Intellectual-property expert Richard Wilder says the liability issues raised by SCO’s Linux lawsuit will force distributors and developers to rethink assumptions about open-source software, IP rights and customer protection. Elsewhere, TheInquirer explains what OSS is.
Open Source’s Time of Truth
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Has he convieniently forgotten Chris Sontag’s proclaimation that they were going to go after Apple, Microsoft, and Berkeley? The only “safe” OS’s in the corporate IT field at this point are SCO’s crappy offerings and Solaris.
biography
Richard Wilder is a partner with law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood and is intellectual-property counsel for the Association for Competitive Technology.
ACT is an industry lobby front whose membershiplist includes…Microsoft corporation:
http://www.actonline.org/omembers.htm
How do you know if the commercial software you buy is free from license issues. Heck, if anything, people should be more skeptical of commercial software than of OSS software. To date, there has been no cases where OSS software infringed the intellectual property of commercial companies. However, the reverse is not the case. There are lots of situations (Epson in their drivers, NVIDIA in their drivers, Be in their bootloader, etc) where commercial software has infringed the intellectual property of OSS projects. Heck, commercial companies even steal from other commercial companies. Microsoft (in the Stax case) was found guilty and punished for code theft. Beyond that, OSS software is peer reviewed and open for anyone to see. Commercial software is not. The odds of hiding commercial code in OSS software is a lot slimmer than the odds of the opposite happening.
This whole situation comes down to one thing: individual companies and organizations have a responsibility to protect their own intellectual property. So far, the OSS people have done a very good job. Interested parties look through the binaries of popular commercial programs for similarities to software they may have written, and contact the companies involved. Most disputes are resolved with nothing more than a mediation (for example by the FSF) with no publicity. Only when a company refuses to comply promptly (NVIDIA, Acorn) does the situation become public. Now, compare this to how the commercial companies are behaving. Even if SCO’s claims are true, it simply means that they were lazy about looking for possible violations of their IP, even though it was right under their nose, and when they did find a violation, didn’t allow the parties involved to correct it, and instead created a very public mess. Now
To date, there has been no cases where OSS software infringed the intellectual property of commercial companies.
Eh, perhaps you’ve never heard of ReBorn? I also heard that the FreeCraft project stepped on a few toes and was recently shut down by Blizzard.
As for IP rights, I am not a big fan of IP, but it could be a potential problem for OSS projects who accept code submissions from anyone who wants to contribute, cuz you just never know …
If it’s open source, you’re going to find out pretty soon tho. Seems to me from a risk analysis/incentives point of view, if you put stolen code in OSS:
– The chance of discovery is significantly higher than for CSS; and
– The benefit of doing so is significantly less than for CSS (ie minimal financial reward).
So, based on that (possibly simplistic) analysis, the chances of CSS developers doing it must be significantly higher. I see no more robust (or in fact any) analysis in the article as to why OSS is more vulnerable.
Even if you assume that the rewards were the same between CSS and OSS (which in almost all cases, they’re not), the risk of being pinged where the code is open for all to see must be a significant disincentive to do it. Seems to me that this guy has the conclusion backwards.
If there are IP violations in Linux (and frankly, I highly doubt the validity of SCO’s ‘evidence’) and the IP owners wish them removed, they only have to notify the maintainers of that module and it will be done.
End of story. Case closed. Everyone involved with maintaining the Linux kernel wants a legal, non-infringing system, and have gone to unprecedented (rewriting the entire OS from the ground up) lengths to get there.
Transparency is guaranteed with the Linux development model, if there is a problem, everyone can see where, when and how any offending code was added and can also quite clearly see where, when and how the problem was resolved.
I hold the Linux kernel maintainers innocent until proven guilty, and unless I am mistaken, so do the justice systems of most democratic countries in the world.
SCO’s claims against IBM hinge on the (stupid) idea that anything linked into a UNIX kernel is a derivative work of Sys V.
