The BBC has a great editorial on the current situation with SCO and Linux. In it, the author suggests that Linux isn’t immune from copyright violations simply because free software is morally superior; that without IP laws there would be nothing stopping anyone from ripping Linux off and therefore its users should show it more respect, and that there is no evidence that SCO’s claims are invalid. He also notes that there is no evidence that their claims are valid either. My take (Sean’s): he’s right. There is no reason to believe that someone couldn’t have snuck some SCO code into Linux. No one can go over the 30 million lines of code in a Linux distribution to check where the code came from – especially if it came from a closed source product in which case they would have no way of knowing. SCO may not be the bad guy, IBM might (wow, what a thought!) Of course, SCO might be blowing smoke, but the Linux community’s attitude has been quite poor. Personally, I think that if SCO code made its way into Linux, it won’t be much, it will be easily removed/replaced and life will go on. Remember, if SCO’s claims are valid and they lose, think of how the FSF would fare against Microsoft?
“there is no evidence that SCO’s claims are invalid”
The burden of proof is on SCO. Linux users need do nothing.
-Hugh
First, I don’t see *how* the users should pay anything to SCO — if there is really some SCO’s code, it will be removed, simply. Because legally you can’t mix GPL code and proprietary code !
Of course Linux users and programmers should respect copyright — free softwares are protected by copyrights.
But there is no indications that linux programmers don’t do that. In fact, it is NOT legal to keep the SCO code embedded — the only position is then to ask SCO what’s the code and to remove it. Problems : 1) SCO didn’t want to show the code 2) and moreover SCO don’t have a proof that there is, indeed, some code which belongs to them !
And anyway the SCO claims were very fuzzy, and didn’t acted as a company willing to resolve the potential infringement, but as a company which wanted to raise a tax on linux users. That’s not tolerable.
So the only choice left is to go in court, to see what’s the infringing code, and if that’s code belongs to SCO or not.
In any cases, SCO shouldn’t and couldn’t ask money to the USERS. Even linux distributors imho are clean, because they acted unknowingly of possible problems. And when asked what are the problems (what’s the code), SCO don’t want to resolve it.
In the end, SCO distributed and still distribute linux under the GPL. Of course, they claim that they didn’t knew that their code was in it. Personnally, I think it’s false — either they knew it was, or their claims are bogus. But anyway, as a linux distributor with caldera, OF COURSE they needed to check the sources. Damn it, they even CONTRIBUTED to the kernel !
This is hogwash: no one said that Linux was immune from copyright violations because free software is morally superior – what makes Linux less likely to suffer from copyright violations is the fact that its development is open, and therefore it is harder to include copied code without someone noticing.
Seriously, now. What was the first response of the Linux community?
“Tell us where the infringing code is and we’ll remove it ASAP!”
The GPL is based on copyright and Linux contributors are quite respectful of IP laws – Linux wouldn’t exist without them!
Please, show some intellectual honesty next time!
I agree with Hugh..
Innocent til _PROVEN_ guilty – NOT the other way around..
~
Debrihmi
“The GPL is based on copyright and Linux contributors are quite respectful of IP laws – Linux wouldn’t exist without them!”
Yeah right. That’s why virtually every piece of GPL software is a clone of something that already existed right? Because GPL programmers respect IP.
…how can someone acting as gatekeeper for a project (such as Linus for the kernel) know when submitted code infringes on someone else’s copyright beforehand, when that copyrighted code is closed and nobody but the copyright holder has access to it? Here the author Bill Thompson doesn’t make any sense. In fact, it is actually a very strong argument in favor of open source, since that code is available and therefore gatekeepers have access to it.
Also, I would like to point out that the author makes at least one erroneous statement:
“Novell sold [Unix] to the Santa Cruz Operation in 1995, which passed it to Caldera in 2002. At that point, Caldera changed its name to SCO and stopped selling its own version of Linux.”
However, SCO did not stop selling Linux at that time, IIRC. It only stopped actively selling it when the lawsuit was launched. Of course, it is still distributing Linux on its site, in plain violation of IP laws since it is no longer abiding by the GPL, and therefore cannot distribute Linux.
If someone hasn’t been respecting IP laws, it’s SCO, not the Linux community.
“First, I don’t see *how* the users should pay anything to SCO — if there is really some SCO’s code, it will be removed, simply. Because legally you can’t mix GPL code and proprietary code !”
Simple. Because if SCO can prove that there is some of their code in Linux, they can sue for past damage, which basically means loss of revenue. Given how much business commercial UNIX has lost because of Linux, the could potentially sue for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Is this whole thing comparile with using illegallly printed money (there’s a name for it, but since my native tongue ain’t English, I don’t know it)?
I mean– if you recieve copied money from someone, and you don’t know it’s copied because you sometimes can’t tell without UV light (at least in Europe), are you then a criminal when you spend that money?
If not, then Linux users (includes me
) cannot be held responsible.
Sounds simple to me…
“…how can someone acting as gatekeeper for a project (such as Linus for the kernel) know when submitted code infringes on someone else’s copyright beforehand, when that copyrighted code is closed and nobody but the copyright holder has access to it?”
You think Linus didn’t have access to the UNIX source code? Of course he did. He was a CompSci student at a prominant University. I can almost gurantee you that Linus had seen the AT&T source code before he wrote Linux.
Cloning is LEGAL – not DIRECT copying! Do you then think that all other cars on the road except Fords are invaid???
~
Debrihmi
Reproducing functionalities does not go against IP laws…otherwise, the whole Windows OS would be illegal (and MacOS as well).
Let me guess…you use IE, right? Well, isn’t IE a clone of the original Mosaic browser?
Please, come back when you actually have an argument.
“Cloning is LEGAL – not DIRECT copying! Do you then think that all other cars on the road except Fords are invaid???”
If GM were copying a Ford model and giving it away for free? Yes. And it would also be illegal. (anti-competitive business practice)
“Let me guess…you use IE, right? Well, isn’t IE a clone of the original Mosaic browser?”
Which Microsoft PAID for and licensed from Mosaic.
“Please, come back when you actually have an argument.”
Please come back when you have done some research. Microsoft legitimately licensed the Mosaic browser. That’s different than copying. Microsoft paid for the privilage. GPL programmers just freeload, which is why the PISS SO MANY PEOPLE OFF.
“If GM were copying a Ford model and giving it away for free? Yes. And it would also be illegal. (anti-competitive business practice)”
READ THE COMMENTS! I said, “Cloning is LEGAL – **not DIRECT copying!**”
Also, can YOU prove that ANYTING is copied!? C’MON, use common sense!
~
Debrihmi
You think Linus didn’t have access to the UNIX source code? Of course he did. He was a CompSci student at a prominant University.
Really? Then why was SCO talking of trade secrets, then? The Unix code you refer to (“historical” Unix) has either become public domain due to lack of enforcement (re. AT&T vs. BSD) or has been released by SCO under an open license, as was revealed last week?
