USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap 846
ronys writes "The venerable USENIX organization has written a fine response to SCO's letter to Congress.
As they point out, 'USENIX was here before SCO. USENIX was here before Linux.' Short and well written." And Reece Arnott writes: "As part of the NMap Press Release for the latest version of NMap, is a statement that explicitly revokes SCO's licence to redistribute it. From the press release: 'SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms.'"
We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
For those too lazy to look up Section 4 of the GPL [gnu.org]:
Now this gets interesting: if SCO continues to distributed NMAP will the FSF start filing lawsuits? This might be the "Big Test" everyone has been waiting for.
/me makes a bowl of popcorn and sits back to enjoy the show.. (as an aside, does anyone know what compiler SCO uses to generate their binaries?)
Re:free software - no more (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
and if you don't accept the license you can't distribute GPL software (assuming you accept copyright, which SCO do)
Re:Oops. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Informative)
NO. Re:free software - no more (Score:2, Informative)
Now let this be a lesson to all, don't violate the GPL! Nmap's action against SCO doesn't make it non-free, it's just that SCO has rejected the GPL and is using a product in violation of copyright law.
No SCO Discrimination here. (Score:3, Informative)
Hence unless SCO can somehow be defined as an Age Group?? No
Race?? No
Nationality ?? No
Sex?? M, F, or SCO - No
So to descriminate (legally speaking) you would have to revoke thier lincense based on one of these criteria.
However, if a licensee is behaving in bad faith, i.e. SCO, that is a legal ground for revoking thier license. I think it could easily be argued SCO is acting in bad faith through out this whole affair.
Re:Bad move (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oops. (Score:2, Informative)
To that i say: rock on!
Re:Oops. (Score:5, Informative)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
I'd consider declaring it invalid is not accepting the license. Therefore, they're in violation of Section 5 (for distributing without agreeing to the license), and Section 4 (for distributing without being allowed to by the GPL, due to Section 5)
Re:Would someone from Samba and Apache (Score:1, Informative)
See here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/ [apache.org]
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
The simple reason is that only the copyright holder can sue someone for violating that copyright.
Re:And SCO Cares cause? (Score:3, Informative)
Um. No they aren't. If SCO believes that the GPL is not legal, then they do not have a license to use and distribute nmap. Now they're being called on it. The default state of software where the copyright is held by someone else is that you do not have the right to use it, and just disagreeing with the license they're distributing the software under doesn't magically give you the right to steal their IP.
More interesting, however, is the question of whether nmap have the right to retract the license from SCO (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure they don't - that's part of the point of the GPL, after all). And a new license that explicitly denies SCO the right to use the code wouldn't be GPL-compatible, AIUI.
That said, in order to exercise their rights under the GPL, SCO have to agree to it. They can't claim it's an invalid license while at the same time agreeing to it in other cases. My guess is that they'll just ignore this problem and try to keep their two faces pointing different ways on the issue...
Re:Bad move (Score:5, Informative)
GPL (or any other license for that matter) basically says that "You may use/distribute this software as long as you agree to these terms". If you do not agree to those terms, then you lose the rights the license gives you. SCO disagrees with the terms of the GPL, therefore they lose the rights the license gives them.
Re:And SCO Cares cause? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Would someone from Samba and Apache (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad move (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/ [sco.com] has their full distro for download.
(Blank credentials work fine in the authentication dialog: just click OK).
The thing with SCOX is they say one thing and do quite another. Tricky and Litigous Bastards.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
If you were a judge, the question of the GPL would be less pertinent than the question of whether or not Nmap.org has the right to revoke the license. And the answer is: yes.
Re:Dorky GPL question: (Score:5, Informative)
Since NMAP source is GPL, does it's inclusion in Battle Royale make the movie a derivative work and therefore also subject to the GPL?
Of course not. If, in a film, somebody walked past a bookshelf, and you saw the books on it, would that make the film a derivation of the books? It's the same sort of thing. NMAP in this instance is just a prop.
Re:www.sco.com (Score:2, Informative)
In a response to the dDoS attack from the MyDoom virus (several weeks back), SCO pulled sco.com and replaced it with thescogroup.com
Re:ummm.. (Score:1, Informative)
Doesn't the GPL say you cannot discriminate against any group?
I believe that's the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Or is their license being revoked because they are in violation of the GPL?