SCO alleges that licensing UNIX requires the licensee to put any and all components linked with a kernel derived from the Sys V code under SCO’s control, and that alternate licensing agreements for these components, whether independently developed by the licensee or not, are a breach of the UNIX licensing conditions.
However, any breach of contract with SCO by IBM is just that – IBM breached the contract. It does not convey illegitimacy to the work licensed as GPL by IBM, despite it running afoul of an agreement.
If I build a house next door to SCO’s house, and we both agree that, for the good of the neighbourhood, we won’t sell our houses to hippie riff-raff like you, and then I go ahead and sell the house to you anyway, that doesn’t mean SCO gets to come over and sleep on the couch in your new house for free.
They can invoke whatever penalty clauses they like, but as the legal owner of the house, I can sell it if I want to, even if selling it breaches a contract. Of course I then have to face the consequences of breaching the contract, but the house is now the legal property of it’s new owner.
It would be different if I was not the legal owner of the house. If SCO rented me a house, and I was just living in it, and then I sold it to you, SCO would have every right, as the legal owner of the property, to evict you, and take their house back.
SCO are trying to claim that their contract with IBM makes IBM’s original works their original works, but this is quite clearly wrong, and any court in the land will throw out such a ludicrous claim.
IBM certainly did not make a contract with AT&T that transferred the copyright of all future works linked , at any time, with any portion of Sys V, to AT&T, and without a contract like that, SCO has no business whatsoever claiming any IP infringement in Linux resulting from IBM, or any other UNIX licensee’s additions.
I am not a big fan of IP, but it could be a potential problem for OSS projects who accept code submissions from anyone who wants to contribute, cuz you just never know …
I agree that it seems like it something that could happen, but it just hasn’t seemed to up until now. Even in the SCO case where nothing is proven yet it is IBM that is accused of adding SCO’s code to linux. I hardly consider IBM as “just anyone.” I mean, if I had a project and I got a submission from IBM I would probably glance at the code and commit it without a second thought.
“There are three reasons why lawyers are replacing rats as laboratory research animals. One is that they are plentiful, another is that lab assistants don’t get so attached to them and the third is that they will do things that you just can’t get rats to do.”
— Blanche Knott
“Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.”
— Lin Yutang
“There is no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth.”
— Jean Giraudoux
Hehe. I got to remember those. Anyway expert or not, the courts are the final arbitrator of what is what, and I’m not talking about the Court of Public Opinion either.
Old news. Go through the talkbacks, the entire “article” has already been debunked.
This sort of article shows more and more that websites and magazines that previously reported only about proprietary software are completely out of whack when it comes to dealing with free software. Whatever documented facts or arguments the free software side brings to the discussion, most of those who contribute to these magazines seem to listen only to the point of view of big business. Even worse, OSS is presented as a bunch of crawling thieves while corporations are depicted as reincarnations of the Virgin Mary.
Richard Wilder, intellectual-property counsel for the Association for Competitive Technology, a pro Microsoft lobby group which spawned the group involved in the 1999 letters from the Dead campaign, has written a major FUD piece. This,dispite the evidence that you are safer with the GPL than with Microsoft. See
http://lwn.net/Comments/37687/
RE: Rayiner Hashem (IP: —.nv.nv.cox.net)
“To date, there has been no cases where OSS software infringed the intellectual property of commercial companies. However, the reverse is not the case. There are lots of situations (Epson in their drivers, NVIDIA in their drivers, Be in their bootloader, etc) where commercial software has infringed the intellectual property of OSS projects. Heck, commercial companies even steal from other commercial companies.”
“Only when a company refuses to comply promptly (NVIDIA, Acorn) does the situation become public.”
Please explain the above. Obviously you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. The Acorn issue has been resolved. It was a matter of bad interpretation by the accusing party. It has been settled, get over it. Nothing was infindged. As for Nvidia, what are you crapping on about? their kernel driver is opensource, which they are entitled to do, and their X server driver is closed source, AGAIN, they are entitled to do that. As for Epson, again, what are you crapping on about? is this yet another OSS zealot afraid that his/her precious operating system could be in deep shit?
