Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Operating Systems Software Unix

USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap 846

Posted by michael
from the tit-for-tat dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USENIX Responds to SCO; Fyodor Pulls NMap

Comments Filter:
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday February 27, 2004 @08:56AM (#8407185) Homepage Journal

    For those too lazy to look up Section 4 of the GPL [gnu.org]:
    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.
    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?)
    • by robslimo (587196) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:01AM (#8407233) Homepage Journal
      I don't think this will be the Big Test (how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?), but it may be the first of many similar actions that, collectively, might get something done.

      Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?

      • by Curtman (556920) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:39AM (#8407570)
        how much legal weight can Fyodor swing if SCO violates his decree?

        This is very important IMHO. We need each and every GPL project being distributed by SCO to do this. Call it the shotgun attack if you like. The more times it is publicly made known that SCO is the one violating copyright, the better. It only helps show that its not the big bad Linux community who is in violation. As Eben Moglen said in his wonderful Harvard speech [harvard.edu], it was not us who allegedly violated the AT&T contract, thats a matter of SCO vs IBM. If they want to smear us because of that, then they should suffer the wrath.
      • by triptolemeus (538604) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:47AM (#8407668)
        Are there other popular open source products whose authors can agree to make a similar statement?

        Samba is the first that comes to mind (and would have a major influence).
      • by drewpc (58090) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:41AM (#8408244) Homepage
        Isn't the Linux kernel distributed under the GPL? Can't SCO's license to distribute the Linux kernel be revoked? That would mean they couldn't sell any distributions of Linux and, subsequently, couldn't force people to buy licenses from them...right?
    • by autocracy (192714) <slashdot2007 AT storyinmemo DOT com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:01AM (#8407237) Homepage
      I wonder if one could say SCO has actually violated the license. They've certainly made all the effort in the world to bastardize it, but have they broken it by going against any provisions from the license?
      • by bhtooefr (649901) <bhtooefr&bhtooefr,org> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:03AM (#8407254) Homepage Journal
        IANAL, but if I were a judge, I'd see that their declaring the GPL invalid is a disagreement with the GPL, which says that you can use the software, but not distribute it if you disagree with the GPL.
        • by rubberpaw (202337) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:35AM (#8407535) Homepage Journal
          Aha, but it's not a question of the GPL being invalid. They're not arguing that. Rather, they, as licensor of nmap, are revoking the license. The original licensor of the software has more power than redistributors. This is why some organizations are able to provide multiple licenses for their software.

          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.
          • by alienw (585907) <<alienw.slashdot> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:50AM (#8407703)
            You can't just revoke the GPL because you want to. It is automatically revoked if the licensee violates it, but the author has no power to revoke the license. Otherwise, someone could simply pay, for instance, Linus Torvalds a lot of money so he makes Linux proprietary (i.e. revokes its license). This should not be possible.
            • by Vann_v2 (213760) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:09AM (#8407919) Homepage
              If Linus were the sole copyright holder of code in the Linux kernel or had the unanimous agreement of the contributors, yes, he could put the kernel under a different license. However, revoking a license to redistribute and changing the license under which software is redistributed are two different things. Your little id est doesn't hold.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:41AM (#8407589)
          I'd see that their declaring the GPL invalid is a disagreement with the GPL, which says that you can use the software, but not distribute it if you disagree with the GPL.

          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.
      • by OmniGeek (72743) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:17AM (#8407376)
        Yes, SCO has violated the GPL by attempting to force users to buy licenses from them in addition to the GPL (note recent /. story on this one, I forget the link). They can sell copies, but trying to hang additional license terms on existing users is a violation.

        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.
        • by iapetus (24050) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:29AM (#8407481) Homepage
          Have they forced users to buy licenses for nmap in addition to the GPL? My understanding was that the licenses were only to cover the kernel itself, which is where the disputed code lies. SCO may have violated the GPL in general, but not in this specific case. Looking at it dispassionately, I can't see that they've actually broken any aspect of the license with respect to nmap.

          Whether they believe in the enforcability and constitutionality (is that a word?) of the GPL is kind of irrelevant - as long as they comply with the terms of the license in a given case.
      • by lone_marauder (642787) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:34AM (#8407529)
        I wonder if one could say SCO has actually violated the license.

        Well, the GPL doesn't prevent SCO from charging for Linux code. But it does require SCO to distribute that code under the terms of the GPL. They can charge for providing the code, and for supporting it, but they can't prevent someone from freely copying the source and using it for other things, or distributing it for free. I think a strong case could be made that attempting to bully the rest of human civilization into paying a license fee for Linux, regardless of SCO's involvement in activities outlined in section 1 of the GPL, implies that SCO believes that Linux falls under a license other than the GPL. Since they've directly said that many times, I think the question is somewhat analogous to asking if a the unabomber is guilty of arson.

