Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Operating Systems Mozilla Software The Internet Apache Linux

SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6 268

Posted by Zonk
from the use-it-if-its-good dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6

Comments Filter:
  • 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,"

    From Groklaw [groklaw.net]:
    In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:

    "The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

    The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:

    "The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."

    The Eighth adds:

    "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."


    So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.) ;-)

    P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?
    • Definately not pro SCO but don't see this as much of a story. Congrats to getting a somewhat intelligent first post but Linux is a type of Open Source/Free Software. Linux != Open Source/Free Software. The GPL is a type of Open Source License. GPL != All Open Source software. There is a whole world of Open Source outside of the GPL.

      Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

      It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments agains

      • Linux != Open Source/Free Software.

        Agreed. But the SCO "consitency" issues raised in the article are related to the GPL in specific. Thus my response.

        Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

        It's interesting that they decided to bundle MySQL. Had they bundled PostGreSQL, they could have gotten away with a continued anti-GPL stance. (Although I imagine that they still distribute a lot of tools and utilities that are GPLed. Esp. GCC.)

        It doesn't matter how wr
      • They say they have no beef with open-source software except for Open Source Software that has code in it that shouldn't be there. I'd say the same thing about *any* software. All Darl has to do is show what code is in those offending Open Source projects that he loathes that shouldn't be there, and we'll all be better off.

        Well, Darl won't be better off if he can't come up with anything, but the rest of us will be better off.

      • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Thuktun (221615) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:39PM (#12902493) Homepage Journal
        Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

        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.
        • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

          by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday June 24, 2005 @02:10PM (#12902874) Homepage
          Yes, well, SCO's "The GPL is Unenforceable and even, verily, Un-Constitutional and thus Un-American, like Comminuism" theory had its day in court and died and abrupt death as was predicted. They've since dropped all claims that the GPL is invalid.

          So they're almost certainly distributing Samba and MySQL in compliance with the GPL.
    • The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law.

      If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted. The GPL is the only license that allows redistribution of the Linux kernel. Attack the GPL and they're guilty of breaking copyright law.
      • If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.

        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.
    • Not Quite (Score:3, Informative)

      by WindBourne (631190)
      1. Under GPL rules, you must accept GPL and be willing to abide by the rules (distribute the source code, etc). to be able to distribute it.
      2. A number of the developers of GPL software have requested SCO to not use their stuff iff GPL is proved invalid.

        So, if GPL is valid, then SCO is unwilling to accept it, then they are in violation of the contract. Likewise, assume that GPL is invalid. Then, the licensing reverts to the developers, and many have stated that they do NOT want SCO having anything to do with
      • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:34PM (#12902430) Journal
        MySql has the abilty to deliver a death knell to them. They are under a dual license (GPL and Commercial). SCO has to accept the GPL for it to be valid. Since they clearly do not do so, then the only license available to them is the commercial one. Therefore they MUST start paying mysql the approiate money. It will probably run in the millions. If they accept the GPL, I think that opens them up to all sorts of issues WRT to their law suits against IBM, Redhat, and Novell.
        • Accepting the GPL for one project does not mean universally accepting the GPL in all cases. The GPL isnt an all or nothing license, one project has no power over another even tho both are GPLed so you can not accept the GPL in one case but abide by it in another.
          • Actually, I believe that is universal.

            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.
            • The GPL is not universal - each instance of the license is on its own merits.

              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?

              Easy - the project you dont accept the GPL for may itself contain illegally copied code, and thus you are quite right to not accept it for that project, but that doesnt affect other projects. Note that I hold no stance one way or the other in the SCO case, I havent been follow

        • Read the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday June 24, 2005 @03:57PM (#12904053) Homepage
          SCO has to accept the GPL for it to be valid

          Uh...

          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.
          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.
      • you must accept GPL

        I don't think American law allows for what you mean by "accept the GPL". I can believe a contract to be unenforcable, tell others I think it is unenforcable and that in no way has any impact on whether I can exercise rights under the contract. SCO has to specifically violate the GPL for a particular piece of software to get sued by the copyright holder for that software. Someone who wrote a GPLed piece of software needs to get a copy from SCO and then ask them for source.
    • Re: estopped[sic] (Score:3, Informative)

      Estopped is not a spelling mistake, it's a legal term.

      estop [answers.com]

    • Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law.

