The recent released new version of Nmap (a security scanner) refuses, despite the usage of GPL, any usage by SCO. This is valid for all nmap versions: “we hereby terminate SCO’s rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products“.
Nmap Refuses Usage by SCO
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
” The SCO lawyers assert that “by allowing unlimited copying and modification, [the GPL] conflicts with federal copyright law, which allows software buyers to make only a single backup copy.”
I love this statement, since it is not copyright law that says someone can only make one copy of software for backup purposes. That is determined by the license the software is distributed under.
yeah that’s an interesting point. Fyodor actually did nothing, he just stated the obvious. But what i’m really wondering about is “saying something about X which goes against X” (GPL == cancer, GPL == virus, GPL == not according to US constitution) is the same as “acting which isn’t allowed according to X”?
No, though it might be if X determined so:
5b) Should the licensee say anything whatsoever against this licence, his rights are thereby terminated.
I don’t know whether that would be a valid clause. But the GPL doesn’t include that.
SCO can say anything they like about the GPL or insult nmap’s author. That won’t terminate the licence. But should they say ‘we reject the GPL’ (and hence any particular licence based on it) or act accordingly (filing a bill calling it illegal is more than according, no matter what any dumbhead may think – or corrupt judge rule), then the licence terminates itself, if not by general law, by its own explicit clause.
It’s only derrisory that anyone should think that any ‘fork’ of nmap distributed by someone other than the original author is any less protected from bing distributed by a company that files a complaint against the product’s licence.
Well tyhen I guess the copyright owner can contest me in court cant he. Because I am sending fyodor my memo to SCO as well. If he decides to contest it, be my guest.
<<< The only way you can do this is to write the software from scratch, including NONE of the current nmap code. Then call it something different and place it under another license like BSD or whatever. Then SCO would be able to redistribute it. >>>
GPL code can be modified and distributed. If I take the Linux kernel and call it MyOS and i distribute it under the GPL I am allowed to do that as long as I abide by the terms of the GPL. I can take Nmap source code, change the name insert code and call it mapperX for example, and I have finished the Motif frontend for it which works very well and took me about 20 minutes, and as long as i keep the copyright notice intact that gives credit to Fyodor for his work then I am allowed to distribute this code, SCO is allowed to distribute this code in source and binary format.
As I stated I know several people will hate me for this move and I stress im not doing this for SCO, but the users of Open Server and UnixWare for which there are alot more than people think. My version is going to be OpenServer and UnixWare specific. Fyodor and the rest of your attitudes is not very Open Source friendly and the way i see it you guys are being two faced, you dont cite copyright law until you are afraid someone does what I am doing. As i stated, I emailed Fyodor and I am waiting for some kind of response. I dont think I will ever see one. I will do what i want and support whomever I wish. Im not a SCO shill, i am a supporter of open Source, something most of you advocates proclaim to be but you arent. For example, I am the only one who even promotes most of the tools available for Windows that are Open Source. No one else mentions them and I have done business of supporting Windows users and businesses who decide to use Open Source with Windows. Not very friendly of you guys.It appears to me and Im sure others that I and a just a handful of others are not biased and promote Open Source in itself and not platform specific for it.
<<< I noticed that your website is still using Linux. I was wondering when you were going to confirm your support of SCO by buying Unixware or Openserver. >>>
Actually my Linux site is catored to Linux, but it is created with Microsoft Frontpage. My personal site is created with Windows XP Pro and Windows Server 2003.
“As I stated I know several people will hate me for this move and I stress im not doing this for SCO, but the users of Open Server and UnixWare for which there are alot more than people think. My version is going to be OpenServer and UnixWare specific. Fyodor and the rest of your attitudes is not very Open Source friendly and the way i see it you guys are being two faced, you dont cite copyright law until you are afraid someone does what I am doing. As i stated, I emailed Fyodor and I am waiting for some kind of response. I dont think I will ever see one. I will do what i want and support whomever I wish. Im not a SCO shill, i am a supporter of open Source, something most of you advocates proclaim to be but you arent. For example, I am the only one who even promotes most of the tools available for Windows that are Open Source. No one else mentions them and I have done business of supporting Windows users and businesses who decide to use Open Source with Windows. Not very friendly of you guys.It appears to me and Im sure others that I and a just a handful of others are not biased and promote Open Source in itself and not platform specific for it.”
