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.'"
ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
About time someone did it (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hope so, but so far it doesn't seem to be happening. I can't wait for others to do the same. Maybe groups like Samba can muster up the courage to do the same to these guys. Since $CO seems to be touting integration with Windows networks, losing Samba would be one of the things that they couldn't afford to do.
I guess its (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:free software - no more (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you're thinking of BSD?
Re:free software - no more (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?
Time is right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oops. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:free software - no more (Score:5, Interesting)
The sandbox may be free for everybody, but you're still getting kicked out if you keep hitting the other kiddies in the head with your plastic shovel.
Way to go, Fyodor! (Score:4, Interesting)
Picture this: a worldwide tribe of programmers, all saying to SCO that they can't use this or that program with OpenLinux, UnixWare and so on. If everyone sent $1 to the FSF to cover future litigation at the same time...
Re:Oops. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:free software - no more (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fyodor: A Slashdot Sponsored Criminal (Score:1, Interesting)
Vulnerabilities like mail headers, perhaps?
Forget SCO... (Score:4, Interesting)
Which, OK... is kinda weird, but how often to well respected tools link to cheasy porn sites? http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap_haxxxor.html
One question. (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow, I doubt you can, and this may be something to address in the next iteration of the GPL. Too late for the pool of software out there, perhaps, but not for new versions.
Re:Oops. (Score:2, Interesting)
Any manufacturer can pull a product from usage on certian platforms if they feel it would give the competition further power (Companies distributing to specific game consoles for example).
Its just plain capitalism, and like it or not, that still drives alot of what we do.
Now these are the thoughts of one non-legally knowledgable person, so please others follow up with legalese if you are able.
Will any big projects join in (Score:3, Interesting)
Where it would get really interesting is if any other big projects pulled the plug. Imagine no Apache for SCO? (okay we should probably resolve the existing fight over the apache license before starting another) but what about no Samba?
I'm not entirely convinced that it's the right approach - I'd rather just see SCO beaten, but it'd sure hurt them if they lost some big pieces of software.
Why is the open source community taking so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hurray FyDoR! But nmap is one of many, many open source programs distributed by SCO. Why isn't the entire open source community tell SCO that their software can't be distrubted, things like KDE, Gnome, and the GNU projects tar, make et al? I belive that other open source projects should start demanding that SCO stop distributing them.
What to do with for enforcement? With so many pending legal battles against SCO, it would only be a matter of time before an IBM, Novel/Suse, or Redhat picks up the illegal acticity and uses it in court. Additionally it is an election year. I'm quite sure that if we as a community looked hard enough we could find a hungry DA.
AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
Dorky GPL question: (Score:5, Interesting)
When I checked out the NMAP link, I eventually clicky=clicky-clicky'ed overt to the insecure.org homepage [insecure.org] and saw (about halfway down) that part of the source for NMAP was featured in the movie Battle Royale.
So, this got me thinking: 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?
Just thought I'd ask, because I don't think that - other than the DeCSS - case, anyone's ever mentioned this possiblility.
Re:Fyodor pulls nmap (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
For that matter, SCO's refusal to accept the terms of the GPL in and of itself disallows them from redistribution under it; it would be VERY hard for SCO to convincingly argue they haven't refused to accept the terms of a license they claim is "unconstitional".
Thus, they're hosed twofold.
More from press release (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:0, Interesting)
how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?
Given that he holds the copyright to NMAP, he can get their website shut down under the DMCA.
Of course, getting it to stay down is another matter. You can argue that even if SCO's current license to distribute NMAP is terminated, they can get a new one by simply downloading it again. I think that may be a very grey area for the GPL and similar licenses.
Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?
I believe the GCC developers have stated that they will not do this.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:4, Interesting)
4th section of GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I am no license guru, what part of the GPL license did SCO violate?
Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, Groklaw has an interesting thread where it is noted that any contract or license with discriminatory terms, (such as a hypothetical GPL clone that excluded SCO by name) is illegal under common law, as it would violate principles of general equitable conduct.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here...