Meanwhile, here is another fallacious statement from the article:
“[Linux users] criticise SCO for even hinting that Linux could be anything other than perfectly legal and clean, and support actions such as the recent denial of service attack on the SCO website.”
Could someone please direct this guy to Eric Raymond’s strong call for whoever was DDoSing SCO to stop?
“READ THE COMMENTS! I said, “Cloning is LEGAL – **not DIRECT copying!**””
Cloning is a direct copy by definition. Duh…
And yes, you can prove that something is copied.
Simple. Because if SCO can prove that there is some of their code in Linux, they can sue for past damage, which basically means loss of revenue.
That’s right, everybody agree on that point.
Given how much business commercial UNIX has lost because of Linux, the could potentially sue for hundreds of millions of dollars.
That’s right too. They could sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. But sue WHO ? well, obviously they should sue the responsible — IBM according to SCO.
But what the fuck the users and linux distributors has to do with that ? even if SCO is right, users and distributors could not be held liable, as they couldn’t know at all that linux infringed SCO rights. IBM could be sued, that’s all.
Furthermore… sure they could sue for past damage… but frankly, I don’t think that linux users would have bought tons of Unixware instead. FreeBSD, *BSD, or BeOS were more likely targets…
Oh, did Microsoft license the WIMP interface from Xerox?
As others have said: cloning is LEGAL, copying isn’t.
You just have an axe to grind. One more anonymous anti-Linux troll from attbi.com…
You’re simply NOT reading are you?
Cloning FUNCTIONS, if you where right, civilization would cease to exist..
And sense you say you can prove it, please do so..
Back up your BS, please..
~
Debrihmi
“Really? Then why was SCO talking of trade secrets, then? The Unix code you refer to (“historical” Unix) has either become public domain due to lack of enforcement (re. AT&T vs. BSD) or has been released by SCO under an open license, as was revealed last week?”
Incorrect. The settlement protects ONLY BSD. No other operating system is protected. It protects only the 4.4 BSD Lite code base.
“Could someone please direct this guy to Eric Raymond’s strong call for whoever was DDoSing SCO to stop?”
Eric Raymond? Give me a break. No one takes Eric Raymond seriously. He’s the worst form of image that Linux could possibly want. (The red neck gun toting anarchist)
“And sense you say you can prove it, please do so..”
It’s called a hex editor.
Just because looking for patterns in binary files that copyright infringments is beyond your technical ability does not mean it is BS.
And in this case, its much easier. Because the Linux source code is available for SCO’s engineers to go through. They don’t even need to look for patterns in binary files.
Of course, SCO might be blowing smoke, but the Linux community’s attitude has been quite poor.
So you mean GPL fanatics ARE a bunch of arrogant pricks?
“Eric Raymond? Give me a break. No one takes Eric Raymond seriously. He’s the worst form of image that Linux could possibly want. (The red neck gun toting anarchist)”
You folks obviously:
1) Don’t READ
2) Don’t use FACTS
3) Take everything that spoon fed to you..
4) Cannot prove anything you say, can you?
Just one thing before I’m outta here.. Only time will tell..
~
Debrihmi
Incorrect. The settlement protects ONLY BSD. No other operating system is protected. It protects only the 4.4 BSD Lite code base.
Please re-read the BSD license. BSD is open source and free. If code is in BSD, it can be included elsewhere. Therefore if BSD is protected, other OSes that include BSD code are protected as well.
Eric Raymond? Give me a break. No one takes Eric Raymond seriously. He’s the worst form of image that Linux could possibly want. (The red neck gun toting anarchist)
What he is or the image he projects is irrelevant. What matters is the statement he made, i.e. that he did not support the DDoS attack. Others in the Linux community have said the same thing. Ergo, the affirmation that Linux users support the DDoS attacks against SCO is not true.
“That’s right too. They could sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. But sue WHO ? well, obviously they should sue the responsible — IBM according to SCO.”
IBM, Red Hat, other commercial Linux vendors. Basically, the companies they think have done them the most damage. They could potentially sue Debian or individual programmers as well. But that seems unlikely. More than likely non-profits and individual programmers would just a cease and desist order.
About pattern recognition, you might want to read this fine article on data mining and how it may have caused SCO to blow it with their SCOForum presentation recently:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/29.html#a271
“Please re-read the BSD license. BSD is open source and free. If code is in BSD, it can be included elsewhere. Therefore if BSD is protected, other OSes that include BSD code are protected as well.”
But ONLY code in the 4.4 BSD Lite source tree is protected. If there is code in Linux that comes from any previous branch, such as the Berkeley Net/2 tape, it’s in vioation of AT&T’s copyright. That’s where the question would be. Linux was in development before 4.4 BSD Lite, and before UCB was sued over the Net/2 tape. So that’s a potential source for illegal code in Linux.
Didn’t you know? SCO just said that it will not sue Linux vendors. (Though I guess they may change their mind again…)
When microsoft released first version of windows, they clonned mac os interface. In order to make Mac OS, Apple has clonned the GUI concept from Xerox, but no one seems to remember that….
So, my friend, MS and apple both have to pay for Xerox the “privilage” of GUI concept, right?
” If GM were copying a Ford model and giving it away for free? Yes. And it would also be illegal. (anti-competitive business practice)”
What on hell do you want to say with that???? If I do a browser with a location bar, I’m stealing ideas from netscape/mosaic?
Get real.
As far as I know there’s no evidence about the opposite either.
So SCO should cease to act childish and present real/valid proof about it’s claims, go to court if needed, try to solve this issue as an resposible adult would (not resorting to bad mouth, FUD, NDA’s and such).
I think I’m not exagerating if I said that the OSS Community is ready to help SCO to put light to this matter. But their attitude so far only damages both.
Having anything so far SCO seems just a FUD and extorsion machine adding nothing valuable and threatening anyone…
If this is proved true, it could backfire to them.
So why someone posts a thing like this adding nothing to the case?
These are my points:
* The simple SCO’s attitude “your code belongs to us” seems to me unethical (to say the least). The “derived work” clause in the license doesn’t seem right (fair). By US law it couldn’t be considered null since it’s unreasonable (in my country it would!). I doubt they could have an issue here…
* The NDA helps nothing since people who signed it can’t be discussed in public and people who are really interested in see the code can’t signed (for professional, ethical, personal and legal reasons).
* Of course Linux isn’t immune to copyrights! It uses it in it’s license!
* As for “ts users should show it more respect” (to IP). I can say they have since they got the trouble to use and build a system for years, respecting others IP. It could be the other way around since SCO (Canopy Group) “owns” Linux code…
The only thing I can think it’s that some people feel threatened by Linux that they have to take it down at any cost.
So read my lips:
UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE!… INNOCENT!