Actually I will always cite copyright law as I thoroughly believe in protecting the rights of others. I am a supporter of OpenSource and also support it on all platforms. Where I work I promoted and got installed OpenOffice.org and Apache on windows, so lets not go to that one. No one ever said that you can not distribute your code to whomever, unless I missed a post. Do what you like, and if it is legal then go for it. The only point I am trying to get across is that you can not take something, change a few words in it, and call it your own. A lot of people will and do distribute code all the time, as is allowed under the GPL. In order to do so all one must do is agree to the terms of the GPL. SCO has said in writing and filed to the courts they do not believe that to be valid, so do not have to follow it. They can use nmap all they want and have it. The only thing they are stopped from doing is distributing it with thier products. There is nothing at all stopping the end users from downloading and installing it themselves. I applaud your efforts to make a UNIXware and Open Server port so it is readily available to the end users. The end users then will not suffer from this, as they should not have to anyway. For the record, I support the effort to make sure that nmap will run on UNIXware and Open Server. As well I support that SCO should not be allowed to distribute it, as that is the wish of the copyright owner. For them to distribute it to me anyway, would be like me taking a book off the shelf, where clearly I am not supposed to copy it and hand it out, as that is written in the copyright notice, and copying it anyway if I feel that “That author does not have that right”. In that scenario I am still in the wrong, as what I think does not matter to the courts. Good luck.
GPL code can be modified and distributed. If I take the Linux kernel and call it MyOS and i distribute it under the GPL I am allowed to do that as long as I abide by the terms of the GPL. I can take Nmap source code, change the name insert code and call it mapperX for example, and I have finished the Motif frontend for it which works very well and took me about 20 minutes, and as long as i keep the copyright notice intact that gives credit to Fyodor for his work then I am allowed to distribute this code, SCO is allowed to distribute this code in source and binary format.
You don’t seem to understand copyright law or the GPL at all despite what you claim. You can do as you please and nothing will probably happen to you but if SCO decides to use your code then they will be subject to the same laws and restrictions that they would be subject to in distributing nmap. If SCO loses the the battle in court to distribute nmap they will not be allowed to distribute your version of nmap. It’s cut and dry copyright law. I’ve said it many times already but you don’t respond because you know I am right. The GPL does not transfer ownership. It only grants rights to distribute. The only way to avoid this is to completely rewrite nmap yourself, as I have already mentioned. In fact I have repeated myself over and over and you don’t respond.
you dont cite copyright law until you are afraid someone does what I am doing
This is more proof that you don’t understand the GPL. Copyright is what the GPL uses to enforce the license. Supporters of the GPL cite copyright all the time. Copyright is OSS’s friend. Patents are not. The two are very different.
m not a SCO shill, i am a supporter of open Source, something most of you advocates proclaim to be but you arent
That’s funny that you claim that because all I have ever seen you do is bash the open source community and support propietary software vendors.
So when are you going to make this fork available?
doing this and using the GPL is wrong, and they could be sued…however… that would be interesting since SCO says its invalid.. maybe they will say they own it.
In this thread, Roberto says:
“I dont defend SCO, I defend their users. I personally disagree with SCO but I am not willing to abandon the user base as are the others.”
“. I dont think the GPL is the greatest license in the world and to be truthful I agree with mos of SCO’s assertations of it.”
This guy is a known troll, and idiot and a big one at that. He has been caught lying here before and is at it again.
Don’t waste your time with this jerk. He cannot write coherently, and is wasting your time. I am positive he is a paid shill as he bad mouthes open source software and advocates any chance he gets.
<<< You don’t seem to understand copyright law or the GPL at all despite what you claim. You can do as you please and nothing will probably happen to you but if SCO decides to use your code then they will be subject to the same laws and restrictions that they would be subject to in distributing nmap. If SCO loses the the battle in court to distribute nmap they will not be allowed to distribute your version of nmap. It’s cut and dry copyright law. I’ve said it many times already but you don’t respond because you know I am right. The GPL does not transfer ownership. It only grants rights to distribute. The only way to avoid this is to completely rewrite nmap yourself, as I have already mentioned. In fact I have repeated myself over and over and you don’t respond. >>>
Copyright does not need to transfer to me. They will be able to distribute my fork of Nmap, as I stated dont do anything without making sure I am in the clear and fortunately in this case I am in the clear this argument is over, you have your opinion I know what I can and cant do so just leave it alone. Come tommorrow I will find out what SCO wishes to do. Either way, its forked and its ready to go.
<<< This is more proof that you don’t understand the GPL. Copyright is what the GPL uses to enforce the license. Supporters of the GPL cite copyright all the time. Copyright is OSS’s friend. Patents are not. The two are very different. >>>
Lets not even get into the patent dispute.
<<< That’s funny that you claim that because all I have ever seen you do is bash the open source community and support propietary software vendors. >>>
Thats true, I do bash the Open Source community but not the software that gets produced by the Open Source community. Over 90% of the open Source developers I do like and I get along with them. Some of the user base are the ones I dont like because that percentage of the user base for Open Source software are just as nuts as some in the Mac community. I do make contributions to some Open Source projects whether it be in the form of bug reports or code. Proprietary software makers have their place in this worl and I just dont see Open Source as the save all for IT and I do favor the BSD License more than I do the GPL.