The GPL cannot be tested in court. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, this has been brought up a lot on Slashdot in the past few years, and I really think everyone should read this speech [groklaw.net] by Eben Moglen on why there will never be a test of the GPL in court (and a bunch of other interesting stuff). Here's the relevant portion :
It's quite simple see. The GPL cannot be tested in court, because if it is found invalid, the defendant can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. If it is found valid, the defendant either has to abide by it's restrictions or can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. Do you understand the pattern here ? Anyone who tries to fight it will only lose. That's the beauty of it.
Re:From the (Score:5, Interesting)
This puts SCO in a bad position:
1. If they agree with NMap on the terms, then they have agreed to the GPL license, thus contradicting themselfs.
2. Still insist the GPL is against the consitution, and still distribute NMap. This opens them up to other cases in which they might be suied over the GPL, thus costing them more money.
In other news today... (Score:2, Interesting)
"We want to help these countries by allowing them access to the best software at the best price. Our special prices start at $200 per CPU, even if they choose other Linux distributions then ours" says Darl Mcbride, CEO SCO.
Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the FSF and a GPL test - read Eben Moglen's speech transcript on Groklaw. He's not looking for a test, because he doesn't think they need one.
SCO shares slowly drops... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like time is running out for our friends in Utah.
No, but maybe the NMAP team will... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sco claims that they are charging a fee based on IP they claim to own that is included in Linux.
NMap isn't part of that. NMap is included on a seperate CD along with SCOs linux distro. It is not part of the distro. Even if it were part of the distro, so long as they are not attempting to "otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute" NMap, they would be fully within their rights to distribute it. As near as I can tell there is no voilation against NMap.
There is no clause in the GPL that says "This license does not apply to fukwads". If there were, then SCO would be screwed and NMap would be off limits to them.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe. Or, maybe, the judge will realize the chaos and havoc that would cause, and rule that all software that has been released under the GPL is effectivly "released to the Public Domain."
Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
the licence itself is not accepted, hence the licence reverts to standard copyright, which does not allow distribution.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course SCO is in a contract dispute with IBM over something that was released under the GPL. Regardless of their claims to the press and the public, in court they have claimed that IBM did not have the right to distribute the code under the GPL. That is not a claim that the GPL is invalid. It concerns the ownership of the intellectual property rights in the first place, not the validity of the license under which they were distributed.
That said, there is nothing wrong with putting SCO on notice that the only license that permits them to distribute many packages is the GPL. While they may be legally on safe ground now, if they contest any of the terms of the GPL in court, there is nothing preventing authors of GPL'ed code from simply saying that these are the terms that we will agree to, if you don't like them, you don't have to distribute our work. And in fact, since you won't accept them, we revoke your license. Goodbye, have a nice life.
Re:Danger Will Robinson (Score:3, Interesting)
If you come in to the site at / it redirects to a broken URL.
If you come in to
If you ask me they are complying with the letter of the GPL while making every efffort to obfuscate the fact they are still freely giving away under the GPL what they are trying to charge $699 to idiots for.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
License already terminated (Score:5, Interesting)
They could have just put them on notice of violation. This gives people the false impression that you need to explicitly terminate the license of a violator. You don't. The license is 'automagically' terminated if they person/entity does not accept the license.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, unless they can convince a judge or jury that he really intended to release it into the public domain, and therefore relinquished control over it.
Open Source started with Ben Franklin (Score:5, Interesting)
He also opened the first lending library (file sharing anyone?)
It is too bad he didn't have the concept of freely sharing things codified in the US Constitution. What a difference that would have made.
Samba, PHP. Mozilla, Apache, Xfree86 (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe Perl too, but I'm not well versed on the Perl license or the Artistic License.
On second thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO also has a linux emulation API. At least at one point during this legal battle, SCO argued that the Linux API was embodied in Linux, and that this constituted an infringement on their copyright. However, SCO conveniently forgets about their Linux Kernel Personality. According to the SCO web site, "This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications." So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution. This could cause a major disruption in SCO's business, if properly executed.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries. The theory is that they could not have done this without viewing the code, and by doing so the code they've written is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Properly executed, this could kill SCO altogether. Wouldn't that be enjoyable to watch.
wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO has revoked it's own rights under the GPL by not accepting the GPL. The language in the GPL that states that you must accept the GPL to be allowed to distribute GPLed products is pretty clear.