“You folks obviously:
1) Don’t READ
2) Don’t use FACTS
3) Take everything that spoon fed to you..
4) Cannot prove anything you say, can you? ”
Considering that my analysis of Eric Raymond is based on direct interviews with him that were published in Linux Magazine, as well as reading his political essays on his Web site, I don’t think my opinions are based on lack of fact, or having something spoon fed to me. You can disagree with my conclusions about Eric Raymond, but you cannot say that my conclusions are based on lack of fact or on being spoon fed. They are based on Eric Raymond’s own essays and interviews he has given to trade publications such as Linux Magazine.
SCO is violation 4 of IBM’s patent, they have include BSD code without the proper copyright notice, and they may very well have improperly included GPLed code in UnixWare’s Linux Kernel Personality component.
Tell me again who doesn’t respect IP?
“GPL programmers just freeload, which is why the PISS SO MANY PEOPLE OFF.”
That’s stupid! There are unwritten rules about specific kinds of sofware that are needed by certain users. For example, many people from students to secretaries need a what you see is what you get type word processor software. Microsoft makes “Word” (not quite their own invention), so when someone makes a similar piece of software under a GPL type license, to run on free Unix like OSs, in order to give users of those OSs similar functionality that someone is freeloading?
But wait, what about the GUI? Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox PARC to make MacOS, Microsoft stole the idea from Apple to make Windows (There was a lawsuit involved btw, and Apple lost).
That and the fact that IE wasn’t a clone of Mosaic, it was a clone of Netscape that was once the dominant browser (IE was based on Mosaic) make your argument null and void.
“Cloning is LEGAL – not DIRECT copying! Do you then think that all other cars on the road except Fords are invaid???”
If GM were copying a Ford model and giving it away for free? Yes. And it would also be illegal. (anti-competitive business practice)
Selling a product below the cost of it is illegal. It’s called “dumping”. In your car example, it makes some sense.
In the software industry, this argument is purely invalid as softwares duplication cost are virtually null.
Yet again, we’re talking about ‘cloning’ as in a new implementation of an idea, not a strict copy of a code. And this is perfectly legal.
“When microsoft released first version of windows, they clonned mac os interface. In order to make Mac OS, Apple has clonned the GUI concept from Xerox, but no one seems to remember that…. ”
Well, Apple thought that MS should have to pay them. But the courts didn’t agree. Because the Windows interface was not a clone of the Mac interface, and the courts ruled that graphical user interfaces and icons were to generic to be patented.
But this is a lot different than say, Evolution, which is practically a direct clone of Outlook, or GAWK which is an EXACT clone of the enhanced version of AWK developed by Bell Labs.
When microsoft released first version of windows, they clonned mac os interface. In order to make Mac OS, Apple has clonned the GUI concept from Xerox, but no one seems to remember that….
So, my friend, MS and apple both have to pay for Xerox the “privilage” of GUI concept, right?
In fact, Apple INDEED paid Xerox. That was not the case of microsoft.
“The “derived work” clause in the license doesn’t seem right (fair). By US law it couldn’t be considered null since it’s unreasonable (in my country it would!). I doubt they could have an issue here…”
That’s will be for the courts to decide. In general, you are right. Derived works are not copyright violations. But if SCO can prove that its code is in there, it’s not a derived work. It is a copy. And that is a vioation.
Information cannot be copyrighted.
“So SCO should cease to act childish and present real/valid proof about it’s claims, go to court if needed, try to solve this issue as an resposible adult would (not resorting to bad mouth, FUD, NDA’s and such).”
They are going to court. The rest of it is just typical rable rousing that is common in any high profile court case. It’s not unique to this.
“UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE!… INNOCENT!”
This is civil law, not criminal law. The burden of proof is a lot lower in civil law. It’s not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is “reasonable evidence to believe that copyright was violated.”
“In the software industry, this argument is purely invalid as softwares duplication cost are virtually null.”
It isn’t invalid. Because R&D costs are included in that.
“@anonymous (coward?)”
I assume this makes you a slashdot reader. Which is enough in my book to mean you shouldn’t be taken seriously.
“That and the fact that IE wasn’t a clone of Mosaic, it was a clone of Netscape that was once the dominant browser (IE was based on Mosaic) make your argument null and void.”
It was a clone of Mosaic. It even included (includes?) Mosaic code that Microsoft licensed.
The article does not say that their is no evidence that SCO’s claims are invalid. I think David Adams needs to learn how to read.
The article merely says that SCO claims aren’t entirely implausable. Although after all that SCO have been claiming recently, I am of the opinion that they are incapable of telling the truth and any claim they make is inherently implausable.
“Eric Raymond? Give me a break. No one takes Eric Raymond seriously. He’s the worst form of image that Linux could possibly want. (The red neck gun toting anarchist)”
Well judging from Bill Thompson’s picture he’s the one who looks like a “redneck gun-toting anarchist”.
“Well judging from Bill Thompson’s picture he’s the one who looks like a “redneck gun-toting anarchist”.”
Don’t know. Possibly. Eric Raymond definately is based on his political essays and interviews I have read of him. (Interestingly, his Web site is actually blocked by Net Nanny)
But this is a lot different than say, Evolution, which is practically a direct clone of Outlook
Then why isn’t MS threatening to sue Ximian?
In fact, Apple INDEED paid Xerox. That was not the case of microsoft.
Uh, no. Xerox sued Apple for IP infringement, and lost.
…well, it sure ain’t held by MS. Read this fine piece titled: “Stupid Microsoft Tricks: Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat”
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030828.html
Just two points:
1) If SCO wasn’t bringing suit and someone simply asked Linus and the core group to demonstrate how the make every effort to assure that proprietary code stays out of Linx, would answers like this really be satisfactory:
— “Trust Us”, and ,
–“The burden of proof is on the accuser. We don’t need to prove anything until someone proves we cheated.”
2) Who said Linux has the high moral ground? Open source is just one kind of software development scheme. There’s nothing any more or any less immoral or moral about closed proprietary code. It’s just a choice. Since when did guys like Raymond and Stallman become moral arbiters?
Uh, no. Xerox sued Apple for IP infringement, and lost.
Hmm… if I remember, Jobs paid Xerox a huge amount of $$ for a visit in the palo alto research center; Xerox sued later Apple for IP infringement, but I thought it was settled. I am perhaps wrong, but that what I remembered.
Anyway I’m against software patents 🙂
And please people, stop using the “IP” acronym, because it’s a fuzzy buzzword, regrouping totally differents rights.
For example, software patents, copyrights, trademarks … totally different things. But sure, for some, it’s better to confuse people and be happy to call all of that “IP” rights.
