data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97330/9733011e366dc69ad316a65751d95ca49d0f7685" alt="Unix Unix"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22d0b/22d0bff25e24a87c84e7a3bd01f59f0d96652862" alt="Operating Systems Operating Systems"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14f0b/14f0b353db8f87a695a6969f974da224ebca9e1a" alt="Mozilla Mozilla"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/114a3/114a3ad76461bddbf2afa583782f630551f7277a" alt="Software Software"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92ec3/92ec3a8bb51cd25da9a36d7360c786d62625a43b" alt="The Internet The Internet"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7cdbf/7cdbfb7dd0e7670d3e64395fed8804d7112ed52b" alt="Apache Apache"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87aff/87affa045ab7f9eb297408bf8d8594376980f72b" alt="Linux Linux"
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."
Of course they're consistent (Score:5, Interesting)
From Groklaw [groklaw.net]:
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?
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:2, Redundant)
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
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:2)
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)
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)
So they're almost certainly distributing Samba and MySQL in compliance with the GPL.
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Not Quite (Score:3, Informative)
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
In fact, just thinking about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In fact, just thinking about this... (Score:2)
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:In fact, just thinking about this... (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Not Quite (Score:2)
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)
estop [answers.com]
Re: estopped[sic] (Score:2)
Re: estopped[sic] (Score:4, Informative)
Amusingly enough, the gist of estoppel, is that you can't encourage or permit someone to take certain actions, and then bring suit against them on the basis that that action was illegal or in breach of contract.
Re:Of course they're consistent (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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 co
no GPL = no license at all (Score:2)
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?
Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
I think this story will be of great interest to both SCO's remaining users.
Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:2)
We all know there are 3 Users Remaining
Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have been involved in quite a few switchovers for former SCO clients, and not all were particularly smooth, though all have been succesful. It's the stupid little stuff that bites you - sl
Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (Score:2)
Go ahead. Pull the other one.
Really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Really... (Score:2)
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?
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.
Re:Wow, an operating system in the operating syste (Score:2)
"friendly" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"friendly" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"friendly" (Score:2)
Re:"friendly" (Score:2)
Does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)
I know there was never much doubt, but IIRC one of SCO's arguments was that the GPL was invalid.
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
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?
Re:Does this mean (Score:2)
SCO's court case has become ever more narrow. Now the o
Does that mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean (Score:2)
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.
May I be the first to say (Score:2)
Heck (Score:2)
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?
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:2)
What a human waste (Score:2)
parasites (Score:2, Funny)
SCO - a LOW blood-sucking parasite!
McDonalds is a Customer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:2)
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.
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:3, Funny)
So, you're out of money now?
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:2)
If you care about your health you should stay away from McDonalds, irrespective of their use of ancient SCO software.
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:2)
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
Re:McDonalds is a Customer (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers
Stor
Isn't it a little... late? (Score:2)
Curious (Score:5, Interesting)
"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)
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]
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.
Section? (Score:2)
for convenience, not cooperation (Score:2)
How MS will quote you (Score:2)
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
SCO, a company without shame (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
In other news... (Score:2)
My interpretation (Score:4, Funny)
Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)
I find it hard to believe... (Score:2)
Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Blake would refer to Darl that way.
Look at that... (Score:2)
Based on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0? (Score:2)
MySQL AB et al (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems only fair that SCO should fork over the cash, I'm sure their lawyers and accountants would understand.
Re:MySQL AB et al (Score:2)
Why do they even have a license? (Score:2)
If they don't have a problem with Open Source... (Score:2)
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
Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source.. (Score:2)
1. GPL is unconstitutional.
2. GPL is therefore null and void
3. Thus GPL code has no copyright protection as it has no license or terms
4. CODE IS FREE! (100%) They can take it and use it however they want
5. Profit!
Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source.. (Score:2)
How does #3 follow from #2?
What a relief (Score:3, Funny)
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.
SCO has no credibility in the Open Source arena (Score:2)
danger will robinson, danger! (Score:2)
i argue, "you might want to watch your use of 'he said'", i said.
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.
Congratulations SCO (Score:2)
I wouldn't touch your products with a ten-foot pole.
I think I'll use this Linux thing I've heard about instead.
Alternate story title... (Score:3, Funny)
What a bunch of hypocrits.
What would be nice.... (Score:2)
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)
The subject should read OSS Products instead of OS. OS is known as Operative System most of the time.
Icon (Score:2)
Obligatory "what he really meant" post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory "what he really meant" post (Score:2)
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?
Why is this news (Score:2)
IP Protection? (Score:2)
OH, THE IRONY!!!
SCO's memory going bad (Score:2)
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.
Not just the GPL it validates (Score:2)
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
In a bid to be friendly with animals ... (Score:2)
Just say no... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Woah (Score:4, Informative)
FWIW, OpenServer used to be a very serious product. You see, Microsoft did the original development back in the 80's under the name "Xenix". That product was considered by Microsoft to be to DOS what NT was to 9x. Unfortunately, the market shifted to focus on early GUIs such as VisOn and the Macintosh, resulting in a decision by Microsoft to sell OpenServer to the original SCO.
SCO found themselves in the position of having the most advanced Unix ever developed for the x86 processor. (386BSD still needed work when it showed up, and the later Solaris/x86 partly gained its reputation as "Slowaris" on x86 hardware.) The result was that SCO was able to capture the early market for low end Unix boxes, below the market that even Sun targetted.
The later increase in x86 power, and the entry of Linux into the market brought more traditional Unix systems on a convergent path with SCO, thus causing their marketshare to evaporate. The original SCO moved on to greener pastures and sold OpenServer to Caldera. Caldera continued to market the product, but also inherited a large base of SCO salesmen. Guess who became the most troublesome individuals when OpenServer's sales tanked after the Linux suit?
Re:Woah (Score:2)
Re:Woah (Score:2)
If you've got $699 to spare, yes...
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:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (Score:2)
You couldn't even restrict Nazis or Al Qaeda from using your software if you want it to be considered Open Source.
Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (Score:2)
Nope, you can't do it. Open-source licenses are called open for a reason. Anyone can--and does--use it.
If Microsoft decides one day to release MS-Linux, and the boys from Redmond obey the GPL rules as they do it, well... there's going to be a lot of copies of MS-Linux in CompUSA and BestBuy.
Steven
Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (Score:2)
Machiavellian? Sure. But this is SCO we're talking about...
Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (Score:2)
That would be playing right into their hands. SCO *wants* to get OSS producers upset so that they'll do something stupid. SCO can then point to the event and say "See? They are being juvenile while we negotiate in good faith!"
Ignoring SCO (except for direct legal defense) has been, and will continue to be, the best defense. The only one who gets worked up in that si