        In fact, now that I think about it, that analogy is perfect.
    • by dnoyeb (547705) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:08AM (#8407305) Homepage Journal
      I suspect that after this next "Big Test," everyone will still be waiting on the "Big Test."
    • by RedK (112790) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:26AM (#8407458)

      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 :

      Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."

      At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."

      One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."

      But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason that lies behind the statement you have heard -- Mr. McBride made it here some weeks ago -- that there has never been a court test of the GPL.

      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.

      • by nilsjuergens (69927) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:03AM (#8407856) Homepage Journal
        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.
        This proves one thing. RMS and his fellows at FSF are true hackers indeed. They even hacked the legal system to make it work for them. The GPL is so clever it brings tears to my eyes :)
        cheers, Nils
  • ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @08:57AM (#8407200)
    Doesn't the GPL say you cannot discriminate against any group? Or is their license being revoked because they are in violation of the GPL?
    • Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by bhtooefr (649901) <bhtooefr&bhtooefr,org> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:05AM (#8407284) Homepage Journal
      They're in violation of the GPL, by not fulfilling the terms necessary to be allowed to distribute the software under Section 4.
      • Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fanatic (86657) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:33AM (#8407519)
        But they are NOT violating the GPL with respect to nmap, are they? So can Fyodor really do this? Is he himself not, in fact, violating the GPL, perhaps? Don't get me wrong - I despise the SCOundels. There needs to be some way top pressure them. But by releasing under GPL, then saying 'oh I changed my mind for you guys', is Fyodor not actually duplicating some aspects of SCO's conduct?
        • Re:ummm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by radja (58949) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:41AM (#8407584) Homepage
          by not accepting the GPL's terms, they ARE violating with respect to nmap since they distribute nmap.

          the licence itself is not accepted, hence the licence reverts to standard copyright, which does not allow distribution.
          • by Frater 219 (1455) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:18AM (#8408007) Journal
            the licence itself is not accepted, hence the licence reverts to standard copyright, which does not allow distribution.

            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.

  • by DarkMagician07 (686278) on Friday February 27, 2004 @08:58AM (#8407206)
    It's good to see someone use the GPL back at $CO for what it is worth. If Fyodor hadn't, would anyone else?
    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.
  • Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Czmyt (689032) <steve@czmyt.com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @08:59AM (#8407210) Homepage
    It's about time that someone took this stance and let's hope that others do as well. The free-ride double-standard is over.
  • From the (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:01AM (#8407239) Homepage Journal
    "it's about time" dept.

    Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?
    • Re:From the (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:06AM (#8407290) Homepage Journal

      Seriously, wonder what SCO will do if Samba and the other well known projects follow suit?

      What they've been doing for the past year: hire more lawyers. SCO isn't a software company any more.
    • Re:From the (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jdh-22 (636684) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:26AM (#8407463)
      If SCO really beleives that the GPL is against the consitution, what makes you think they are gonna let NMap tell them what they can redistribute?

      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.
  • by GoMMiX (748510) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:02AM (#8407248)
    What if SCO doesn't comply?

    I doubt seriously that they will, so what will come of their non-compliance?

    Probably nothing, really, but this may well be another part of the GPL put to the test. They've stepped up to the plate with Nmap - I hope they're ready to play ball.

    Okay, now lets all get ready from some good FUD from Darl!

    *GASP* "Ohh my, it appears we own code in Nmap too!"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:05AM (#8407282)
    if (SCO topic)
    goto http://groklaw.net
    else if (Gadget stuff)
    goto http://arstechnica.com
    else if (Linux stuff)
    goto http://linuxtoday.com
    else if (good journalism stuff)
    goto http://theregister.co.uk
    else
    goto http://news.bbc.co.uk
    fi
  • by atarola (601134) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:06AM (#8407293)
    To emphasize the highly professional nature of Nmap, all instances of "fucked up" in error message text has been changed to "b0rked".
    I wish i could do this kind of stuff in my programming, it's freaking hilarious.

    Cheers,
    atarola
  • One question. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock (152993) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:06AM (#8407298) Homepage Journal
    If you release software under the GPL and somebody you fundamentally disagree with (like SCO) starts to use it within the confines of the GPL, can you pull their right to use it?

    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:One question. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flosofl (626809) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:30AM (#8407491) Homepage
      Have you been paying attention at all?
      Or do you just post without RTFA? (forgot - of course you do, it is /. after all)

      They are invoking clause 4 of the GPL (read #5 as well). They are not doing this just because they don't like them. They are doing it because SCO has said the GPL doesn't apply to them. Since they are in violation of the GPL, they CANNOT modify or distribute NMAP.

      That does NOT mean they cannot use it. It means they cannot include it (or any modified version) in their offering of whatever (UNIXWare, Linux, etc..)
    • by mik (10986) * on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:36AM (#8407543)
      Not exactly rigorousm, but:
      • SCOX refuses to accept the terms of invalid licences.
      • SCOX has stated that the GPL is not a valid licence.
      • Therefore, SCOX refuses to accept the terms of GPL licences.
      and then...
      • GPL is the only license under which NMAP has been made available to SCOX.
      • SCOX doesn't accept GPL licences.
      • Therefore, SCOX has no licence to use/etc NMAP.
      QED

      Of course, SCOX probably will argue something along the lines of "GPL must == public domain for the good of the country". If this were to be true, then use of NMAP would not require a licence to use/etc... or maybe they'll say that they'll accept the terms of GPL until such time as it is declared invalid (effectively squirming out of this particular mess).