      It doesn't work that way. In the absence of a license, distributing material whose copyright is owned by another party is copyright infringement. So if the GPL is invalid, SCO is committing copyright violation by distributing any software that is licensed under the GPL.
    • So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant.

      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 co

    • SCO can argue that the GPL is "unenforceable" and "voidable" if they like. So, what remains if the GPL is "unenforcable" and "voidable"? A large piece of copyrighted software to which they have no license at all. Meaning, that if their assertion is true, they are wilfully violating multiple copyrights.
  • by lecithin (745575) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:11PM (#12902132)
    "In an effort to turn around its dwindling Unix revenue, SCO introduced a new version of its OpenServer product Wednesday along with a new open-source-friendly attitude."

    A bit too little and way too late?

    Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?

  • Really... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ch0p (798613) <ch0pstik@gmail.com> on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:12PM (#12902134) Homepage
    "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO..." Just stop reading there.
    • "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO..." Just stop reading there.

      OMG, if we, the savvy, sophisticated and informed /. readers should follow this in a consistent way, we would just about stop reading /. Hmh, is this why we have some dupes on the front page?

  • by Speare (84249) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:12PM (#12902142) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by bedroll (806612) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:13PM (#12902155) Journal
    Using OSS isn't being friendly to it. It's just using it to enhance your product.
    • by spun (1352) *
      Well, they pet every open source program on the head and say, "Who's a good boy? You are! Yes you are, yes you! Give me a kiss." before they ship it.
    • They're being very friendly to OSS. Just like they were friendly enough to help that sheep get over the fence...
  • Does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)

    by m50d (797211) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:13PM (#12902160) Homepage Journal
    that they acknowledge the GPL as a valid license? Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).

    I know there was never much doubt, but IIRC one of SCO's arguments was that the GPL was invalid.

    • SCO claims that not only is the GPL not a valid license but that this results in any software released under that license to be de-facto released to the public domain. This is pretty ahem imaginative, but it means that they feel they are free to distribute MySQL et al under any terms whatsoever that they wish.
    • Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).
      Instead of "unless they paid for it", I think you mean "unless they get permission from MySQL to distribute it".
    • I wonder about Firefox, being released under the "Mozilla Public License"...

      Of course the only a few other companies outhere besides IBM with plenty of lawyers with nothing to do...

      So I assume that SCO is taking on AOL/TimeWarner next?
    • SCO at one time claimed the GPL was invalid, and even Unconstitutional. When they expressed this opinion in court, they were basically laughed at. Since then, the "GPL is invalid" claim hasn't shown up in any of their briefs. I think; I'm not tracking the case religiously, but I do remember reading on Groklaw that at one point SCO submitted a revised claims list that no longer included GPL invalid claims (or many of the other things they've tried).

      SCO's court case has become ever more narrow. Now the o
  • Does that mean (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joeflies (529536) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:14PM (#12902169)
    that they've checked those projects for infriging intellectual property too and certify it's clean?
    • >they've check those projects

      You are suffering from backwards thinking. You see, since any misappropriated code would be The SCO Group's code anyway, they don't need to check it. They can use it at will.

      The only problem they have (a minor inconvenience for them, really) is actually pointing to any code that belongs to them.
  • ...what a fscking bunch of hypocritical bastards.
    • by ImaLamer (260199)
      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

      I say that I have a problem with intellectual property that includes open-source technology it shouldn't!

      Joking aside. As others have [slashdot.org] and will point out: They don't belive the GPL is Constitutional or enforceable - and because of this they have no rights under the license. I wonder how long it takes for GPL code to enter their software?
    • No, no, you are being very unfair towards other fucking hypocritical bastards, by grouping them indiscriminately with SCO...
  • I know, that those people from SCO at the front lines are only doing their jobs and whatnot but someone somewhere makes the actual decisions. Probably Darle McBride. I mean how low do you have to stoop to start behaving like this? Do those people have absolutely no honour whatsoever. I know that corps cater to their shareholders and whatnot but really, how low can a person go in the pursuit of (vanishing) profit? What a rat.
  • parasites (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Has anyone else noted that the sco/caldera logo looks a lot like Pennicilliun mould growing on a blood-agar culture plate?