Re:Why give SCO ideas? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then they would have to have created the original code otherwise the copyright doesn't belong to them. If they contributed anything to someone else's code then whoever wrote the original still has the copyrights to it. If they deny GPL then they have to fight it on copyrights. The best could do is try to sue the coyright holder for not compensating them for their contributions. I wouldn't put it past them but it seems unlikely.
If they did write the program themselves and are the coyright holders then I bet it would get dumped real fast and a free replacement would be written.
what about limiting program execution with uname? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's produced updated versions of popular packages (Samba, Mozilla, gcc, etc.) that check the platform name via uname(),
This would at least prohibit SCO from circulating newer versions without making modification to the code themselves. Of course, if they did this they would have to do so publically or would themselves be in violation of GPL.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're missing here is this:
SCO, with their silliness and shenanigans of trying to get the GPL rendered as invalid, along with attempting to extort additional licensing fees and conditions over Linux, has violated the GPL.
Read it again:
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.
By attempting to get users of Linux to cough up fees for SCO's extra license for Linux, GNU, and Fyodor's NMAP program as one of many other GPL'd program distributed with Linux and SCO's own product offerings, SCO is in violation of the GPL. Fyodor is well within his rights to terminate SCO's license to use the software. Once upon a time, Caldera very happily distributed GNU/Linux and Nmap for free, with all the conditions intact to remain in compliance with the GPL. By attempting to charge an additional licensing fee and dictating conditions that are not in line with the GPL's own, they are in violation.
Clear as mud, right??
Open comment to Darl (Score:4, Interesting)
"Inventors who find they can't compete against lower-cot or free substitutes are compelled to find other things to sell".
I have a few suggestions for you:
1. You could always sell your sharky legal dept. and probably make loads more money than this whole fiasco will provide you with
2. Since you seem to know so much about where to get a good tan, you could get with the Queer Eye guys and open a chain. Of course, they might not want to have anything to do with you.
3. After you get out of prison, you could peddle your body to the highest bidder.
Just a few suggestions anyway you twerp.
(Oh my. What's Poor widdle Darl gonna do now? Sned his gang of wolves after me now?)
Oracle, Informix, Sybase, MicrofocusCobal, etc... (Score:1, Interesting)
This business model of forced premature obsolescence of software products has been very successful for Microsoft, forceing their customers to "buy it all over again and again and again", I don't see why it couldn't be successful for these databases too.... after all, by now all business software customers have gotten so used to getting reamed repeatedly, that they're all beginning to enjoy it.
another great part of the release notes for nmap (Score:5, Interesting)
GNU's move (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is only by the binding of all these project through common licensing that the licensing will actually work - and hence why the GPL's chance is both in careful wording that already exists as well as the common public usuage of it. In this manner, breaking the terms of the license invalidates your use of code licensed under it. Otherwise, we risk invalidation of code snippets, and that gets really ugly. Even then, this argument can be debated up, down, and through the mud.
Re:Danger Will Robinson (Score:3, Interesting)
"Sorry, that's not supported" is the short form. Even the very existence of nmap on affected systems can be grounds for very short support calls.
They can only revoke for future versions. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they are using a modified GPL, they cannot "revoke" a license. The new software released could have a "everyone but SCO" license.
If, however, SCO, by stating that the GPL is invalid, has disagreed to the terms of it, then the softwares authors can simply declare that SCO has no legitimate rights to use their software.
Re:This could get interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
If they don't accept the GPL, then they need permisson of the copyright holder in order to copy or distribute.
Since that permission has been explicitly not granted, they can't even claim ignorance.
So they're guilty of copyright violation. The GPL doesn't even appear. Oh yes, and copyright violation is a crime with massive penalties, thanks to our friends over at the RIAA and MPAA.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am curious, however, how the license could be revoked if they weren't in violation. My understanding is that programs like NMap are "released to the public" under the GPL. I know that you can distribute under multiple licenses, e.g. GPL to everyone, and another license for corporations who pay, but can you actually rescind a license once it's been granted without a "This license may be revoked for any reason" a la Microsoft?
IANAL
Cheers
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can work under two incompatible view of the facts. While SCO can argue until its blue in the face that the GPL is invalid, it can still take advantage of the GPL until it is proven to be invalid.