RE:matt (IP: 146.171.16.—)
Well, the issue of OSS code into CSS code is a matter of whether the respective business has adequate safe guards in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen.
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.ihug.co.nz)
SCO hasn’t accused the Linux community of anything? sure, they MAY have said that there aren’t adequate safe guards, HOWEVER, the spat is between IBM and SCO. The case is based on code being copied from AIX to Linux which SCO owns the copyrights to. That is a fact.
RE: Mark (IP: —.qc.sympatico.ca)
You think that is bad, Microsoft is portrayed by some Technology rags as the company who single handidly created the “PC revolution” whilst forgetting that during the 1980s there were already viable PC alternatives such as the Atari and Amiga which exceeded the IBM-Compatible in every field.
The fact is that if the corporate world was running Mac’s, we’d all the running macs. If the corporate world went with Atari, we’d all the running Atari. it has nothing to do with technical superiority and everything to do with politics.
RE: NZheretic (IP: —.ihug.co.nz)
Well, I am going to re-read the article again and if I see fit, I will inform the author of his mistakes and give him the oportunity to reply.
Here are some points directly from the article:
This tactic may seem strange to people who aren’t lawyers–how could 1,500 companies infringe property rights they did not know existed when they bought their software? U.S. copyright and patent laws do not include an absolute protection against “innocent infringement” of such rights, although damages may be reduced for acts performed before you have notice of the rights. Once on notice, however, “innocent” purchasers are liable for damages and subject to an injunction if they continue to use or sell copies of the software. For customers and technology partners, this adds an additional element of risk to using open-source software and including such software in their own products.
So actually the letters and threats have nothing to do with a personal vandeta of SCO but the law in the United States. I am sure you know NZheretic that copyright infridgement/piracy is seen as a civil issue not a criminal one, also, unlike the united states, the affected parties who were duped are not liable. All SCO was outlining was the law in regards to intellectual property.
First, open-source distributors and integrators should “trust but verify” the origins and IP rights of the code within their products. Many organizations and companies developing open-source software already have methods to check the contributions to their code–that is, who owns what.
Does anyone see an issue with this? it is simply stating to make sure that everything you do is legal/koshure.
Some open-source software projects require contributors to provide legal documentation of ownership in the code they submit and use digital signatures to authenticate those submissions. These types of measures should continue to be improved and be implemented more broadly within the open-source community.
Again, does anyone see any problems with this? making sure that code contributed can be easily tacked back the contributor if questions of its originality are raised at a later date either by another individual or business.
Another confidence-building step would be for the distributors or developers of open-source software to move away from offering their products “as is” and find ways to indemnify customers from any liability for intellectual property infringement. Some in the community might suggest that this step is too radical and that it runs counter to their ideals. However, by not offering at least some degree of comfort to their customers through indemnification, they risk ceding an important market advantage to those proprietary software companies that do.
Again, some one please tell me what is wrong with this paragraph? he is simply stating again that the OSS community needs to be more proactive in protecting its users against any undesirable things that could happen.
For its part, the open-source community has to at least understand the vocabulary of the “IP conversation” that occurs among business partners that simultaneously compete and cooperate. Such a conversation allows such partners to efficiently communicate ownership interests in existing products and work constructively on new ones.
He has made a valid point in regards to the intellectual property ownership. If one wants to use the property of another entity, then one has to open up communication to make it possible. This is perfectly reasonable IMHO.
While I am optimistic that these adjustments can be made, it may expand the growing rift between those who see open source as a moral, if not religious movement, and those who see commercial opportunity in this alternative development model. For example, the Free Software Foundation believes that no piece of software should ever be “owned.” It is clear that IBM, Red Hat and others that are interested in developing sustainable open-software-based businesses must find ways to coexist with proprietary software.