    SCO - a LOW blood-sucking parasite!
  • by Metzli (184903) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:15PM (#12902195)
    Interesting, I wondered who would still be throwing money at SCO. I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds. I don't want to support a company that's still supporting SCO.
    • Funny you should mention that, I drove out of my way a extra 5 miles last week to buy all the brake parts
      for my truck from "Auto Zone". I had two other stores nearly in my back yard but I will not buy parts from anyone else unless Auto Zone does not stock it.
    • I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds.

      So, you're out of money now?
    • Interesting, I wondered who would still be throwing money at SCO. I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds. I don't want to support a company that's still supporting SCO.

      If you care about your health you should stay away from McDonalds, irrespective of their use of ancient SCO software.

    • I wish I could boycott them as well. The trouble is I already don't eat there on account of the shit food.
    • McDonalds is hardly giving SCO moral support. They were a customer before, it would cost them scads of cash to migrate, and they can probably bend SCO over a barrel to get whatever they want. I mean, they're not exactly going to bleed SCO for cash, but I don't think McD's is as big a cash cow for SCO as they'd like it to be.

      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
    • by stor (146442)
      Your body doesn't care for the reason but it thanks you anyway.

      Cheers
      Stor
  • Isn't it a bit late for them to try to be "friendly" with open source?
  • Curious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by augustz (18082) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:16PM (#12902213) Homepage
    SCO has very publically disclaimed the GPL. Letters to congress, letters to fortune 1500, and in sworn statements in court.

    "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

    Given this position, isn't there standing for a contributor to actually litigate the validity of the GPL? You've got a company that has disclaimed the GPL, but still uses the software.

    That's not the way it works, you can't have it both ways. Either you agree to play fair, or you have to create your own software, not take others.

    And of course, the PR spin on this being "consistent" is hillarious.
    • Re:Curious (Score:3, Insightful)

      by n54 (807502)
      I absolutely agree.

      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. [sys-con.com]
    • by cahiha (873942) on Friday June 24, 2005 @02:16PM (#12902945)
      A deeper problem with SCO's position is the following. SCO seems to assume that if the GPL is invalid, they can do with the software whatever they want.

      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.
  • by m50d (797211)
    Any reason this is in apache? (apache is one of the programs, but wouldn't unix or YRO make more sense?) The colour scheme here makes IT look good.
  • They're not trying to show friendliness toward free software, they just realize their inferior product is doomed and they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that but well, SCO are the ones who don't give a damn about the GPL; the software authors do and recognize that since the software is free, SCO can do what they're doing. That's respect for you SCO.
    • they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that

      Dear Sir / Madame,

      Than you for your recent comments on Open Source software. We're very excited by your comments and plan to use them in an upcoming update to Microsoft's "Get the Facts about Linux" campaign.

      Below is a sample of you your quote will look:

      they ... bundle ... free software ... and I think they should rot in he
  • by doublem (118724) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:18PM (#12902231) Homepage Journal
    Uhm, that's not "being friendly." That's taking advantage of the IP of programmers that they're trying to demonize.

    It's not an attempt at bridge building. It's a reflection of their desperate need for Open Source in order to offer ANYTHING worth using with their OS.

    It's a clear statement that they consider Open Source to be code that they can use for whatever they want, but no one else should be allowed to use.

    It'd be like FedEx trying to keep UPS from using the US highway system.

    It's not trying to be nice to Open Source. OSS doesn't need any boned from the SCO jackal. They're trying to continue to take advantage of Open Source even as they try every legal trick they can think of too hurt it.
  • SCO announces it will include the Linux Kernel in their next release. "We will continue to support / sue the Open Source Community. We will also continue our therapy for schizophrenia."
  • "We're trying to save money, OF COURSE we're consistent! What do you think we've been doing the last couple of...

    Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)
  • Indeed, it is interesting to see them basing OpenServer 6.0 on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0. And it will most likely be quite confusing, too. After the UnixWare -> OpenUNIX -> UnixWare naming shenanigans I thought they would have known better than to do something so misleading.
  • MySQL AB et al (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mindaktiviti (630001) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:27PM (#12902351)
    Shouldn't the people behind these open source products demand a licensing fee (say..$699 per copy) for SCO using their products? Because SCO does not believe in the GPL, but some of these products (like MySQL) have other licenses.

