which we fear
most in ourselves" (sorry, can't recall the reference at this time).

--inode_buddha (not logged in)

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Troll Time, for PJ, at Groklaw
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 12:56 PM EDT


Sorry - just watched The Producers once again, and couldn't resist.

Notice that once again things are going badly for SCOXE, and once again the
trolls are surfacing. Over the last few months I've noticed this consistantly -
SCOXE takes one in the knackers, and out come the trolls.

And now of course Darl himself has dignified Groklaw with his notice, so I
suspect we'll be hip deep in them RSN.

On a more serious note, I've been playing with time lines, and noticed some
interesting stuff - going to look it over again and post something later.


---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Violating the GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT
In all the discussions about the GPL standing up in court, I haven't seen much discussion of the dual aspects of the license.

The first aspect is that anyone who releases their copyrighted code under the GPL retains their copyright and grants others the right to use the code as long as they share their changes. So someone would violate the license itself if they used licensed code but did not share.

The second aspect is that anyone who uses code without sharing is not only violating the license, per se, but is also violating the copyrights of those whose code they are using.

It would seem to me that the latter aspect would have to stand up in court (US or European) because it's based on extant copyright law, not on the GPL itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I hate to be the downer
Authored by: Arker on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM EDT

But since no one else has mentioned it, I guess I have to be the one to point out that CIO-Today is... well a steaming pile of something, not sure what a good word would be, but it's not a web page. I get nothing but an ad with a link "Go Directly to CIOToday.com" which when clicked brings up... another ad. Nothing more. And I'm using a modern browser on a modern OS (Camino/OSX) - so I think we all know what the chances are that, say, a blind person, or someone using an older browser for one reason or another, could access that site are pretty much nil.

Fortunately the yahoo mirror works for me, and like I said, I don't want to be a downer - it's really great that this is getting in a 'mainstream' source and a larger audience. But I think it would be great if PJ or anyone else here who has the ear of anyone at cio-today would gently, politely, let them know that this is a problem, and urge them to investigate these things called standards and the possibility of building an actual web page using them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inverse Gandhi
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 01:58 PM EDT
As I was reading PJ's account of the history of the SCO litigation, I realized
it's
like Gandhi's famous 4 steps, except in reverse.

First we fought them.
Then (as we watched their "ham-handed" tactics) we laughed at them.
Now (as their credibility and chance of success is dwindling, while Linux
adoption continus to soar) they're getting ignored (fading from the
headlines).
Soon they'll lose.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Inverse Gandhi - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 02:34 PM EDT
Forcing source-code release?
Authored by: Phong on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Fortinet was accused of using cryptographic techniques to conceal the presence of Linux code in its FortiGate and FortiWifi products, as well as not releasing its source code under the terms of the GPL. [...] We'll see how that is integrated into the kernel network stack as soon as they release the full corresponding source code in accordance with the GPL.

Is the "not releasing" bit Welte's inaccurate summary of the court case? Or is that an accurate part of the lawsuit?

If I were a judge and someone brought a case before me that said, "these people are not releasing their source code under the terms of the GPL -- force them to do so," I would return a verdict for the defendant: they are not bound by the terms of the GPL because they didn't agree to it (e.g. the GPL is a licence, not a contract).

However, if somone brought a case before me that said that these people are guilty of copyright infringment -- force them to stop distributing their software and pay damages," I'd rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

I certainly hope that the German courts are not going to rule that someone can be coerced into releasing their source code against their wishes -- that would be a horrible result for the GPL, and would change the viral accusations that MS and others have been circulating from FUD into reality.

Obviously it would be nice if the defendants chose to release their software's source under the terms of the GPL—the plaintiffs might even choose to forgive them the damages if they did that—but GPL cannot be seen as a way to forcibly rip someone's source code away from them or it will be playing right into MS's hands.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Rasyr on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT
Quoth the PJ - ""And I would strongly encourage them to look into this
Open Source phenomenon. Maybe it could help their business. It's a powerful
thing.

Heh heh. All right. I just couldn't resist. ""

Hmm....

Salt?
Wounds?
Rub liberally?

Sounds about right to me. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Comments are a compliment
Authored by: Rasyr on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT
It just occurred to me that Darl's nasty comments about PJ are actually a
compliment.

In short, SCO (in the person of Darl) have realized that Groklaw (specifically
PJ) are a real threat to them, most especially because of that "shining
light of truth" that they often seem to get caught under. Thus, they have
to attempt to discredit her somehow. Their egos wouldn't allow for anything
else.

So, by a strange twist of fate, the fact that SCO is so concerned about
Groklaw/PJ means that they consider a real and valid threat. Hence the FUD flood
(try saying that 10 times fast - hehe).