However, it is unclear to me how the corporate community can continue to work with those who reject the entire principle of software ownership and simultaneously protect their investment in their own products.
The open-source community has been an important force for competition and innovation for the information technology industry. Hopefully, it can learn from past and present experiences, including the SCO lawsuit, to improve its intellectual property practices and to mature as a critical part of the industry.
Again, I see no problems with those statements. In fact he is coming out in protection of the OSS community by making them aware that not all people share their view on non-software-ownership. Maybe instead of the FSF yelling people away from debates, how about sit down and talk like mature adults and compromise. Stallman would have to be the prime example of OSS zealotry and his inability to compromise or communicate like a normal humand being. Worse still, he is not even able to walk away from a debate and say, “we have differing opinions, however, I respect him for his beliefs”. It seems that Stallman has the “its my way or the highway attitude” which will eventually cost him one day.
I think the whole problem of Open Source software, is that it is Open Source.
Let’s imagine, I steal code from Apache and use it in my closed source webserver. Then I claim Apache stole my code. I can easily do that, give out the matches with my own code and tell Open Source sucks.
If we turn it around, that Apache *really* stole my code, then I could also sue them.
Now let’s imagine, I steal code from Microsoft IIS and use it in my closed source webserver. Then I cannot make any claims, as I officially don’t have access to the IIS source, and Microsoft cannot sue me as they do not have access to my source code.
(Final Note: My Webserver has not borrowed any code from Apache, and vice-versa, as far as I know.)
Have you actually read any of this bloody saga? SCO accuses IBM of copyright infridgement by IBM copying SCO copyrighted code from AIX to Linux. The party who did it was IBM NOT the Linux community, there for you statement is a lot of crap.
The truth is that a lot of what SCO is whining about, happens to be Sequent’s Dynix source code. Dynix was a *BSD development, not a System V R4 derivative.
And the developer of some of that Dynix code now works for IBM. Dynix was built on his ideas and algorithms, which were published – I think – as a thesis. So if he re-implemented his own ideas in Linux, I fail to see how that could possibly make him a thief.
On the other hand, it puts SCO in a very, very bad light. “You park your car anywhere near my boat, and I’m driving it home! You hear that, punk!”
Well, the issue of OSS code into CSS code is a matter of whether the respective business has adequate safe guards in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen.
It’s impossible to prove that a code submission was not stolen from a closed source program. The open source project would have to have access to every closed source program written; in reality, they don’t have access to any closed source code.
That is why there needs to be an adequate code tracing so that all submissions can be traced back to their author so that if any issues do arise, the author of the code can be contacted directly.
Would be something really awesome if someone invent a way to create signed code, as I read in one article in theinquirer, but with some improvements.
As the author said in that article, the signature must be created for some minimal amount of lines of code.
I guess, the comments must be ignorated, as also the name of the functions and variables. Maybe, this should not be a big deal.
The difficult part, as far as I see, should be with code relocation (when you move intructions back and forth).
Well, just a dream.
>>As for IP rights, I am not a big fan of IP, but it could be a potential problem for OSS projects who accept code submissions from anyone who wants to contribute, cuz you just never know …<<
Good thing Linux doesn’t do that. As I understand it, everything that goes into linux is reviewed and documented. It is not the “free-for-all” that the fudsters try to portray.
Just because this guy is a lawyer with a “pro-Microsoft” lobby group doesn’t mean that he is not right. In fact, this guy’s legal position is exactly the same as IBM’s legal position as well — that’s why that IBM didn’t create their own IBM linux distribution, that’s why that IBM lawyers prevent IBM engineers from embedding linux into their own commercial embedded products….
>>>>As I understand it, everything that goes into linux is reviewed and documented. It is not the “free-for-all” that the fudsters try to portray.
Everything inside the kernel is controlled tightly by Linus himself. But the other 599 Megs of stuff in a linux distribution — nobody can guarantee anything for that.