Not only did you not read the article, but you didn't even bother reading the Slashdot blurb? It explicitly states which part of the GPL they are violating. Learn to read!
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
Samba is the first that comes to mind (and would have a major influence).
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
Okay, you have to play by the rules in this document. In particular, note the third thing you're not allowed to do -- you can't sublicense.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
So when SCO started saying "You need to use our license to use this GPL code", that sublicensing terminated their rights to use the code under the GPL.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Anybody who previously received copies of the code from SCO is fine, as long as they didn't do any of the 4 things that this section says you aren't allowed to do.
IANAL, but USENIX's action seems to be in compliance with this section of the GPL.
Re:Samba, PHP. Mozilla, Apache, Xfree86 (Score:1, Informative)
Nitpick (Score:3, Informative)
Re:USENIX _not_ helping much... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:About time someone did it (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think Apache can do it, because their license is different. Samba could and should, but they've decided for the time being not to pursue it. There are a LOT of other software that could too - if they pull everything GPL out of their software they wouldn't have a usable system anymore.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
Unmentioned by relevant section of the GPL:
SCO refuses to accept the GPL as valid. If the GPL is invalid the software does not become public domain, it reverts to traditional copyright - eg., specific, rather than general, permission from the (C) holder.
5th section of GPL (Score:4, Informative)
In stating that the GPL is invalid, they are refusing to accept it, and therefore do not have the right to distribute GPL'ed software.
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is estopped from raising the GPL as a defense (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL isn't a contract, which has to be "accepted" by the receiving party to be effective. It is a straight copyright license. So that argument would not fly -- except for one thing: equitable estoppel.
"Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than they did at an earlier time if another party would be harmed by the change[d] position." -- Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
In other words: You can't argue in a custody suit that you're the child's father and then argue in the following child-support suit that you aren't.
The GPL, as Eben Moglen points out, is a distributor's defense when accused of copyright infringement by an author: "I'm not infringing -- because this author granted me permission to copy, under this here license." However, SCO have argued elsewhere that the GPL is invalid. Therefore, even though the GPL is a valid license, and would be a valid license for SCO's use of nmap, SCO is estopped from raising it in court as a defense.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Informative)
No?
How about Stallman writing the GPL with the Express Purpose of spreading out software with source code, so that anyone that copy it, install it, and make derivitive works of it?
The only software covered by the GPL is software that says that it is covered by the GPL--and that means that the copyright holder of that software said "take this, make as many copies as you want, and make derivitive works with this source code."
Emminent domain doesn't enter into it. (IANAL-RU?) The express wishes of the copyright holder, and the reasonable consequences of the law, are what matters. I don't think it's unlikely at all that, if the GPL was nullified as unconstitutional, that the same court wouldn't declare all GPL'd work public domain for the public good.
The spirit of napster thrived with Martin Luther (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
Are you trolling or is that an honest question? There are two seperate issues mentioned. 1. USENIX has written an open letter to Congress contradicting most of what SCO's letter to congress (pdf) [osaia.org]. 2. Nmap's creator has simply stated that due to GPL violations, SCO has no right to continue distributing nmap. He is not changing the license in any way. He is simply stating that the license to distribute has been violated, thus distribution rights are revoked.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Thus it would seem that if you disagree with the GPL (which SCO has stated publicly on several occasions) you have no right to software licensed under the GPL. However I post to
Re:Response to code? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, SCO changed from saying that the code from System V is in Linux to saying whatever any company developed and distributed with a Unix OS is a derivative work of System V and therefore owned by SCO. With this logic, any code that IBM developed for services on their Unix OS'es is now owned by SCO. This is such an idiotic argument that it's hard for me to think of a good way to rebuke it, other than "Are You F-ing Nuts?"
Re:They can only revoke for future versions. (Score:1, Informative)
but note that the licence is "automatically terminated" under section 4.
Re:That's what the FSF is for (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
This is absolutely incorrect and disinformative. The GPL explicitly prohibits this kind of action. From section four:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
And from section six:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
This means that the GPL explicitly forbids developers from choosing who can use and distribute the software. The only exception given in section nine dealing with patents, copyrights and geographical distribution exceptions.
When Fyodor licensed nmap under the GPL, he gave up certain rights, among those the right to choose who uses the software. Fyodor cannot "revoke" SCO's right to distribute nmap. He can only claim that SCO is violating the license and thus SCO's right to distribute is revoked.