She is now considered important enough that they HAVE to do something and in the
fact that they have to do something lies the compliment.

Was I clear enough? Or did I mangle that too badly?


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Linus Shoots Self in Foot? :(
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 04:29 PM EDT
OT: Linus Shoots Self in Foot? :(

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad ...

Oh did i say ***bad***!

Looks like Linus is too close to Larry McVoy to see things clearly....

I'm with tridgell (If you are ok with Samba what's he done different with
bitkeeper?)

Bad day for FOSS - I hope Linus gets his head together soon :(





---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ms. Pamela has it right....
Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Congratulations Ms. Pamela - a well done article.

To those of us within the IT field, it should come as no surprise that Corporate
America is finally entering the "mainstream" adoption phase towards
Linux and Free/Open Source software (F/OSS).

It's been a long, hard fight against the marketing FUD put forward by a few
proprietary interests who have everything to gain from the status quo remaining.
I, for one, firmly believe there is now sufficient critical mass to ensure Linux
(and F/OSS in general) can no longer be marginalized by it's detractors.

No longer can these entities dismiss Linux as "a hackers toy",
"unsupported", or "riddled with proprietary code". Nor can
their claims of the GPL being "unenforceable and unprotectable" be
taken seriously much longer.

These same detracting proprietary interests are finally beginning to understand
that it's nearly impossible to kill a grass roots effort, a religion, or an
ideology - that all you can hopefully do is slow it down a little. Some people
are slow learners.

Will these competing proprietary interests simply roll over and take this
onslaught laying down - not very likely. Their bottom line [and potentially
their very existence] is at stake here....

Where legal/business precedent remains to be established, various governments,
courts and businesses are moving quickly to legitimize, endorse and adopt Linux
at a rate we could have only dreamed about only a few years back.

The premise of Open Source, like most organisations and religions, is
community-centric; based on "community co-operation and assistance to
others". Some prefer to call this an "ideology". Whatever you
wish to call it, it works.

For years, some businesses dismissed F/OSS, in that it didn't serve their
interest of "gaining an edge over the competition". The shrouds
surrounding these wrong-minded beliefs are now finally being pulled back.

One only needs consider such business luminaries as the philanthropic Carnegie
and Rochefeller families, to better understand that those who give back to their
community continue to derive immeasurable benefit from its continuing
sustainment.

We need more writers like our Ms. Pamela. We need more articles in mainstream
journals/publications that help business leaders tp better understand the
benefits and virtues of F/OSS.

Further, businesses leaders need to understand that if they are to remain
competitive, then leadership is best demonstrated from the front - not the back.
We need to illuminate those execs within IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Daimler-Chrysler
and Autozone openly endorsing and supporting F/OSS. It these business leaders
who can stand up front of their peers and say "follow me". It's these
leaders that the managers/administrators will eventually follow.

...my two (and a half) cents worth.

---
On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
8th day SCO litigated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL can only be tested by a defendant !
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 08:59 PM EDT
When they say that the GPL has never been tested in court, they means that the
GPL license has never been invoked as a defence by a copyright infringer...

The accusator (the victim) doesn't need to invoke the GPL in their copyright
infringement claim...

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 16 2005 @ 09:26 PM EDT
"The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight imagines that someone who is big and
famous or powerful has to be behind Groklaw, because it couldn't be just a
blogger -- and a female at that (for some reason that really seems to stick in
their craw) -- and a group of willing volunteers, because they couldn't do what
Groklaw has done"

Considering the way SCOG got itself repeatedly mutilated on groklaw (most
recently on its claim that IBM violated the Monterey contract terms by porting
AIX to its POWER computers), SCOG has plenty of phantom limb syndrome to deal
with - And yes, it's hard for an MBA like Darl the Snarl to believe that his
meticulous corporate planning was derailed by a pipsqueak girl (PJ) with a blog.
It is indicative of Darl the Snarl's understanding of SCOG's corporate
priorities that he chose to spend several minutes of the earnings conference
hurling innuendo at PJ while his business is running into the ground and the
SCOG shareholders' ownership is getting more and more diluted.

So far, I see Darl the Snarl running his UNIX business into the ground with his
litigation against IBM getting nowhere fast, screwing the SCOG shareholders by
continually diluting their ownership of SCOG, suing SCOG's own customers and
ex-customers, dripping bad faith by playing games with the interpretation of the
terms of SCOG's (and SCOG's predecessors') contracts, etc. And now, we have the
spectacle of SCOG lying in court about what the judge in its case actually
ordered. And even more interesting, SCOG's bonus programs is based on anything
but the results to SCOG's shareholders.