“Over the past several years, corporate America has warmed to open-source software programs such as the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server.”
Remarks like this always anger me. According to the latest NetCraft survey (below) nearly 70% of the servers on the web are running some form of Apache. Where has this “corporate America” been living, in a cave? Just because a couple of huge corporations (like Schwab) are only just starting to evaluate Linux/Apache, it doesn’t mean that those corps. aren’t behind the times.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/06/12/june_2003_web_server_s…
Linux should strive to become more organic, otherwise large corporations who are falling down, will drag Linux down with them. There is too much corruption in the world, the courts are also corrupt because they are run by individuals and small groups of justices with too much power. On the other hand, if the architecture was more decentralized, than it would not be possible to destroy it, even it it became a target for destruction. The response should be to build quality software, to adapt to the treat of distinction.
…extinction. Open source can evolve. It will, because freedom is worth fighting for.
“That is why there needs to be an adequate code tracing so that all submissions can be traced back to their author so that if any issues do arise, the author of the code can be contacted directly.”
Listen this is the procedure for kernel code it is traceable – what is so despicable about SCO’s accusations is it won’t provide the code in question so that it can be traced.
What we need is an independant audit commission that can investigate all closed source proprietary code for stolen IP (ether FLOSS or closed source). Let your code be checked MS its the only way to have a level playing field between Closed Source and protect open source IP from theft.
I take it you will support that CooCooCaChoo or are too tied to being an apologist for MS and SCO.
Coca-Cola likes to keep its recipe secret (actually the Coke formula was disclosed in 1917 at the behest of the US Government – the formula has been altered since). Quite a few years back Coke wanted to start selling in India. The deal was the Indian government wouldn’t let Coke be sold unless the recipe was disclosed.
Anyway all software should be be protected by copyright not patents. All code needs to be submitted to a ‘Library of Software Code’ so that it is correctly archived. Also old code needs to be removed from copyright after say 20 years so that legacy apps can be ported to new architectures etc.
By Richard Stallman’s definition of the term Intellectual Property this man is an expert in foolishness. See RMS’ commentary on the SCO case.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914132…
Perhaps, but AFAIK SCO is not talking about Linux “distros” (which should be referred as GNU/Linux anyway…) but rather the kernel itself.
CooCooCaChoo: Although RMS/FSF may have opinions that differ wildly from your own, they have a very firm grasp on all things involved with “intellectual property” . As such they have been demanding for a very long time that contributors state in writing that they hold the coprights of any contributed code and in fact ask for a transfer of the copyrights over to the FSF. (See http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_4.html#SEC4 )
If anyone has proper and mature “intellectual property practices”, then it’s the FSF.
I fail to see why RMS/FSF would need to compromise on anything. They have their own agenda and they stick to it, as they have done for the last 10 years or so. If that doesn’t match with your agenda then that’s your loss.
> So actually the letters and threats have nothing to do
> with a personal vandeta of SCO but the law in the United
> States…
First, piracy *is* a criminal issue and separate from copyright infringement.
I don’t understand your statement about the letters being about the law of the United States. Are you saying the letters were required by law? From the article, it sounded like SCO was actually notifying companies so that now they could be considered liable which would make them potential targets for future litigation or settlements (i.e. “licences”). This is an option they *chose* to take, and is obviously designed to stir up fear and put on additional pressure. Considering that SCO has only asserted their claims and have so far not *proved* their claims, you can understand why people and businesses get upset with those letters. While I wouldn’t call it a “personal vendetta”, it certainly feels slimey and borders on outright threats.
>> First, open-source distributors and integrators
>> should “trust but verify”…
> Does anyone see an issue with this? it is simply stating
> to make sure that everything you do is legal/koshure.