This is not some technicality, but is rather fundamental the the FSF's idea of "Free software": the most important privilege the GPL attempts to protect is the privilege for anyone to use the software in any way. The license is absolutely clear on this.
In the past, certain developers licensed software with usage restrictions: for instance, one license I've seen said something akin to "anyone may use this software except members of the United States armed forces." The GPL prohibits these kinds of restrictions.
So the only way Fyodor can revoke SCO's right to use and distribute nmap if SCO is violating the license. He can change the licensing new versions but if SCO is not violating the GPL, SCO can continue distributing old versions of nmap and Fyodor has no recourse to stop them as the only way the GPL is revokable is in the case of non-compliance. This fact has been used to fork previously GPL'ed software when a company decides to commercialize the software and changes the license: the company still owns the copyright on their code which is part of the fork, but they have no right to say what people can do with their code as long as those actions remain in compliance with the GPL.
I'm surprised to see myself posting on licensing issues. I don't even agree with the all of FSF's ideology, but their license is very clear.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
But...Has SCO rejected the GPL in court? (Score:4, Informative)
Has SCO actually claimed in court has the GPL is invalid? It doesn't seem that estoppel applies to statements made to the press--SCO can say one thing to the media and another in court all they want. They only have to be consistent in official legal proceedings.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
SCO on the other hand is not allowed to distribute GPL code directly since they do not accept the license, and under copyright law they have no rights to distribute outside of that license agreement.
Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has violated the GPL. Companies that distribute their software under the GPL have a right to withdraw the licensing of SCO because the GPL gives them that right due to the violation.
No such clause exists in the apache software license that if you violate the GPL they can pull your rights.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
Their reasoning is that court could declare all GPL programs Public Domain following the intention of author to distribute software free of charge, free to use, free to modify.
I know that it is very streched, very dificult and stupid. Anything new?
Robert
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
However if you wish to MODIFY and/or REDISTRIBUTE software licensed under the GPL you must accept the license, renegotiate a different license with the author or violate the author's Copyright. See the difference?
Btw, you also must accept the Microsoft EULA if you want rights over and above what the standard copyright license aquired at point of sale gives you. For example, tech support, updates, upgrade rights, etc.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Informative)
EULA's work because even if you choose not to accept them, your recourse is getting your money back. Whether your local retail outlet disallows such is irrelevant. If you paid for something, and detest the EULA, you have every right to return said software product, and any vendor refusing to refund your money is violating the law.
Which is why EULA's have had no serious challenges to date. Witness the "Great Redmond Refund Day" just last year. You too can talk your XP box back to Microsoft and demand your money back.
Re:They can only revoke for future versions. (Score:1, Informative)
Its just that the new RELEASE notes point out an obvious fact: SCO cannot distribute NMAP since SCO does not accept GPL.
By stating this, NMAP has not further restricted the GPL, neither have they changed their license.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Very interesting play. (Score:3, Informative)
> Section 4 ... seems subject to interpretation
But section 5 isn't - "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program"
> The GPL is invalid and therefore code released under it is public domain
not even that - if the GPL is invalid, it falls back to being Fyodor's personal copyright, and he can sue them for that instead.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1077
Computer Buissness Review:
http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/b69
Chicago Daily Herald:
http://www.dailyherald.com/business/busi
Reuters Via San Diego Union-Tribune:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/new
CNN Stories:
http://search.cnn.com/cnn/search?source
So to sum it up, Yes; Slashdot is read by the news media and is in many, many stories.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
In stories by the AP? [google.ca]
Business [canoe.com] pages [canoe.com] of the Sunday paper?
Answer? YES!
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Informative)
As for the Chicago Daily herald- I lived in Chicago for 21 years. The two papers are the Tribune and the Sun Times. Never heard of a Daily Herald.
Re:Lead a class action (Score:5, Informative)
No, SCO is breaking Section 2b of the GPL by charging for the kernel, as they are NOT licencing their code in it free of charge to all third parties. You will note that this Section also states that putting two programs on the same CD/distrubution package does NOT put them under the same licence. So you can break the licence of one without touching the other, since they are NOT under the same licence. (This also means that you can include proprietary code without any problems)
Since they are breaking 2B., then under Section 4, their licence is void, and they may not redistribute at all. However, if they go up to a company running Redhat, and demand a fee, they have not violated the GPL at all: The GPL is only void if they sell copies of Linux complete with a licence to use the code. Of course, it is illegal to demand compensation for something you don't own, but unless they are charging it for their OWN copy, the GPL has nothing to do with it.