The picture I am getting is hardly that of Darl the Snarl as a competent,
professional CEO and SCOG as a professionally managed high tech company. But
what do I know, I have an MBA - I am just NOT an MBA.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 12:51 AM EDT
Lol, remember when Darl said there is a lot of spinning and hype in
"Groklaw Land"? Here is a nice rebuttal by flewellyn over at LWN.net
(didn't post in OT because I wanted everyone to see it).

There IS a lot of spinning and hype over at Groklaw, actually. Lots and lots of
it. Copious
amounts of it.

It's in quotation marks, or block quotes, taken from SCO press releases and
court documents. It
did not originate with Groklaw. But it is "over there", technically.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 02:42 AM EDT
ftp://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/torvalds/

It is ugly, fast and not trusted yet. But it is written.

It is in early stages of testing and fixing but it will be in use soon enough.
It is not a GUI tool - I'd be shocked to see a front end for it anytime soon.
It is just what the Linux kernel needs which is very different from most
projects.

akpm's scripts are also working. Development isnt going to miss a step.

By the time theregister picked up on the noise, everything had settled down into
the direction, a test kernel tree was being used with git and the high level
discussion someone in the media would be interested in was over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It just occured to me ..
Authored by: golding on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 02:57 AM EDT
that if anyone REALLY wanted to find who (& where) PJ is, it would not be
that hard these days to do so.

Of course, those of us who support Groklaw, would not even think of actually
finding PJ "in the flesh", as she has shown her wish to remain
physically anonymous, and we are basically honest people, who would treat her as
we would want her to treat us (sound familiar?).

However, if Darl did so publicly, he would have to admit he was WRONG. Not only
about what Groklaw is, but everything else he has used as FUD against Groklaw.

That's the funny thing about FUD, it needs lies to keep it up.


---
Regards, Robert

..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice article!
Authored by: pointwood on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 08:19 AM EDT
I continue to be amazed by all the work you get done!

---
Pointwood
JabberID: Pointwood@jabber.shd.dk

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Nice article! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT
I almost have a tear in my eye
Authored by: Nivuahc on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 10:00 AM EDT
I just sat here and read this entire thing, comments and all, and it fills me with joy.

Even the trolls.

We must be doing something right, no?

The GPL will never be 'tested' in a US court because copyright law is stronger, in the US, than a license.

If you violate the license, you violate the owners copyright.

I think that's what really gets under some peoples skin... the simplicity of it all. And, in being so simplistic, it's terribly powerful.

If you've ever wondered what Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt were all about (FUD), just take a look at all of the trolls posting comments to this story.

Step 1 (Fear): Claim that the GPL is unenforceable.

have that statement decimated by all of the non-trolls

Step 2 (Uncertainty): Make a feeble attempt to back up your claims with the words of 'The utmost authority... blah, blah, blah...

have those claims decimated by all of the non-trolls

Step 3 (Doubt): Claim that the GPL is a contract

confuse some, sure, but watch as everyone who knows better points out how wrong that is. Decimation once again!

So the best the trolls can hope for is a small bit of confusion amongst the people who don't quite understand the GPL yet.

So, in essence, the trolls are forcing us to educate those people about the GPL. They are forcing us to explain that there is nothing to Fear, nothing to be Uncertain about, and nothing to Doubt about the GPL.

I love you guys... all of you. Even the trolls. Without the trolls, think about how many people would still be in the dark with regards to the power of the GPL.

And PJ, I've said it before and I'll say it again... you rock.

Even if you are an alien from a galaxy far, far away.

- Chuck

---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken!

[ Reply to This | # ]

some thoughts on the call
Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 12:36 PM EDT
How long until Darl accused IBM of writing GIT, seeing as how it's impossible for one person to achieve so much... like that Groklaw site. ;-)

I just listened to the last conference call:

http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/ConferenceCall-2005-04-13.mp3

Some random thoughts:

  • Herb Jackson, Renaisance Pictures set up Darl rather nicely to trash-talk IBM via the Compuware case. I'm sorry, but 'what are your thoughts on...' is pretty transparent, Herb. And is the *the* Renaisance Pictures of Rob Tapert/Sam Raimi fame?
  • MOG was mercifully brief (!) but typically confused
  • "All is not as it appears in Groklawland!" :-) Bloggers beware: say something bad about SCO and next week Darl will have his private investigators knocking on your old school teacher's door.
  • Bob Mimms, god bless you. Notice how Darl switches to calling Pamela 'Pam' after Bob's lead? Before Bob humanized her by calling her Pam, Darl had been referring to her ominously as 'Pamela Jones'. Here's the earlier bit from the call (prior to Bob's question) from about 42 min in. Any transcription errors are my own.