I don’t really have a problem with this. The only thing I dislike is the implication that OSS development is somehow more liable to use code that is not owned by the developers. The truth is that CSS is more liable to use software that has copyright issues simply because nobody but the developer ever sees the code. All these paid pundits talk so much about processes that CSS companies follow, but having worked at many CSS companies, I can tell you that most companies probably don’t have any procedures in place except for the company to claim ownership of everything you do. There is no vetting process, and there often isn’t even a tracking process. It’s an honor system thing because everyone is usually too busy just writing software. Besides, whether you’re CSS or OSS (or both), it’s usually more interesting and, unfortunately, often faster to solve problems yourself than attempt to find some small piece of code that will do EXACTLY what you need.
>> Some open-source software projects require contributors
>> to provide legal documentation of ownership in the code
>> they submit and use digital signatures to authenticate
>> those submissions…
> Again, does anyone see any problems with this?…
That’s fine, but, again, it sounds like OSS is being held to a higher standard than CSS. How many CSS companies air out their commit records or give out lists of their developers and their histories? But maybe that’s okay, and it should be that way. OSS may just have to do this stuff to protect themselves from CSS company lawyers.
>> Another confidence-building step would be for the
>> distributors or developers of open-source software to
>> move away from offering their products “as is”…
> Again, some one please tell me what is wrong with this
> paragraph?…
Well, when you write software on a voluntary basis or provide it for free, how can you afford to provide warranties? And what are these “undesirable things” that we’re protecting users from? Extortion from company lawyers?
However, I do think you bring up a good point, but not for the users, for the developers. Perhaps the OSS community and even the FSF community should put their heads together and figure out a way to provide resources so that OSS developers can develop code mostly free from the worry of being sued and allow the developer to at least provide a copyright warranty to the end user. It could be a form of insurance that OSS developers can get. This would prevent the potentially harmful threat of frivilous litigation against individuals (e.g. SCO has been impugning Linus) that would result in them being unable to work on their project anymore just because some company sicced some lawyers on them. Companies won’t bring firivilous lawsuits if the developers can defend themselves.
We got lucky in this case. SCO is going after the money first. But what might prevent them (or others) from bringing a case against individual developers later for the sole purpose of disrupting development? The only thing I can think of is a counter-suite for the frivilous suite and possibly public relations issues. But anything that involves lawyers is much too expensive for an individual versus a company. Perhaps I’m being too much of an alarmist, but something tells me that this is the next real threat to OSS that will come from the CSS sector.
>> For its part, the open-source community has to at least
>> understand the vocabulary of the “IP conversation” that
>> occurs among business partners that simultaneously
>> compete and cooperate….
> He has made a valid point in regards to the intellectual
> property ownership…
OSS is nothing but open communication (hint: O = Open). However, if you are referring to the SCO case, then any infringement appears to be accidental and will be remedied as soon as SCO deigns to fully inform and *prove* their claims (who’s not communicating?).
Furthermore, this “IP conversation” that the article talks about is anything but efficient. Do you know how many lawyers and meetings and time it takes to set up non-disclosure agreements or joint-development agreements or cross licensing deals within the CSS world? Many lawyers, often tens of thousands of dollars, and at least several months. Also, these agreements aren’t as friendly or as productive as he makes it sound. They’re usually just legal manuevering until the companies involved all have knives at each other’s throats. And, obviously, ownership issues can be anything but clear as a result, and ideas and knowledge (“IP”) may still not flow between the companies involved. OSS on the other hand, from what I’ve seen, is typically free from these issues. Much more efficient, although not always friendly, and the “IP” is right there at the beginning.