Further more, they are only charging for the Linux kernel. They are not charging for NMap, grep, gcc, Samba, perl, or anything else that may or may not be in a particular GNU/Linux distribution. As such, they have not violated the licence on these pieces of software. If the authors try to revoke SCO's right to this code, THEY are violating the GPL by not licencing it under the GPL to ALL third parties. SCO's right to the kernel is void by their actions (If they are selling licences to the kernel that they are distributing, and the licence sold is a condition of said distribution) but not their right to anything else.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Informative)
This happens to be one of IBM's counter claims. Since, IBM has code in Linux that is under IBM's copyright, IBM has claimed that SCO is violating their copyright by attempting to sublicense IBM's code according to terms other than the GPL, and continuing to distribute Linux on its FTP site while claiming non-GPL rights.
I think this would explain why SCO has gone the GPL is invalid route, but they have not gone far enough. Let's assume SCO wins its claims. If one piece of code in Linux is copyright IBM, but not related to the System V contract, then IBM's counter claim also wins, since SCO has no rights to distibute, modify, or sublicense that IBM code except under the GPL. SCO actually needs to somehow claim that contributing code to Linux is contributing the code to the public domain, which I really can't see a judge going for, sinc copyrights can only be tranferred in writing, and it seems to me that a transfer to the public domain would also have to be in writing. IANAL
So, what happens if one party wins a breach of contract claim against another party that at the same time has won a copyright infringement claim against the first party?
Re:Lead a class action (Score:3, Informative)
You may be correct on the issue you're analysing, but consider that TSG has argued in court that the GPL is illegal. And remember that you don't sue anyone for 'violating the GPL' you sue them for copyright infringement. They then have to come up with a defense, and the GPL would be their defense against the infringement charge - it's not something the copyright holders need to bring up but rather a defense against them. Since TSG has and is arguing in court that the GPL is invalid, they should be therefore under an estoppel preventing them from then arguing that defense in another court. IANAL, and anyone wanting to sue them should definately talk to some folks that are about it, of course.
Re:Yes! Go Fydor! (Score:1, Informative)
it goes by the name of Canopy.
I somehow doubt Trolltech is gonna do *ANYTHING* to SCO.
Re:Lead a class action (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are mistaken about what the GPL is.
First of all, it is impossible for the copyright owner to violate the GPL on the software that he himself wrote. He _owns_ the copyright, after all. The GPL does not take ownership of copyright away from the author.
Secondly, standard copyright law _always_ applies to any copyrighted work: permission to copy and distribute a copyrighted work is categorically forbidden without the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of GPL'd software, the GPL outlines the terms and conditions that one must simply agree to in order to obtain said permission. Where more conventional copyrighted works require express written permission from either the copyright owner or those explicitly authorized by him (such as a publisher), the GPL simply defaults to having given you permission that can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time should you fail to comply with the terms of the license.
SCO rejected the GPL absolutely (Score:5, Informative)
If they'd confined themselves to press releases questioning the legality of the GPL, then I think you might have a point. But they've basically stated in open court that they do not accept the GPL at all, therefore they're in violation of section 5 of the GPL with respect to any and all GPL'd programs. (Thanks to the smart folks at Groklaw for pointing this out.)
Re:SCO letter to Congress is to protect their (Score:3, Informative)
They have followed a bold, irresponsible course, they have made many public statements that are plainly false -- but they have also stopped short of securities fraud or perjury.
Maybe they'll mess up and cross that line, but they haven't yet.
In the mean time, you should have been investing in SCO, and making some money off this fiasco. There won't be much warning when it's time to head for the hills, but there will be some. So far, if you'd followed the analysts' advice on SCO, you'd have made money.
There really hasn't been anything for the SEC to be interested in. What crimes do you suggest they have committed, exactly? Until the various court cases are decided, it's all still based on open questions.
The Australian letters are a bit of a counter example. They may have broken Australian laws. I'm sure that has them scared in Utah.
Re:Fyodor's decleration considered IRRELEVANT (Score:3, Informative)