DARL: We also have a major website out there that has stated their core reason for being is to try and destroy SCO and to try and put a big damper on what our claims are in the marketplace.

So we have a lot of misinformation flying around out there on this website and the reality is... the website is full of misinformation, including the people who are actually running it, and I think when you get to the point where you start to strip away the people that are in front of Groklaw, I think you'll find that Pamela Jones is not who she says she is. And the key to finding out who is behind Groklaw is to understand, who is Pamela Jones. And we think that when you get to the point where you find out some of the things we know, you'll find that everyone is being misled as to who she says she is, and that the identity of Pamela Jones is much different than as advertised.

So, you know, some of those things happening over on that website are having a dampening effect on SCO Source. And as some of these issues become more transparent in the public marketplace we think that will have an impact as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never been tested
Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 01:56 PM EDT
Well, there are a lot of things that have never been field-tested.

The most striking one that comes to mind is the US strategic nuclear arsenal. Just think -- hundreds of ICBMS, thousands of warheads, all that command & control infrastructure, and it's never been tested.

I suspect that the reason that the GPL hasn't been field-tested is much the same as the reason that the US strategic nuclear arsenal hasn't: nobody has yet volunteered to play Red Team in the tests.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL and tSCOg - a question
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT

Allwing for all else that tSCOg have got up to, have they done anything that
violates the GPL ? - below are points that have come up over the past months as
I understand them ...

- tSCOg distributed Linux which means they did so under the GPL which covered
all the additions that IBM had added

- tSCOg say they have stopped distributing Linux, but I keep reading reports
that say they still distribute it

- What conclusions have we (at Groklaw) reached regarding the possibility that
tSCOg their own case down by having distributed Linux under the GPL

- Is there a case where the FSF could take tSCOg to court regarding tSCOg using
the GPL then apparently reneging on it in regard to licensing GPL rights to
third parties and their lawsuits against IBM etc:

- Is there an opportunity (IBM's counterclaims) to test the GPL in court with
tSCOg being the culprit ?

Doug M

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Possibly. - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT
    • Many thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 03:45 AM EDT
My Answer and a GPL Case in Germany
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 05:01 AM EDT
IANACL but,

Surely the point is that if you use GPL'ed software you do so only under the
conditions of the licence.

Therefore, if the GPL is not valid you have no licence to use someone else's
copyrighted (and it still is) work as they have not granted on to you under any
other terms. Therefore you are in breach of copyright and so are acting
unlawfully and possibly illeagaly.

Are the defenders of the GPL NOT going to be GNU/Linux developers but someone
they think is infringing - the licence itself being taken as given?

[ Reply to This | # ]

In defense of Fortinet...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT
First off, I would like to clearly state that I am a firm supporter of the GPL,
and a regular Groklaw reader. I have a great respect for the work that Pamela
does and the efforts of this entire community.

However, I am a bit discouraged at what I've been reading concerning the
Fortinet UK coverage available online. I'm an engineer for Fortinet (US), and
the story being presented is woefully misrepresentative of reality.

We do use GPL code, and several LGPL libraries in our products. The only GPL
code we have made modification to involve the Linux kernel, and that consists
primarily of stripping out unused capabilities, since we develop embedded
products, and size is a major consideration. All of the software engineers here
respect the GPL and what it stands for.

There seems to have been a disconnect between engineering and marketing, where
packaging and advertising failed to include notice and notification of
incorporated GPL code, and also failed to provide reasonable means to obtain
such code. While this is an infraction against the GPL license, it was in no
means deliberate, as Welte implies. Welte was very quick to jump on the
litigation route (I assume for the purposes of grandstanding, as I've heard from
others in similar circumstances), rather than attempt to amicably resolve the
issue.

Furthermore, his claims of cryptographic encryption as a means to conceal the
real identity of the GPL software is absolutely ridiculous. Fortinet makes mid
to high end firewalls, and the bootimages are encrypted and signed to ensure
that only valid images are applied to the devices, as a security measure. Once
installed on the firewalls, one can easily verify what software is actually
running, since we make no efforts to conceal it.

While I appreciate Mr. Welte's efforts to publicize and champion the GPL
license, I think it harms the cause by being somewhat ethically lax in his
portrayal of the situation.

I strongly support and believe in the GPL, and the principles which it embodies.
Organizations that deliberately attempt to undermine it for self serving
purposes, such as SCO, are truly a nauseating reminder of how we must remain
vigilant in the defense of the GPL. But mistakes and miscommunication happen,
and it's important that we attempt to correct apparent violations in good faith
before storming the gates with pitchforks and torches in hand.

[ 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 )