It’s amusing to see the Microsoft apologists arguing over cloned software being copyright infringement. They certainly seem to have selective memory about Microsofts past IP sins. Try your arguments on Stac the people who wrote Stacker compression software which M$ ripped off after failing to buy the company. Tell that to the number of other small companies that M$ negotiated deals with only to drop them like a hot potatoe after learning enough of their IP to make their own copy of it. The legacy of Microsofts “respect” of others IP is just a google away!
Also this BBC article is just so much nonesense. The Linux community has made every effort to work with SCO to resolve any IP issues. It is SCO on their high horse trying to keep all the cards hidden and bluff users into buying their licence without proving it is needed. No software developer either closed source or open source can do the kind of code inspection the article states. If I cannot view your source code then how can I ensure that no one stole it from you and include it in my project? Will M$ allow me to audit their code to ensure none of my IP is in their software?
“Then why isn’t MS threatening to sue Ximian?”
AFAIK (I could be wrong about this), Ximian does not run on Windows. That’s one reason. And the second reason, with the legal trouble that Microsoft is in right now, they aren’t in much of a position to sue anyone. (Except for Lindows, which personally I think is a valid lawsuit since Lindows is likely to cause consumer confusion.)
“Try your arguments on Stac the people who wrote Stacker compression software which M$ ripped off after failing to buy the company. ”
Stac Electronics also sued Microsoft. And won.
“The legacy of Microsofts “respect” of others IP is just a google away!”
It’s the Linux double standard that pisses me off. Linux users are the first people to complain about Microsoft not respecting IP, and yet Linux is as bad or even worse than Microsoft when it comes to not respecting IP
David Adams is anti linux and he make no effort to show otherwise. It doesn’t matter anyways. face it, Linux is here and it is not going away. but if it strokes your comfort zone to tell yourself otherwise then so be it.
those that know better should just ignor the post altogether.
it is a shame to see this site reduced to such pettiness.
There is a better analogy than cars to illustrate how software patents are stupid : music.
Patenting a software, or an idea, is exactly like patentiing rock-and-roll. Imagine Elvis could patent rock-and-roll : does that mean that Bill Haley would not be able to play “rock around the clock” ? Software is exactly the same : to protect software or songs, there are copyright laws, these are sufficient.
Then if you play “Blue Suede Shoes” you need to pay to Elvis (now the owners of his rights). However, you still may compose a rock-and-roll song, play it and charge (or not) for it.
Software and IP works exactly the same : one should not be able to patent an idea, because it is unfair. An industrial implementation is ok though, i.e. the code, but copyright laws are enough to protect the code. But if you find another code to do the same thing, this is not illegal.
(in the example, take any other IP, like books, and it works the same. Agatha Christie should have the rights on “thriller” genre ?)
Anonymous Linux is as bad or even worse than Microsoft when it comes to not respecting IP
Prove it !!! Open source has nothing to hide ! We show the code in Free software. There is nothing more fair. If SCO claims it is theirs, ANYONE ELSE could do the same, the Pope, Bush, E.T. !! SCO is the one that has bad faith in that story. Prove it by showing your code !
AFAIK (I could be wrong about this), Ximian does not run on Windows.
That’s irrelevant. You are not protected from Patent or Copyright infringement because you run on a different computer platform.
And the second reason, with the legal trouble that Microsoft is in right now, they aren’t in much of a position to sue anyone.
With a 40G$ war chest, they can damn well sue anyone they please if they are likely to win. No, the real reason they won’t sue is that you can legally copy functionality all you want, as long as you don’t infringe on patents and copyrights. As long as you stay within these bounds you respect IP laws – just as the great majority of OSS developers have done.
(Except for Lindows, which personally I think is a valid lawsuit since Lindows is likely to cause consumer confusion.)
Well, it seems that so far judges disagree with you. They, unlike you, do not consider consumers to be utterly stupid by definition. I agree with that – customers are much more intelligent than you give them credit for. I’ve tested it around me: even those who still confused MS Office with MS Windows didn’t think that Lindows was from Microsoft.
Actually, MS could lose big if it went on with this trial: Windows could be considered too generic a term to be trademarked, and they would lose the exclusive right to their biggest brand!
Face it: only an idiot could confuse Lindows with Windows. And only an pro-MS, anti-Linux shill would say with a straight that confusion between the two is not only possible, but likely.
It’s the Linux double standard that pisses me off.
There is no double standard: either you violate copyright and/or patents, or you don’t. From a strict legal sense, MS has broken IP laws, the Linux developers haven’t.
Linux is as bad or even worse than Microsoft when it comes to not respecting IP
Another unsubstanciated argument. So far, there have been no proven IP infringements involving Linux. None. On the other other hand, there have been multiple examples of proven IP infringements by Microsoft. Therefore, you statement is false: Linux is not as bad or even worse than Microsoft when it comes to respecting IP. On the contrary, Microsoft has been much worse from an IP point of view, while Linux has so far been exemplary in its respect for IP.
In other words, you clearly have an anti-Linux agenda and are just spreading FUD.
“does that mean that Bill Haley would not be able to play “rock around the clock” ?”
Um… Actually, Bill Haley cannot play Rock Around the Clock without paying Elvis’s estate. Whether Elvis’s estate chooses to enforce that or not is their decision.
“Then if you play “Blue Suede Shoes” you need to pay to Elvis (now the owners of his rights).”
Once again, technically you do. If you are going to play Blue Suede Shoes in public, technically, you need to license the song from Elvis’s estate. Once again, just because Elvis’s estate isn’t enforcing it does not mean it is legal.
“Software and IP works exactly the same : one should not be able to patent an idea, because it is unfair.”
You still don’t get it. When you are going to stop bying into Richard “Spinmeister” Stallman’s FUD on software patents? What is being patented is a specific algorithm. And no, copyright law is not good enough to protect those. Like I said before, all I have to do is reverse my < and > signs, change my “while” statements to “until” statements, and I’m no longer in violation of a copyright, even though I have stolen someone else’s IP.
Actually he has an anti-GPL agenda : suddenly he will find the BSD code is nice, since you can take it without counterpart, like MS did with the TCP/IP stack in Windows NT (and maybe 2000).
Suddenly, with BSD, he does not think it is cloning this time… Anti-GPL zealots are all the same.
Bill Haley cannot play Rock Around the Clock without paying Elvis’s estate
Really ? why ? why if he plays his own song, he should pay Elvis ? Why Elvis should have the right on any rock-and-roll song ?
What is being patented is a specific algorithm.
Bullshit ! So explain to me why Adobe was able to patent dynamic tabs (in some tools) and why Apple has a patent on font hinting (for True Types). Why Amazon could patent the “one click” : what is the algorithm ? It is an idea !
“Prove it !!! Open source has nothing to hide ! We show the code in Free software.”
Examples of GNU / Linux not respecting IP:
– Linux itself
– GAWK
– Evolution
– Lindows
– Samba
– XFCE
– Lesstif
“”2) Who said Linux has the high moral ground? Open source is just one kind of software development scheme. There’s nothing any more or any less immoral or moral about closed proprietary code. It’s just a choice. Since when did guys like Raymond and Stallman become moral arbiters?””