There is nothing that prevents a company from fighting against a law/license/etc. and simultaneously using the exact same law to their advantage. This happens *all* the time. The DMCA comes to mind. There's nothing in the law that says a company's policy or position needs to be internally harmonious...
HATS OFF!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Without skunkware, a SCO server is barely usable.
Re:And SCO Cares cause? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that the GPL is far less dubious legally than Microsoft's EULA which could easily be tossed out in court (YJMV).
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is, that the GPL is not a contract, it's a license. License can be modified and revoked. Licenses can be applied unfairly, but contracts (in order to hold up in court) must be fair (well in that both parties must gain from the contract).
Lead a class action (Score:4, Interesting)
who's behind this? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like Darl is doing someone else's lobbying for them.
There's a lot at stake here for a certain software monopolist. And most of Darl's arguments benefit that Redmond company more than SCO.
Why would it benefit SCO to lobby Congress against open source? It really doesn't. The more open source goes on, the more companies that SCO can sue. On the other hand, it does benefit a certain software company that actually SELLS software, and is currently suffering from open source competition.
Go ahead and call me a conspiracy-theorist. I think this is the best indication we've had yet that Microsoft is doing some under the table bankrolling of Darl's Misadventures (in addition to the above-table money they have already given SCO)... where there's smoke, there's fire.
Shoundn't everybody do the same (Score:2, Interesting)
As the SCO group has broken the terms of the GPL by redistributing our program XXXX under conditions prohibited by the GPL they have automatically lost their rigth to redistribute our software under this license according to line ?? of the GPL. They have not right at all to distribute XXXX unless they pay for a new different license.
This includes:
-
-
-
If you have this software included with any of this products please contact us.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
By you licensing a project under the GPL and by me redistributing it, you and I have entered into a contract. Actually, you have given me terms for license, and I have agreed to follow them. You can't unilaterally change it. Licenses and contracts *cannot* be revoked if the contract doesn't say it can be. If it could be, there'd be no SCO v. IBM: SCO's case would be open-and-shut.
You can't argue both ways: either both SCO and nmap can revoke their license, or they can't. Neither contract (arguably) has a revocation clause, so the standards for one should be the same for the other.
The question is, is SCO in agreement with the license? Clause 4 says they lose their license if they do not obey the restrictions of the license. Has SCO not included the nmap source code? Has SCO prevented anyone from redistributing the nmap code, in source or binary? It is not illegal to charge for GPL code, so that is not a problem. Assuming the other items are true (and nmap is not claiming that they're not), SCO is arguably in compliance; therefore, they cannot have lost their license.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see SCO lose their license to *all* GPL code. I'd love to see a GPL 2.1 expressly forbidding SCO, and all GPL projects to adopt it. But it wouldn't prevent them from distributing whatever code was previously released under the GPL 2.0.
Re:That's scary! (Score:2, Interesting)
Under UK law at least any terms that are obviously unreasonable (to a legally defined 'reasonable person' are invalid). It is on this basis that terms of some EULAs are invalid (possibly some Microsoft ones).
Under UK law at least, the test would be if the 'viral' nature of GPL is an unreasonable clause, so it is not entirely clear that the GPL itself cannot be challenged.
The question is whether code that was released under the GPL, if the GPL was declared invalid, would necessarily be returned to the original copyright holder, or if a judge could (in a second case) rule that code released under the GPL was effectively released to the public domain. I think this would have to be ruled on a case-by-case basis depending on the intentions of the authors.
Re:On second thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
As an ISP this doesn't bother me (much). I don't wait for my vendor (Redhat / Sun Microsystems) to release versions of Apache for my webservers. I compile my own build and deploy that across all my servers.
This is also no different from Closed Source software. Vendors pick and choose which platforms they wish to support. Oracle support RedHat and Suse Linux but not Debian (IIRC). Closed source vendors constantly pick and choose which platforms to support; sometimes market forces dictate this, sometimes technical issues dictate this. OSS should be no different
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Fyodor says that they will license their software for distribution under the GPL (and only the GPL). SCO continues to do this after saying the GPL is bunk. If SCO isn't following the GPL (because they don't believe in it), then they have no license to distribute this software.
That's all.
If one legally declares a contract to *not* be valid, one cannot follow it's terms [logical contradition].