<<< Don’t waste your time with this jerk. He cannot write coherently, and is wasting your time. I am positive he is a paid shill as he bad mouthes open source software and advocates any chance he gets. >>>
Paid shill huh? I do not bad mouth Open Source, just some of its advocates and zealots who just sit there and froth at the mouth and site mistruths about whether i can do something or not. In this case, sorry you can sit there and cite copyright law all you want, the point is i am right, you are wrong. Deal with it, learn to live with it.
From Roberto J. Dohnert’s ‘techblog’:
“I get the feeling IBM is hiding something, remember this is a company that has a habit of screwing its partners over. I personally disagree with Novells assessment of its ownership because I have read the Purchase Agreement and all the amendments and I do think SCO has the rights.”
I think that pretty much makes Roberto’s position on the whole SCO matter clear and he’s fully entitled to his opinion.
On that note…a wise man (or woman
once said..”Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one”
…I couldn’t have put it better myself.
You make no argument for why you think you have every right to allow SCO to distribute someone else’s copyrighted code. You also never give any supporting evidence about your assertion that the OSS community only cites copyright when they are afraid of someone doing what you are doing. Then you claim to like 90% of the open source community while I have never heard you utter a kind word about the community.
You just continue to say “I’m right and you’re wrong” while offering no proof. Meanwhile you’ve been bombarded with evidence from the other side without as much as a single explanation for your position. It is easy to see why people think you are a SCO shill or a troll. I am willing to accept the possibility that you are not but without any evidence to the contrary, it is starting to seem like they are right.
Im not a SCO shill, i am a support of open Source, something most of you advocates proclaim to be but you arent. For example, I am the only one who even promotes most of the tools available for Windows that are Open Source. No one else mentions them and I have done business of supporting Windows users and businesses who decide to use Open Source with Windows. Not very friendly of you guys.It appears to me and Im sure others that I and a just a handful of others are not biased and promote Open Source in itself and not platform specific for it.
Firstly, if you think I have it in for the users of Unixware and OpenServer just because their OS supplier’s gone cuckoo, you’re making the same mistake you’re accusing me of making.
Secondly, are you aware of the GPL QT-library porting effort? If you aren’t, the url is http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/
I’m sure they could use a hand.
Thirdly, are you the only guy supporting Open Source on Windows? I do some voluntary work at a Neighbourhood Net in a community centre, and it’s Windows-based. I also recommend using Mozilla, etc, whereever possible, and not just because of the cost. Mozilla’s more manageable, thus a more responsible tool.
Lastly, I do think you’re making a fool of yourself. Support the UnixWare and OpenServer user by all means, they’re the ones left holding the baby – but I think the SCO Group management have tainted themselves irrevocably with this case. And one must needs use a very, very long spoon when eating with that set.
Roberto, you seem to think that Fyodor is acting badly by dropping support for SCO products.
Do you really expect him to keep putting his own time into making sure his product is usable on SCO platforms when SCO is trying to get the courts to place his code in the public domain?
Free Software != Free Support.
If Fyodor doesn’t want to support Unixware (etc) then why should he donate his time? Feel free to do that work yourself. Throw your own money into it, but don’t expect him to.
In http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/AnswerAmendCC.10-24-03.pdf the court filing explicitly states (point 25) that SCO “denies that the GPL applies to any program whose authors commit to using it, denies enforceability or applicability of the GPL”.
So regardless of anything else, SCO has gone on the court record as denying that Fyodor can apply the GPL to his code, (and thus that you cannot apply it to your fork).
So then, under what license will they distribute the copyrighted code in “mapperX”?
Serious question – what’s to stop SCO from designating a “straw man”, “not affiliated” to SCO, and have the straw man distribute UnixWare-compatible packages of GPL’d tools? SCO could even offer bandwidth and storage space. They could then say “Oh but we’re not distributing any GPL’d stuff, that’s just a friend of ours.” When that particular “friend” is then also explicitly excluded , they could ask another “friend”.
Just wondering.