Absolutely. In at least one way GPLed software is less ethical IMO.
Consider the usual business model of GPLed software (Note the word business, I’m not talking about free (As in beer) software here.), with profits dependent on charging for support.
I find it very difficult to believe that expecting those who need help to pay the bulk of costs is more ethical than sharing the costs among all users of the software. If one was providing food could one only charge the people who were starving and expect oneself to be called ethical?
“Really ? why ? why if he plays his own song, he should pay Elvis ? Why Elvis should have the right on any rock-and-roll song ?”
Nevermind. I missed this one.
Examples of GNU / Linux not respecting IP:
– Linux itself
– GAWK
– Evolution
– Lindows
– Samba
– XFCE
– Lesstif
Nope. All of these are legal, and therefore respect IP laws. In other words, you are full of it.
Examples of GNU / Linux not respecting IP:
– Linux itself
– GAWK
– Evolution
– Lindows
– Samba
– XFCE
– Lesstif
Show me the copied code…
“Why Amazon could patent the “one click” : what is the algorithm ? It is an idea !”
I’m not going to go there again. Because unless you have been living in a cave you know that this has already been debated to death on here.
Last time I am going to say it. The Amazon patent was dumb. But that’s like saying “let’s make murder legal because every once in awhile the system fails and we convict an innocent person. So lets just not prosecute anyone”.
The patent system has problems. That does NOT mean it should just be thrown out.
Once again, GNU people want it thrown out so that they can freeload easier. They want to be able to steal everyone else’s IP with immunity.
They want to be able to steal everyone else’s IP with immunity.
Like MS with the TCP/IP stack from BSD then…
GPL developpers share what they write ! They have 100% right to do what they want with their code, and in which condition it can be disseminated. That’s all.
You want to make us believe the problem is IP. But it is not. You are just upset against GPL because it is conditional sharing. Because you cannot take it away without conditions. You don’t like GPL ? Don’t use it ! Other people do like it and do nice things with it. They can motivate other people because it is fair.
“With a 40G$ war chest, they can damn well sue anyone they please if they are likely to win. No, the real reason they won’t sue is that you can legally copy functionality all you want, as long as you don’t infringe on patents and copyrights.”
Layout can be copyrighted. So no, you cannot copy functionality all you want. Example, Apple sent a cease and desist letter to the people who were cloning Aqua for Windowblinds. Apple claimed it was a violation of their copyright. They were probably right.
“Well, it seems that so far judges disagree with you. They, unlike you, do not consider consumers to be utterly stupid by definition.”
“Actually, MS could lose big if it went on with this trial: Windows could be considered too generic a term to be trademarked, and they would lose the exclusive right to their biggest brand! ”
Nope. Because Microsoft is only claiming the trademark when it comes to computer operating systems. It’s a perfectly valid trademark. Microsoft has never once filed a frivolous lawsuit over it. Example, they never tried to sue X Windows, and they never tried to sue GNOME or KDE for daring to call that box that pops up with icons “a window”. Their trademark is very specific and perfectly valid.
“Face it: only an idiot could confuse Lindows with Windows.”
Considering that the vast majority of people who buy computers at Walmart are completely computer illiterate, I disagree. Confusion is likely.
“There is no double standard: either you violate copyright and/or patents, or you don’t. From a strict legal sense, MS has broken IP laws, the Linux developers haven’t.”
That remains to be seen. And yes, Linux developers have broken IP laws. It’s just that so far, they have never been prosecuted for it.
“Therefore, you statement is false: Linux is not as bad or even worse than Microsoft when it comes to respecting IP.”
Spoken like a true Linux zealot. You only want to go by the law when it is convienant for you to do so. The rest of the time you want to say the law hinders inovation, etc. You want the law to protect the freeloaders and punish the people who actually spend money to develop this stuff.
“Nope. All of these are legal, and therefore respect IP laws. In other words, you are full of it.”
Once again, you only want to use the law in your arguments when it is convinenent for you to do so. The rest of the time you want to throw it out.
Linux is a complete clone of UNIX. GAWK is a complete clone of AWK. They are violations of IP.
“You want to make us believe the problem is IP. But it is not. You are just upset against GPL because it is conditional sharing.”
No. I am upset with GPL because it devalues the software industry. I’m upset with GPL because it steals other people’s ideas and gives them away for free.
You clearly don’t get it from an economic standpoint.
Linux is a complete clone of UNIX. GAWK is a complete clone of AWK. They are violations of IP.
Mwahahaha… So when MS decided to put the “close” X button on top right of a window in Windows 95 (it was not there in Windows 3.1), it was IP violation of Unix GUIs. It is NOT the same code ! No IP violation here ! SVery soon you will tell us thatb MS is proprietary of the “Operanding System” concept… OK I don’t want to debate anymore with so serious argumentation.
BTW, if Linux has never violated IP, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about should you? And you can stop your stupid anti-software patent crusade, because Linux has never violated any patents anyway? It plays by the book according to you… But wait… You want software patents abolished… You must be afraid of something then… Like maybe the fact that Linux has violated software patents and Linux has finally gotten big enough where the patent holders are starting to take notice.
“Mwahahaha… So when MS decided to put the “close” X button on top right of a window in Windows 95 (it was not there in Windows 3.1), it was IP violation of Unix GUIs. It is NOT the same code !”
This is a strawman argument. The close button in the same place does NOT constitute a violation. However, if it had been an exact clone, it would have been a violation.
No. I am upset with GPL because it devalues the software industry. I’m upset with GPL because it steals other people’s ideas and gives them away for free.
So you recognize your argumentation is just an unfair try to destroy the GPL, nothing to do with real IP protection. Whatever it takes, even if it had to be against Free Speech, you would be happy with an interdiction of GPL softwares. Maybe I don’t get it economically, but at least I would not renounce to my basic freedoms for making MS richer.
Because if you were logical with you IP story, you should criticize BSD code too.
I’m not much into the habits of trolls but this one seems very agressive, so many words, so many comments, yet each and every one of them contains exactly the same idea, rephrased and repeared to death.
Get it Linux people, trying to convice this guy that creating similar functionality in your apps is not an IP violation is like trying to convince a wall to move…
David Adams is anti linux and he make no effort to show otherwise. It doesn’t matter anyways. face it, Linux is here and it is not going away. but if it strokes your comfort zone to tell yourself otherwise then so be it.
What a laugh! OSNews has been accused of being pro- and anti- every OS.
FYI, I’ve been using Linux since 1995 off and on, have founded four conmpanies that ran Linux for various things, OSNews runs on a Linux server, and I worked at Red Hat for several years and still own 8000 shares of Red Hat stock.
and I own Microsoft.
get real.