> Again, I see no problems with those statements. In fact
> he is coming out in protection of the OSS community by
> making them aware that not all people share their view on
> non-software-ownership. Maybe instead of the FSF yelling
> people away from debates, how about sit down and talk
> like mature adults and compromise…
Okay, as I’m sure Stallman would jump to inform you, FSF isn’t OSS. Or, if you prefer, it is merely a subset of OSS. Neither the FSF or Stallman represents all of the OSS world which is already highly nuanced. We have the MIT licenses, BSD licenses, and various “artistic” licenses, and many more I’ve come across but I can’t remember. There is no need to “compromise” because people are *free* to choose the licenses that they prefer to develop under, and people are *free* to use software with licenses that they can accept. There is plenty of room for everybody here. A compromise is only needed when you are dealing with limited resources (which in this case could only occur through some horrible form of legislation restricting choices). We’re talking about ideas and expression of those ideas. I may be wrong, but there doesn’t appear to be a shortage of those, and the last time I checked, there’s a big market out there. There should be plenty of room for all of the ways people want to do things.
Keep working, and try to keep the lawyers out of it.
People love the FREEDOM that their computers give them. Thts’s the whole point.
Vic
Wait!!!
Anyone know whats going on wit TURBOLINUX??
CooCooCaChoo: “Another confidence-building step would be for the distributors or developers of open-source software to move away from offering their products “as is” and find ways to indemnify customers from any liability for intellectual property infringement. Some in the community might suggest that this step is too radical and that it runs counter to their ideals. However, by not offering at least some degree of comfort to their customers through indemnification, they risk ceding an important market advantage to those proprietary software companies that do.”
Find me one company, open or closed source, that can or will do this…no one asks Microsoft or Apple to do so, why should OSS?
Obviously you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
>>>>>>
If by “you” you mean *you* then yes, *you* are right…
The Acorn issue has been resolved.
>>>>>>
Sorry, I meant Castle. And I can’t find a link to any info about a resolution. Could you point me to one?
what are you crapping on about?
>>>>>>>>>>>
NVIDIA was in violation of the license of the XFree86 bttv driver, and in a seperate case, I think they were in violation of the license of some GPL’ed memory debugging program.
their kernel driver is opensource
>>>>>>>>>>
The kernel driver is closed source. Only a small glue layer is open source (but not Open Source).
As for Epson, again, what are you crapping on about?
>>>>>>>>>>
Epson’s Linux drivers were in violation of the GPL. The problem was resolved with a quiet mediation with Epson. You can find Epson’s apology and correction here:
http://www.epkowa.co.jp/english/linux_e/DLinfo_e.html
is this yet another OSS zealot afraid that his/her precious operating system could be in deep shit?
>>>>>>>
I honestly don’t have time for crap like this. A simple Google search (“Epson GPL violation”, “NVIDIA GPL violation”) would have told you the truth.
Microsoft and the SCO want all Non-Microsoft products to be illegal. I wonder if the governments of the world are going to go for that. Probably the Americans will, but than again, they want to rule the world. I don’t think that other goverments will go for it.
Even a partial victory will be a huge win for Microsoft (SCO).
If Microsoft can succeed at getting Linux associated with terrorism at the Presidential level, then Linux is gone from America.
Microsoft will come out with some low cost “Windows for Government” edition of Windows and offer it as a replacement for all the people in government who are using Linux.
And it will leave all the people using Linux as open targets for government agents. For we know Linux users are people who have something to hide because they steal intellectual property, hack into websites and destory them, illegally download music and cheat people out of just profits, are into terrorist technologies like encryption, etc.
America will use “Windows or else” as a negotiation demand on every single nickel of foreign aid and military aid it gives to other countries. And new trade agreements will all stipulate that Windows must be used.
Heck, the President will probably have Linux made a WMD and it will give the government an excuse to go into all non-Microsoft countries and destroy them.
Uh Hu. Why not simply have the government unleash what’s hidden at Area 51? That’ll teach those GNU commies a thing or two.
America is not the only country with nuclear weapons, and we all inhabit the same air, never forget that. On the other hand, it appears that the American goverment is going to back up Microsoft, yet every country outside America is converting to Linux. How are the Americans going to sell anything to these people once IBM is torn down.
Good for you, you deserve what you’ll end up with. Microsoft is going to be forced on all Americans, but the rest of the world will be using open source.