SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6 268
William Robinson writes "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products in their Unix product. Among the included packages are MySQL, PostgreSQL, Samba, Apache, Tomcat, and FireFox. SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't' he said."
Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
A bit too little and way too late?
Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?
Wow, an operating system in the operating system! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure I'm not the only one to read that "OS" as something the author didn't intend. OS = Operating System, OSS = Open Source Software. SCO purports to sell an operating system already, so including an OS in their product seems a bit redundant.
"friendly" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO, and any companies that SCO has ownership in, and any companies that have ownership in SCO from ever using the project's source code, binaries, trademarks, etc, in any way what so ever.
If you did that, your project would no longer be considered open source. It's like how freedom of speech isn't just for people who say things you agree with.
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I said they're wrong. They're logic in the court case was extremely twisted, in that they claimed that an invalid GPL would still allow the source to be redistributable. They had to realize that they were spouting nonsense, but I think they hoped that most consumers wouldn't call them on it.
In fact, just thinking about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this the perfect opportunity to open all the warchests in FSF, EFF, and others (or even set up a specific pool), and come down on SCO like a ton of bricks while in addition getting a legal verdict on the validity of the GPL?
If we (the F/OSS community) hurry we might even be able to win this before IBM crushes SCO totally (it would be fun if FSF/EFF got awarded all of SCO remaining assets in damage).
And no, I doubt there's a chance in hell SCO would win http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38151.htm [sys-con.com]:
"Recently, we had an unrelated copyright discussion on the Linux kernel discussion list (some people still want to have binary only modules and try to argue that the GPL doesn't ever cover them).
Anyway, that's beside the point, though it does show that some people want to take advantage of open source without giving anything back. But after the discussion, I ended up looking up the exact wording of the U.S. copyright law and guess what I found:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."
This is from U.S. Code Collection, Title 17 (copyrights), Chapter 1, Section 101: "Definitions." In short, this is from the very first section in copyright law -- the section that defines terms even before those terms are used. This is some pretty fundamental stuff when it comes to copyrights in the U.S.
Pertinent, if you will.
And note how copyright law expressly includes "the expectation of receipt" of anything of value, and expressly mentions "receipt of other copyrighted works" as such a thing of value. And that's the very definition of "financial gain," as far as U.S. copyright law is concerned.
Now guess what the GPL is all about?"
Do they use GCC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, GCC has had the following in the README.SCO file in the main GCC source distribution:
The GCC team has been urged to drop support for SCO Unix from GCC, as a protest against SCO's irresponsible aggression against free software and GNU/Linux. We have decided to take no action at this time, as we no longer believe that SCO is a serious threat.
For more on the FSF's position regarding SCO's attacks on free software, please read:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/ [fsf.org]
If SCO is using GCC as their native C compiler, then perhaps this will prove the impetus needed for the GCC Steering Committee to remove support for SCO from GCC.
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth the TFA, "Among the included open-source packages are Samba and MySQL, which are released under the GPL [...]"
If "the General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable" is true, then it follows that SCO does not have license to use those products under the GPL. Either the GPL is not void and is in effect, or they don't have license to use those products.
Sections (Score:5, Insightful)
The subject should read OSS Products instead of OS. OS is known as Operative System most of the time.
Obligatory "what he really meant" post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In fact, just thinking about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
you either do accept it or you do not. Why would you accept the legality of it for one project, but state that it is illegal when another is using it?
You may disagree with its useage WRT to a particular project, but that is not the same as saying that the license is illegal, which is exactly what SCO is saying.
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that IBM has already pointed out a flaw in their logic in their counterclaim. SCO has used IBM products in their software under the GPL as a simple contract. If the GPL is invalid, SCO cannot be allowed to use it because the contract does not exist.
Suppose I lease a car for 2 years from a company. A stipulation of the lease is that I have to report the mileage each month. Later it was found that the car had been stolen, and leasing company had purchased it without knowing it was stolen. The rightful owner wants the car back. The leasing agreement I signed is not valid because the leasing company did not have rights to lease the car to me in the first place. I no longer have to report the mileage, but I cannot continue to use the car for 2 years either. I have to return the car.
So SCO has to choose. If the GPL is valid, they have breached the provisions. If it is not valid, they can't continue to use code that they licensed under its provisions.
invalid license != public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not the way it works. The software is copyrighted, GPL or no GPL. The GPL is the agreement that permits people to copy the software under certain limited conditions. If the GPL isn't valid, it just means that everything returns to the situation without the GPL and SCO can't ship any GPL'ed software at all.
By analogy, assume you pay for a license to Microsoft Windows with a check. Then, your check bounces and your license becomes invalid. Does that mean that Microsoft Windows is all of a sudden public domain? No, it means that you can't use it.
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I'll continue getting burritos at Chipotle (owned by McDonalds). I haven't been able to stomach the godawful crap served up at the golden arches for more than 10 years now.
Read the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...
From the GPL:
The GPL's stance on things would appear to be somewhat closer to, the act of distributing GPLed content constitutes accepting the GPL by itself, which would mean SCO's public statements are irrelivant. Except maybe to any of their stockholders curious about why they were lied to.
Meanwhile, I have difficulty seeing how any of SCO's actions concerning their GPL license to distribute mysql could have anything to do with SCO's actions considering GPL licenses to distribute Linux.
Read the par. fully. (Score:4, Insightful)