Spoken like a true Linux zealot. You only want to go by the law when it is convienant for you to do so.
Nope. The law doesn’t prevent reproducing functionality. Meanwhile, you claim that programs like Evolution are against the law: prove it. Show me what laws it breaks, and how it breaks them. In fact, you are only spreading FUD.
BTW, if Linux has never violated IP, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about should you?
And that is why I’m not worried in the least. SCO will lose, big time.
But wait… You want software patents abolished…
You are confusing me with another poster. I’m not that hot about software patents, but that is irrelevant, because the SCO suit is not about software patents, and so far no one has accused Linux developers of breaking patents.
Perhaps you would like to back up your baseless accusations with some data?
The truth remains: Microsoft has be recognized guilty of IP infringement, Linux developers have not. That’s the verifiable truth and so far you have not presented any evidence to the contrary.
“Nope. All of these are legal, and therefore respect IP laws. In other words, you are full of it.”
Once again, you only want to use the law in your arguments when it is convinenent for you to do so. The rest of the time you want to throw it out.
No, it is you who are trying to present IP laws as if they were something else than what they really are. All of the programs you mentioned are legal, and therefore they are not violations of IP.
hmmm it appears topspeed now posts anonymously.
I don’t think that the Linux community (we) is showing any disrespect for IP, on the other hand, IP and ideas are the driving forces of the opensource community, not profit (at least with some of us idealists) … and IBM is not a particularly benevolent institution, it is a corporation out for profits with a mixed history on moral and principles! And I think the Linux community has never dismissed that SCO may have a legitimate case … we simply have been trying to urge SCO to show us more concrete evidence; it has always been the ways SCO handles the situation that the Linux community disagree with! The rhetorics used by SCO, they are getting more militant about the whole opensource movement; it is ultimately an idealogical debate here, and no matter what is the motivation behind SCO’s actions now, it is a challenge to the philosophy behind the opensource movement. So, it is not simply a moral issue here anymore, it is not only about whether IBM (or some other Linux developers) violated SCO’s IP, it is a discourse between two conflicting idealogies … and some corporate developers (MicroSoft, SCO etc) simply cannot evision the value and reasons of collaborate (non-porfit) development …
What we are asking here? Show us some concrete evidence, stop putting out unsupported threats to Linux developers, users, and distributors! Respect our philosophy even if you don’t agree (we are not out to distroy for-profit propreitary software, although we are precieved as a threat, it is how a free country works) … and most of all, if SCO demands respect of their IP, then show some respects for thousand of Linux developers’ IP, stop being a hypocrite!
I say we keep our “Moral high ground”. Yeah, sounds good.
I seriously doubt that a single corporation exists anywhere that at some point in its existance has not abused at least one individual in some way one time. Just an opinion if you will, a postulate I’m working on over a PC-Weary, no flames please. Neither to say individuals have not abused companies. (Usually the ones in control, but not always…)
Ok, SCO has the right to sue IBM to find out if the courts think IBM has screwed up. Fine, IBM can afford it.
SCO (really Caldera a Linux distributor) may have the law on its side when asking for linux users (regardless of whether they are corporate or individual) for a license to its IP.
That doesnt mean it is the “right” thing to do, however. Just because the laws of township, state, federal or country govt. “allow” you to pursue a course of action does not mean its “right” or “acceptable.”
I think the correct course would be to contact the OSS community and say “Hey this code is ours, take it out of Linux now…” I’m sure the community would be happy to oblige. SCO on the other hand is saying “We’re not proving anything, we just want you to pay us…” That is something Linux users the world over can object to – its called “extortion”, legally pursued or otherwise.
Just because IBM may have abused SCO/Caldera/Novell/AT&T Unix IP doesnt mean they “should” ask for a pile of cash from anyone aside from IBM. (However, if they succeed at this, I’m going to ask for a couple hundred thousand from all the companies that have ever upset me…
And I figured out what to do with all the kids propigating virii and mal-ware – dont arrest them, give ’em system admin jobs! Let them deal with their own spawn, that should teach them some respect.
Show us the infringing code, and if it is indeed infringing, it will be excised, immediately.
What is the problem? If SCO have issues with Linux, let the kernel developers know what the issues are, and they will disappear.
There is simply no excuse for SCO’s lying and irrational behaviour, and if it attracts ridicule, it is for damn good reason.
The sad truth is that SCO obviously just don’t understand that AT&T SysV UNIX is not worth anything any more. It lost practically all of it’s value when the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit ruled that BSD could legally distribute their UNIX under the BSD license.
Any code shared between SysV and BSD falls under the BSD license, and can be used under the terms of the BSD license, and no amount of spin will change that.
Trying to claim that:
a) The GPL is invalid
b) the concept of a ‘Derivative work’ applies to work that does not incorporate or depend on the original work.
c) License fees are payable for unspecified, unverifiable, unproven copyright infringments
are all clearly stupid, and any reasonable person, and probably even 99% of lawyers would agree that SCO is acting in a deceptive, obstructive and possibly (in most countries with good consumer protection laws) illegal fashion.
As such, it is no wonder that the entire Linux community considers SCO’s claims complete garbage.
Give us clear evidence, instead of lies, constant revision of claims, back-pedaling, hypocrisy and what looks, to the layman, like serious fraud instead of legitimate, ethical corporate practice, and you won’t have this ‘controversy’.
Moreover, SCO redistributes GPL code, like Samba. But probably our attbi troll will teach us that it is not stealing in that case, that this is good for business. And he dares complaining about “double standards”…
“hey english colonies…stop dumping that tea in the harbor…it might turn out that you actually DO OWE ENGLAND those taxes…then again maybe you don’t owe them. either way get off your high horse”
“you guys might be wrong…or you might be right…either way…stop defending yourselves….thanks…–the insightful bbc journalist”
foad
I wonder if some of these people get paid by Microsoft to spout the bullshit they do.
1) Cloning is *not* illegal. If cloning was illegal, we never would have had the computer industry! IBM would have sued Compaq for cloning their BIOS and that would have been the end of that. Copying an interface and implementing it is not illegal. Its not even unethical. Usually, interfaces are copied because the authors want their software to be compatible with the older software. That’s why Linux uses the UNIX interfaces and that’s why Samba uses the CIFS interfaces. The hard part of a programming project is actually designing and writing the code. In this respect, OSS software is usually 100% original. The anonymous user at attbi.com uses the term IP in a very fuzzy sense. IP has a concrete definition: copyrights and patents. If OSS software contains copied code, or infringes on a patent, then it is a violation of IP law. Otherwise, its 100% legal.
2) The anonymous poster from attbi.com uses some truely flawed logic, along the lines of “you shouldn’t be worried if you have nothing to hide.” It is a well established ettiquete in debate that such arguments are meaningless.