    It seems only fair that SCO should fork over the cash, I'm sure their lawyers and accountants would understand.
  • Clearly, the copywrite holders of Apache or MySQL could be revoking their license, now that SCO tried to cut their throats.
  • If they don't have a problem with Open Source, why are the alleging in federal court that the GPL is unconstitutional?? I mean we all know that this is total and complete bullshit, but still.

    Don't bald face lie to us, Mr. Stowell. As you've no doubt realized, the FLOSS community is tireless in it's pursuit of what's right, relentless in it's pursuit of the truth, and has virtually unlimited resources with which to make it happen.

    Later, GJC
  • by digidave (259925) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:30PM (#12902372)
    *whew*

    Now I can start liking SCO again. I'm off to the SCO Store to buy some of whatever it is they try to sell.
  • at least among Open Source advocates. The beauty of OSS, and SCO has better thank their lucky stars, is that OSS is forgiving. It doesn't matter that SCO has been a bunch of dicks in the pst, they can still redeem themselves.... maybe
  • 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.

    i argue, "you might want to watch your use of 'he said'", i said.
  • Do they use GCC? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CyricZ (887944) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:37PM (#12902464)
    Do they use GCC, or their older, proprietary C compiler along with their cfront-based C++ compiler?

    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.
  • When I think of you, I feel fear, uncertainty and doubt.

    I wouldn't touch your products with a ten-foot pole.

    I think I'll use this Linux thing I've heard about instead.
  • by Shads (4567) <`gro.sudahs' `ta' `sudahs'> on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:41PM (#12902515) Homepage Journal
    ... "SCO pulls more inane bullshit out of their ass"

    What a bunch of hypocrits.
  • Is if the FSF would sue SCO and force them to remove all GPL'd software from their products.

    Like the FOSS community gives a crap if SCO distributes their stuff with SCO-UNIX. The only people who benefit from that are SCO and it's customers - who merely serve to fund SCO'd litigation machine.
  • Sections (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Espectr0 (577637) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:45PM (#12902561) Journal
    We definitely need a "Open Source Software" (OSS) section on slashdot, to avoid using weird sections like Apache for these types of stories (yeah, apache is one of the oss in the story but still)

    The subject should read OSS Products instead of OS. OS is known as Operative System most of the time.
    • by phorm (591458)
      I wonder what the icon for that would be? A frothing mug (free, as in beer)? Maybe we could take suggestions/submissions.
  • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:48PM (#12902608) Homepage
    'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that competes with and beats us in the marketplace.'
    • 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that competes with and beats us in the marketplace.'

      Open source software is not in the marketplace for making money off of lawsuits and stock scams (at least not universally).

      What did you "really" mean?
  • SCO has supported open source products in their Unix for years skunkware [caldera.com]. I don't see what is news here at all.
  • So.... are they going to provide legal protection to their customers if it later turns out that Apache, Samba, etc. include IP some other vendor CLAIMS exists in their code?

    OH, THE IRONY!!!
  • We don't necessarily have issues with open source

    SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. -- Darl McBride, open letter to Congress, December 4, 2003.
  • MySQL and Samba are the only GPL'ed software.

    Every other package listed uses various other OSS licenses: BSD, APL, MPL, and a custom OSS license.

    However, I think they clearly violate the GLPv2, specifically:

    "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 Pr
  • ... I eat them every day
  • Just say no... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2005 @03:02PM (#12903478)
    Since SCO is on record in various court-filed documents as NOT believing the GPL to be valid, one has to wonder how they go about distributing software that's licensed under the GPL.

    If the software is GPL'd, but they don't believe the license to be valid - then how do they go about distributing someone else's code w/o any license? It's my understanding that the code is automatically copyrighted by the author unless the author grants some other rights to users, such as under the GPL; so that should mean that if they don't accept the license that the author released it under (GPL) that it's still copyrighted by the author, and SCO would have to go to the author for a license to distribute.

    Given the trouble they've caused everyone with their temper-tantrums over the past few years, if I were mySQL - I'd say "ummm, no thanks. We'll pass on allowing you to distribute our stuff if you don't want to do it under the GPL. And by the way, we need you to sign a document under penalty of perjury that you accept the license we offer (GPL) in it's entireity, and agree not to dispute any portion of it in perpetuity, and to indenify, protect, and defend us against any and all claims as may come relating to said license..."...

    basically toss it right back at 'em...

    And finally - can we get rid of this half-assed "confirm you're not a script" crap... most of them are an absolute bitch to make out.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...