  • USENIX letter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by howlatthemoon (718490) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:07AM (#8407303)
    Great letter! Of course, it relies on congress seeing hypocrisy as a bad thing. Unfortunately, it is often par for the course.
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:08AM (#8407310)
    "Dear Mr McBride,
    Please pay $699 for every installation of SCO Unix due to the presense of NMAP."

    In USENIX Russia, Darl pays YOU $699!
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:09AM (#8407324) Journal
    MMM a big steaming pile of crap. SCO forgot that an OS is nothing without apps. So as these apps start revoking themselves fromt he SCO distrib, the value of their product falls, along with the stock price, which is the exact opposite of what Darl wanted to do...

    Looks like he'll prove himself the fool. I do feel bad for his family. He could have been something some day.
  • by turgid (580780) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:13AM (#8407351) Journal
    Because surely it must have shot them all off by now.
  • by cluge (114877) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:14AM (#8407357) Homepage

    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)

    by Asprin (545477) <gsarnold AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:14AM (#8407362) Homepage Journal

    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:35AM (#8407541)

      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.

  • Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scarpux (556596) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:14AM (#8407363) Homepage
    IANAL and all that but I think the NMap folks are on shaky ground here. SCO has not attempted to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the [NMap] except as expressly provided under [the GPL]".

    They have attempted that with the Linux kernel however. So I don't see how SCO has violated the GPL with respect to NMap.

    I do approve of the effort however.
    Good luck with that
    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scsirob (246572) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:24AM (#8407438)
      They explicitely mentioned that the GPL is not a valid license scheme. That being stated, the fallback is copyright. If the copyright owner doesn't allow SCO to distribute the copyrighted work, then SCO better comply...
    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by l3pYr (754852) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:34AM (#8407528)
      Quoted directly from the GPL
      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 would say that SCO's declaration of the GPL as unconstitutional and illegal would be equivalent to not fully accepting the terms of the license. And because distributing programs under the GPL is prohibited unless you accept the GPL (see above), SCO has no legal right to distribute GPL'd code.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:20AM (#8407404)
    "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."
  • by Zo0ok (209803) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:35AM (#8407538) Homepage
    The SCO share is now well below $13. It hasnt been this low since august.

    Seems like time is running out for our friends in Utah.
  • by CaptainAlbert (162776) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:40AM (#8407578) Homepage

    Legolas: Ai! Ai! A Darlrog! A Darlrog is come!

    Gimli: Calderin's Bane! (hides face)

    Lindalf: Alas! A Darlrog. And I am already weary.
    (to others) Fly! Over the bridge! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way.
    (to Darlrog) You cannot pass! I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the Flame of Finlandssvenskar. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Utah. Go back to the shadow! You cannot pass.

  • by minkwe (222331) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:50AM (#8407699) Journal
    They did not need to terminate SCO's license. It was already terminated when they claimed the GPL was invalid.

    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.
  • by bdsesq (515351) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:54AM (#8407751)
    Franklin was a prolific inventor. He refused to patent his inventions. He maintained that there was nothing wrong with someone else copying his work and using it to earn a living.

    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.

  • by Ironica (124657) <[pixel] [at] [boondock.org]> on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:14AM (#8407965) Journal
    Even if Fyodor doesn't technically have the rights to do this under Section 4 (it seems subject to interpretation), SCO has a couple of choices:

    - Pull NMap to avoid issues, and thereby admit that the GPL might hold up in court.

    - Continue to distribute NMap, and (hopefully) get sued.

    If they get sued, they can present one of two cases:

    - Fyodor doesn't have the right to do this under the GPL -- a case they might win, but wouldn't fit their party line.

    - The GPL is invalid and therefore code released under it is public domain -- what they've been claiming, and a case they absolutely CAN'T win.

    So they're totally screwed, assuming that someone (EFF donations [eff.org] anyone?) pays to sue them if they keep distributing. No matter what they do, they're going to prove themselves wrong about the GPL.
  • 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. >:|
  • HATS OFF!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dentar (6540) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:44AM (#8408283) Homepage Journal
    Finally! Fyodor does what the Samba team SHOULD HAVE done. Hats off to Fyodor for getting the ball rolling. Let's hope that all the authors whose packages are on the skunkware CDs will have the wisdom to revoke from SCO the right to distribute them, since SCO does not accept the GPL.

    Without skunkware, a SCO server is barely usable.

  • who's behind this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:53AM (#8408389)
    I'll probably get modded down for this and told to take off the tin-foil hat, but...

    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.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...