Re:Open comment to Darl (Score:3, Interesting)
2. That's not a tan, that's smoke and scorch marks from all the bridges he's burning behind him.
3. He could start while he's in prison. Unless he has a 300-lb roommate that calls him Cindy.
Re:SCO is estopped from raising the GPL as a defen (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally speaking, SCO have a valid license to distribute nmap - the GPL.
If (and this is a big if) enough challenges from developers of GPL software force SCO to admit that the GPL is valid, it will make them look even more confused than they already do. And maybe a few investors might hear what's going on too.
In the courts of course, their stance on the GPL will not last a day's hard scrutiny anyway.
if fyodor sues (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, great, so all the journalists who read through the nmap release notes or read slashdot will know all about it.
Hint: No journalists do either of those things.
Instead of putting witty comments in release notes, we need someone who'll back it up with a lawsuit. I'll chip in $100 to help them file a suit against SCO. It shouldn't be too difficult to win; they're very publicly infringing.
Is One Penny Source OK with SCO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's leave that aside for the moment, and suppose the argument for some mysterious reason does not apply to most other services but does apply to software. Then marketplace competition will drive prices down, as I understand the theory. How low can they go, in SCO's view, before they become unconstitutional?
Suppose that someone comes up with a brilliant new software package called ninunec ("Ninunec Is Not Unix, Nor Even Close"). Suppose that person wants to give away ninunec, perhaps with the intention of proving his worth to scare up venture capital for an even more ambitious plan he has.
Under the theory that SCO is presenting to congress, he should not be allowed contribute his work into the public domain! since this constitutes "dumping". I'm sure this raises free speech questions, but let's leave that aside, too. What is the lowest constitutionally permitted cost, under SCO's argument. so that our genius can promote his wares and himself. Let's say he keeps a conventional copyright and charges a penny per source download.
As long as the cost remains low enough, the evil consequences that SCO attributes to open source remain. You haven't solved the alleged problem that SCO proposes by mandating that software cannot be free. It therefore becomes necessary under SCO's arguments to mandate a minimum price for ninunec, and for every other piece of software (and every other service that falls under the SCO guidelines) that ever enters the marketplace! (Good luck with that one.)
SCO's letters, aside from their usual dubious claims about ownership of code, make claims that amount to mandating a profit for their industry by preventing contributions from a volunteer sector. The only meaningful way to implement that position into law is 1) to create an exhaustive list of activities that are constitutionally impermissible without charging a fee and 2) to have a government body set mandated minimum prices in all those activities.
That's not the free enterprise model I've heard so much about. I think we should reconsider which position is the subversive one!
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the software product, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, manufacturer and Microsoft licensing, inc. ("MS") are unwilling to license the software product to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the software product, and you should promptly contact manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance with manufacturer's return policies.
Different wording but seems similar enough in meaning to me.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Interesting)
BRILLIANT! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a weird situation, I wonder what would happen if, for example, someone simply didn't redistribute source code? Would that count as rejecting the licence as a whole, or simply breaking the conditions in one instance? In this case at least however, I believe SCO's public comments could cause them to violate the terms of any GPL'd software.
Help pay for the piper. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:2, Interesting)
> Express Purpose of spreading out software with
> source code, so that anyone that copy it,
> install it, and make derivitive works of it?
That is
a) not a matter of legislation, precedent, or case law and
b) the opinions of Stallman are irrelevant because, unless Stallman is the copyright owner, Stallman is not a party to the case.
> The express wishes of the copyright holder,
> and the reasonable consequences of the law,
> are what matters.
The express wishes of the copyright holder can be read in clause 5 and clause 7 of the GPL.
For example, from clause 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."
And from clause 7:
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
and
"it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice."
But even better, since the copyright holder is most likely in the courtroom in front of the judge, the judge can just ask the copyright holder what he wants.
After SCO..Darl will work for....Micro$oft? (Score:0, Interesting)
Again, it only shows that our govt. is bought and paid for by Large multinational satanic companies. Even though i hate to admit it, Ralph Nader is COMPLETELY CORRECT in this regard....
DARL COME SUCK MY DICK YOU FUCKING WHORE
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the FSF holds the copyright to nmap (or had it assigned to them), they have no legal standing with which to sue, as it's not their code being used in contradiction of the license.