3) OSS software is worried about patents not because they want to freely steal the ideas of honest corporations like Microsoft, but because software patents are inherently flawed. All too often, they lead to patents that are obvious soluations to a given problem. For example, to a judge, creating a table of function pointers to dispatch functionality based on a type seems pretty original and worthy of a patent. To anybody who knows programming, its brain-dead obvious! Further, software patents stifle innovation. Computer algorithms are directly equivilent to mathematical algorithms (via formal mathematical theories no less!) Mathematical algorithms cannot be patented because, (a) they are just expressions of truth, and (b) doing so would grind mathematics to a halt, as it is crucial in such fields that successive work builds upon previous work. The majority of pundits (like Adams here) have no understanding of the theoretical basis of computing, and thus don’t understand mathematically sound arguments against software patents.
4) Its the height of arrogance to call OSS software developers “free-loaders.” The commercial software industry is built upon free software. Most of the nice ideas that Microsoft claims are its “innovations” (ex. everything in C#) were devised by academics (who almost always release their software under a free license) years ago. If cloning is illegal, than Windows NT shouldn’t even exist because all the microkernel ideas its original design is based on where made by academics who released their code in the form of the Mach microkernel. Besides, the OSS community fights through the layers of bullshit the commercial companies mette out (closed protocols, obfuscated file formats) and still manages to write good software that interoperates with the rest of the world. There is no sense of morality in anybody who would claim that these hard working people are freeloaders.
>>I find it very difficult to believe that expecting those who need help to pay the bulk of costs is more ethical than sharing the costs among all users of the software. If one was providing food could one only charge the people who were starving and expect oneself to be called ethical?
Agree, but the view from here includes a lot of open source “thinkers” who seem to consider charging money for anything is immoral.
Let’s accept the fact that there may be IP infringing code within the Linux kernel or other OSS projects. The conundrum is what could the developers have done differently to prevent the IP violations? It is not practical to do a search on patents, the state of software patents is out of control. Any idea, new or old, could be interpreted to be in violation of some patent, posibly even multiple overlapping patents. Given the ad-hoc nature of OSS I think they are doing the only reasonable thing they can do, that is leaving it all out in the open to be challenged. While their intentions may be noble (or not) it does not mean that mistakes don’t happen or that no one ever took a “short cut” that they should not have.
My problem with SCO is their lack of proof. Point out
the violations, and if they are valid get the code replaced. This would not make a difference in any law suit for damages and since the code is widely distributed would not destroy any evidence. Failing that why can’t SCo sit tight (and quiet) until this is resolved in the courts? I can’t think of any other IP lawsuit that has had this much grandstanding without presentation of evidence.
(Deleted section on OSS cloning of software since it is not pertinent to the article.)
This must be Topspeed the troll gracing us with his rantings again as no one can be this consistently moronic.
Troll> Examples of GNU / Linux not respecting IP:
Troll> – Linux itself
Troll> – GAWK
Troll> – Evolution
Troll> – Lindows
Troll> – Samba
Troll> – XFCE
Troll> – Lesstif
Well – let’s look at all these individually.
Linux – PLEASE show all the interested readers ONE verifiable example of IP infringement by Linux. Show us the code in Linux, the original code source and the copyright or patent applicable to such infringement. You can’t, it’s as simple as that.
GAWK – (This is so off the wall I can’t believe that I am actually responding to it.) Hmmmmm….let’s see:
From the comp.lang.awk FAQ:
—– Cut Here —–
6. What well-maintained awk-compatible languages are there?
6.1 nawk
AT&T’s `new awk’ — probably nobody uses the `old awk’ anymore.
interpreter
might NOT be well-maintained
6.2 gawk
from the GNU project
interpreter
6.3 mawk
from Michael Brennan
interpreter
6.4 tawk
from Thompson Automation
interpreter
compiler
MS-Windows DLL
6.5 mksawk
interpreter
compiler
from Mortice Kern Systems (MKS)
an old version of mksawk is shipped as `nawk’ on Ultrix and OSF/1.
6.6 awkcc
translator to C
might NOT be well-maintained
6.7 Brian Kernighan’s awkc++
translator to C++
experimental
<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/bwk/awkc++.ps>
6.8 awk2c
translator to C
uses GNU awk libraries extensively, and is subject to GPL
might NOT be well-maintained
6.9 a2p
translator to Perl
comes with Perl
didn’t used to handle multiple concatenations: e.g., var=”x” “y” “z”
-> must be in pairs: e.g., var=( “x” “y” ) “z”
didn’t used to handle redirection: e.g., { print(“data”) > “filename” }
-> no known workaround
6.10 awka
translator to C (comes with library)
based on mawk
subject to GPL
<http://awka.sourceforge.net/>
—– Cut Here —–
Hmmmm ….. 8 or 9 non-ATT awk-compatible implementations. Yep – that sure looks like an infringement to me. And if you really want to support commercial software – go here:
http://www.tasoft.com/main.html – and get a commercial implementation of a AWK compiler.
As to your moronic comment:
“…GAWK which is an EXACT clone of the enhanced version of AWK developed by Bell Labs.” You might want to do some research before making accusations like that.
You might want to look here:
http://www.gnu.org/manual/gawk-3.0.3/html_chapter/gawk_1.html#SEC2
The ‘awk’ language is described in the POSIX standard.
Evolution – please tell us what Evolution is infringing on.
It’s a GUI-based MUA. Wow! IF your next comment is that it infringes on the look&feel of LookOut, the go and look at the Zmail MUA of years past. Back in the early 90’s it was a feature-full MUA on Unix and guess what – LookOut has a number of features that were originially developed in the Zmail code base and it’s look and feel. Pot/kettle/black.
Lindows – what’s Lindows? 😉
SAMBA – WoW! From the SAMBA home page:
Samba is an Open Source/Free Software suite that provides seamless file and print services to SMB/CIFS clients.
Guess what? The SMB/CIFS protocols are published and widely available on the Internet. Like here:
http://www.ubiqx.org/cifs/
and here:
http://www.samba.org/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html
It’s a free and open implementation of published work. Wow! That’ll go over big in court.
XFCE – is a lightweight desktop and development environment. So? It has visual some similarities to CDE – if and only if the end-user configures the environment that way. Other than that it is just another X environment (a nice one for low powered machined I might add).
LessTif – jeez – we’re reaching now…… LessTif is the OSS community’s answer to the old license-laden Motif libraries and development environnment. It’s a source compatible development environment meaning that code written in Motif can be compiled and ran in the LessTif environment. No more – no less. The LessTif API is not even really complete as they say themselves here:
http://www.lesstif.org/FAQ.html#QU1.0
If you’re all gung-ho about XFCE and LessTif as IP infringers – tell The Open Group – you know the Unix trademark holders of record.
“Motif is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries.”
And – while you are over there – look at this:
http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/
So ….. all in all ….. I say you are a troll. This information is widely available to everyone at a place called Google. It seems that you can’t even research your tirades before spouting off like a two-year old.