” From Roberto J. Dohnert’s ‘techblog’:
“I get the feeling IBM is hiding something, remember this is a company that has a habit of screwing its partners over. I personally disagree with Novells assessment of its ownership because I have read the Purchase Agreement and all the amendments and I do think SCO has the rights.” ”
I find his websites very informative and sometimes I agree with things he does say on this and on other forums but in some cases I think he is wrong. I am an IBM skeptic as well and I have worked in this industry for 20 years and I agree with his posting on that blog. IBM has made it their business at screwing over their partners and I dont think they are all innocent. Thats where the GNU guys are going to get bitten every time. IBM is your friend right now because it serves their purpose to be your friend. The first chance they get to give GNU the shaft, they will. As for what Roberto plans to do with that program it is legal under the GNU to do so. Its like everyone talking about forking over the X Server, if the creator of XFree86 ie the copyright owner says you cannot use his technology than you cant. This is the same context. I am also an OpenServer customer and I am thankful for people like Roberto who are not being prejudicial over which OS I use. To me it seems like Nmap and other open source projects are being prejudice against us because of SCO. I dont blame SCO, they are doing what they think is right. All the fighting and bad mouthing does make the open source community look childish and this is one reason I would not even consider Linux for any kind of deployment in my server room. I hear all these opinion papers and I think the lawyers for the FSF are just as childish as the rest. Eric Raymonds paper is full of false assertations and delves more into rumor than fact and things that wanted to be done with Unix but were never done. I have been in the Unix community for a long time and I still work exclusively with Unix. I worked with Novell at the time that the Unix sale was made to Santa Cruz. While you guys sit here and write your opinion papers you neglect facts and truths. I will wait for the trial before I make any guesses on who is right and who is wrong.
And the winner of the Oscar shill award of the year, for his ongoing trolling, his cealess bad-mouthing of the open-source community, his baseless legal claims, his misunderstanding of the GPL and other licences, his laughable status as a “developer” who contributes to open source with no open source projects under his name, and his geocities entertainment-filled sites that enrich humanity, goes to:
Roberto J. Dohnert
It all started with his first comedy here:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4136
Then he made an ass of himself when he says: “UnixWare — UnixWare is by far the crappiest OS I have ever seen or used.” Read it here:
http://www.geocities.com/rjdohnert/personal.html
To be told graphically -look at the SCO logo- how he disagrees with SCO’s claims, only to troll the web proclaiming the virtues of SCO’s position, see this page:
http://www.geocities.com/kane121975/
To read his “brilliant” whitepapers and see whitepaper spelled in three different ways in three adjacent sentences, go here:
http://www.geocities.com/kane121975/lintips.html
Thank you and good luck finding a job in the tech community after you have made an ass of yourself all over the web.
The trolling has been useful today – good learning experience.
The point here is:
SCO can *use* nmap
SCO’s customers can *use* nmap
it’s just that SCO’s customers can’t get their copy from SCO.
Since they are the license holders, they can do anything they want including releasing the source under a sort of dual license: the terms of the GPL, and denying use by SCO.
It’s up to the license holders to initiate legal action against violators.
Roberto, the entire basis of your argument is that SCO can distribute nmap, because you feel that SCO did not reject the GPL as, according to you, you have never heard them say the exact words “We reject the GPL”.
Have you even bothered to ask them? Or are you speaking on your own? Because the bottom line is if you ask and they say “YES, WE REJECT THE GPL, we have a freaking lawsuit designed to make the GPL invalid! OF COURSE we reject it!” then your point is completely moot and you WILL NOT be able to allow SCO to distribute ANYTHING unless you write it from scratch yourself and distribute it under a non-GPL license.
I notice you did not address this point before in my last post. HAVE YOU ASKED SCO IF THEY REJECT THE GPL?
i have, they haven’t replied to me though :'(
Well i sent off a FAX and an e-mail and it didnt take SCO long to reply. They are interested in the fork of Nmap and right now im deciding on the new name. hank you everyone for your replies and your input whether good or whether bad.
Have a nice day.
Roberto wrote…
” Well i sent off a FAX and an e-mail and it didnt take SCO long to reply. They are interested in the fork of Nmap and right now im deciding on the new name. hank you everyone for your replies and your input whether good or whether bad.
Have a nice day.”
——————————-
Roberto,
This is your best post so far! Love it!
You might be interested to know that I just met a “magical fairy” that promised me that I could fork software without knowing anything about what I am doing too!!!!! She said to say hi.
By the way…
Do us a favor and post the reply from SCO (including the SCO email address you are coresponding with) regarding your fork of NMAP so we can track your progress.
Congratulations!
Oh, and…
Have a nice day.
As for what Roberto plans to do with that program it is legal under the GNU to do so. Its like everyone talking about forking over the X Server, if the creator of XFree86 ie the copyright owner says you cannot use his technology than you cant
You don’t seem to know the first thing about copyright or the GPL. You would get along well with Roberto. First of all, XFree86 is not released under the GPL. It was (until 4.4) released under a more liberal license than the GPL, similar to the BSD license. If someone were to fork XFree (from the pre 4.4 codebase) it does not break the license agreement in any way. There is absolutely no recourse for the XFree team to take. In fact forking XFree and forking nmap have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
To me it seems like Nmap and other open source projects are being prejudice against us because of SCO.
Can you blame someone who puts in their hard earned work for free only to see SCO attempt to destroy it all? Why should any OSS developer further a company by allowing them to exploit their work at the same time as they are trying to destroy OSS?