This is why the FSF wants people to assign copyright to them [gnu.org] for any contribution to FSF projects; it makes their recordkeeping and paperwork easier in case something like this happens.
Jay (=
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:4, Interesting)
And people that use the GPL don't intend for it to be "free of charge". They just aren't charging money for it.
It has a cost. If you are not willing to pay the cost, you may not use the software.
What gets SCO in a tizzy is that the cost is not an amount of dollars... it is a behavior requirement.
And, we all know how good they are at behaving.
Re:License already terminated (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I greatly suspect that you are NOT a lawyer. Because your mini-analysis is quite incorrect. Your interpretation of the GPL is as erroneous as SCO's interpretation of the US Constitution.
Disagreeing with the GPL does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Calling it unconstitutional does not terminate your rights to distribute GPL software. Being an asshole with the name "McBride" does not terminate your rights to distribute the GPL. The word "accept" in clause 4 has specific legal meaning. You "accept" the Microsoft EULA by clicking on a widget with a mouse cursor. Even if you shouted at the top of your lungs "I DISAGREE" while clicking that button, you have legally accepted that license. Shouting "under duress" might be a different matter, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Darl McBride has legally accepted the licenses for several GPL softwares by distributing those softwares. There is not need for him to sign any documents. There is no need for him to utter the words "I agree". There is no need for him to publically confess his sins before the public. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE LICENSE. And he is in full compliance (as near as I can tell) with it.
His later statements proclaiming his dislike for the GPL are irrelevant. Even claiming it to be invalid is irrelevant.
Fyodor is pulling a publicity stunt. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And if SCO desired, they could rightfully sue him for breach of contract.
Why didn't Fyodor just dual license? (Score:4, Interesting)
For TrollTech, if you were developing GPL'ed software, you could use their toolkit, but if you were doing proprietary software, you had to buy some sort of license.
IANALJAP (IANAL, just a programmer), but what would stop Fyodor from doing the same thing? This software is offered under two licenses: the GPL if you are anybody but The SCO Group, or the No License if you are The SCO Group. This way, we don't have to have these long arguments about section 4 or 5 of the GPL, and life is good. I realize that this may be against the spirit of the GPL, but, according to section 2:
So, is this legit? Personally, I'd really like to see the SAMBA or GCC folks do something like this (no offense to Fyodor, but losing the rights to distribute SAMBA would hurt SCO a LOT more than losing the rights to distribute NMap.
*doh* Brain cramp, ignore the above... (Score:5, Interesting)
On that thought, I think Fyodor is missing a bet here; IIRC, the penalties for intentional copyright infringement can be quite large. (After all, isn't that what SCO originally accused IBM of?) He should talk to a lawyer and get them to draft a "cease and desist" letter to SCO.
If they want to use his code for free under the GPL, they have to abide by it. Otherwise, if they want to license it separately, they should have to pay $$$ just like a "real, Constitutional" license agreement.
Jay (=
(Maybe there should be a slew of copyright registation requests sent to the Library of Congress for source code...)
Re:Lead a class action (Score:4, Interesting)
And probably would make for better press.
In case it was over looked..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Added a new classification system to nmap-os-fingerprints. In addition to the standard text description, each entry is now classified by vendor name (e.g. Sun), underlying OS (e.g. Solaris), OS generation (e.g. 7), and device type ("general purpose", router, switch, game console, etc). This can be useful if you want to (say) locate and eliminate the SCO systems on a network, or find the wireless access points (WAPs) by scanning from the wired side.
Emphasis mine.
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The spirit of napster thrived with Martin Luthe (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a hundred or so years to go from not respecting copyright to the DMCA and perpetual copyright...
Re:SCO is estopped from raising the GPL as a defen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We live in interesting times.. (Score:1, Interesting)
The Obvious Choice (Score:2, Interesting)
What if instead of simply not supporting the SCO platform in the future, he actively put a sheck in there that crippled the software if running on the Unixware platform?
If SCO found themselves having to hire engineers to change code to work on their platform (rather than marketing & PR people) they might rethink defaming the GPL.
Of course all this is based on the premise that they still want to produce software, not lawsuits.