If you’re looking to piss people off and prove that you are a troll – you do an admirable job. If you’re looking to educate people – you fail terribly.
Arguing by analogy about a lawsuit about which none of the debaters can be considered knowledgable is risky at best, but so long as we’re tossing analogies about cars and GUI’s around, here goes:
— Someone posted the thought that SCO’s claims were analagous to GM making a copy of a Ford product and giving it away. That’s wrong. SCO’s suit against IBM is more analagous to GM breaking into a Ford warehouse, stealing thousands of, say, Ford fuel injectors, and putting them in Buicks.
— Making analogies down the “Microsoft stole the GUI from Apple, who stole it from Xerox…” chain miss the point. Although there have been lawsuits over interestingly similar GUI’s, I don’t recall that Xerox or Apple ever claimed someone stole their GUI code. Remember, SCO claims IBM patched SCO-owned code into Limux.
on court….so better hurry to clean up
that there *may be* SysV code in Linux
that there *may be* GPLed code in SCO OpenServer.
Lets accept the fact that there *may be* GPLed code in Microsoft Windows
Lets accept the fact that the queen of england *may be* a giant reptilian extra-terrestrial.
Accept all the maybes you like, I for one will not be cajoled into taking a weak stance on this issue.
SCO needs to put up or shut up, stop lying, and start acting sanely.
If the Linux community doesn’t stand up for themselves, just who do you think is going to?
But clean up what?
True enough, and I agree. SCO does need to “put up or shut up” as you so eloquently put it. My point is that I at least don’t buy the argument that there is no way that Linux is in violation of SCO’s IP. It is one thing to say “prove it” another to say “there is no way you are right.”
Meph
Re: Enloop
The analogies were not in response to the SCO case, but in response to the claims the anonymous poster made that OSS infringes IP because they clone commercial products. So the analogies hold as they are.
Re: Mepisto
The reason that the OSS people have taken that attitude is because of SCO’s intensely stupid behavior. For example, showing 30 year old code from a book as “evidence” of code copying. Also, the OSS community needs to take an agressive stance against SCO, because there is a very high FUD factor at work. Even if the case is proven baseless in 2005, a huge amount of damage could have been done to the community by then. It harks back to the BSD days, where the AT&T lawsuit, which the BSD folks eventually won, set back the FreeBSD project several years.
It is one thing to say “prove it” another to say “there is no way you are right.”
Yes, but I think everybody agree on that !
OSS doesn’t magically prevents copyright violation, it’s always possible.
But you could realize that the odds are quite low in fact, because as the source is visible — it would be stupid for a developer to do that. As soon as it will be revealed, the developer’s reputation will fall out very badly… not a good thing if you want to continue working in the software world 🙂
And you could add that most people in OSS are proud of their work, and that’s a reason of their involvement. Direct copy isn’t worth it.
So … a developer doing willingful copyright violation could happend. It’s unlikely imho, but it could happend (sometimes people are stupid).
If you took the problem in reverse, the odds of copyright violation of OSS software (OSS code added in proprietary software) if far more likely to happend. After all, OSS code is available to everybody, not proprietary code. And in fact, evidences are that thoses sorts of violations exists.
What is more likely to happend, and could be the case with SCO, is submission of code by a developer who think he has the right to do it, while in fact he has not. That’s a more realistic scenario, and it’s the SCO position.
But any way, OSS code acceptation mechanism is surely cleaner than proprietary project, as by nature the violations are less common, because everybody could easily spot them. I don’t see any other possibilities than to accept code from developers, and remove them on demand if a problem is revealed. I don’t see at all how it’s worse than the submission of code in a proprietary software shop (in fact it’s better imho).
Anyway…the way SCO treated the whole case doesn’t incitate people to take them very seriously. Their claims are so fuzzy and stranges (the derivative work from IBM … as long as IBM do something on Unix it belongs to SCO ? how realistic is that ??), and the way SCO directors sold shares…
Seriously, now. What was the first response of the Linux community?
“Tell us where the infringing code is and we’ll remove it ASAP!”
Uh, sorry, dude, but that was hardly the first response. The actual first response was, “No freakin’ way! And we’ll DOS-attack your ass for even suggesting it!”
But you could realize that the odds are quite low in fact, because as the source is visible — it would be stupid for a developer to do that.
We’re talking about 30 million lines of code. There’s simply no practical way that care is being taken to prevent copyright violation with that kind of volume. It’s an honor system — and if you’re code is being stolen, you probably have no idea that’s being done until somebody points out some new Linux widget that didn’t exist until now.
Even worse, some companies are forbidden from looking at the Linux sources because of IP issues. They don’t want to be tainted by even looking at the sources. So your comments regarding “transparency” are a joke, at best.
“[Linux users] criticise SCO for even hinting that Linux could be anything other than perfectly legal and clean, and support actions such as the recent denial of service attack on the SCO website.”
Could someone please direct this guy to Eric Raymond’s strong call for whoever was DDoSing SCO to stop?
Since when does Eric Raymond speak for all open source developers?
SCO does need to “put up or shut up” as you so eloquently put it.
The only obligation that SCO has is to a court of law. They don’t owe the Linux community any proof — because, frankly, all they will get in return (even if they’re right) is scorn. It’s a sucker’s gambit.
If SCO had left the fight in the court of law I would agree with you. But hey have not, they have intentionally and with malice attacked the welfare of Linux as both an OS and a business. They have sent letters stating effectively demanding money from companies currently using Linux.
Heck even thier public statements are not consistent. They have not changed what they are sueing about for 2 moths or so therefore I am hopeful that we have the final version of that. But through all of these actions not taking place in a court of law they have porvided nothing to back up thier demands or accusations. And that is what I have a problem with.
Sue IBM, fine. Sue Red Hat, fine. Demand licensing fees from people who use tier IP, fine. But prove it first.
Professional courtesy is something given to professionals, not the current pack of stupid clowns running and advising SCO.
SCO dropped any pretense of professionalism when they started saying and doing dumb things like claiming their conflict with IBM represents ‘the future of IP rights in the software industry’ and sending extortion letters to companies.
Respect is something you earn, not something that you can illegally inflate like SCO’s stock price.
SCO lost any respect the Linux community had for them when they tried to slap a ‘binary runtime license’ on Linux, which is incredibly insulting to anybody with any kind of investment – time, effort and code-wise, in Linux.
And, if you want people to believe you, it usually helps to tell the truth. SCO lost any hope of having the Linux community accept their lies when they said things like ‘We never intended to sue Linux users’ and ‘We believe the GPL is invalid’
Well, I know who I respect and trust to make a professional decision on this kind of issue, and thats why I’m with Linus Torvalds when I say that SCO are just totally off their rocker.
They must have some goddamn good crack in Utah, because that is surely what they are smoking.