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".
Post a Comment
but I have my doubts SCO will adhere his wishes.
That's not a wish. If i create a product i can do whatever i want to do with it. This includes restrict usage purposes, persons, companys, governments, you name it.
IMHO all big OSS projects should do the same as nmap. If a company sells or uses GPL based products but refuses to comply to GPL demands, they should be totally rejected from the project usage at all.
SCO claims GPL is not a valid license, on this basis they specifically disallow SCO to use nmap.
Thus while GPL doesn't allow to discriminate any group, in this case it seems valid.
lol..Fyodor should have declared this *right* before the DoS attacks. Not a big difference or anything, but would have been nice spit in the face.
Excellent cut SCO out.
What have they done to further Linux? In fact nothing would surprise me less than to find out that SCO has some sort of hidden handshake with MS to screw Linux up.
There is no level playing field in the Desktop O/S. Long live Linux.
Why is SCO Licence any more valid than the GPL? Why to them is the GPL invalid? Any Groklaw regulars, or others care to tell me why?
SCO deserves it... Way to go nmap! hope more and more projects wisen up and do the same 
Zbang! How's that mr. D. McBride? Make your own version of nmap!
No it isnt. The GPL has a specific clause that states that if you breach the licence, you are no longer entitled to use of that licenced software. i.e if i release software Y under the GPL, and company X breaches my licence, they no longer have the right to use any version of software Y without my specific forgiveness of their breach.
It shouldnt have to come to this. If SCO is so sure of themselves in saying that the GPL is an invalid license, then they have no right to package gpl'ed software with their releases of SCO Unix. Technically, since they choose to believe that the GPL is invalid, then the use of gpl'ed code and programs covered under the gpl is, by SCO's own desciption, stealing Intellectual Property that was not given to them to use under any "valid" license. SCO made their bed, let them lay in it.
In short : They have some hokey theorie that copyright is there (in the constitution) so people can make money selling copyrighted stuff. The GPL allows for free copying so it´s supposedly unconstitutional. Of course they took lot´s of pages to explain this crap.
I don't get it.
NMap is distributed under the GPL. The GPL gives you freedom to redistribute as you want. How can NMap restrict this right to just SCO without changing the GPL ?
Although I loathe SCO as much as all of you, I think this is mostly a PR move (good!), because :
- SCO cannot "refuse" the GPL, it was just a PR move of theirs, I doubt they still stand by it given they use a *lot* of GPL software, and legally it is a binding license.
- Under GPL you are giving freedom to use and distribute the software, even to your worst enemies !
So under the GPL, NMap can not prevent SCO from distributing NMap. What they did do though was remove the port to UnixWare which is fine, but previous versions will still work.
If this starts to get imitators then where will we be in a couple of years ? Everyone starts restricting the usage of their software by others that they do not like.
That is what I was thinking. This is a bad thing. Who is going to invest time and money in something that could just be taken away from them at anytime, either you're free or you're not. which is it?
If this starts to get imitators then where will we be in a couple of years ? Everyone starts restricting the usage of their software by others that they do not like.
As is their right.
As was pointed out on /., SCO has basically agreed to the GPL by distributing nmap, linux, samba, et al. They have also publicly (in open court) challenged the validity of the GPL. It is up to the legal system of the appropriate jurisdiction to determine which takes precedence, implicit agreement to the license, or explicitly disagreeing (under penalty of perjury I would imagine) with the license.
From the nmap website:
SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms.
I suppose that if it is legal (according to the GPL) to do this, then good for them. But what happens if SCO does not adhere to their license? Do they have the resources to take them to court (or whatever)?
have the resources to take them to court? nah don`t think so, but would love to se nmap include sco ip`s as default in what to scan... and maby what do do about that?
This isn't about "I don't like SCO, so they can't use my software, nyah-nyah-nyah!" SCO is attempting to undermine the GPL, thus showing their unwillingness to abide by the GPL. Why in the world should they be allowed to use GPL software?
IMHO, the GPL and GPL-compatible licenses should be re-written to include a "mutual defense clause". If you violate the GPL on one software package, you should lose the right to use ANY and ALL GPL software.
Just some clarifications...
You don't need to agree with the GPL to use GPL'ed softwares. The _use_ of GPL'ed softwares has no restrictions at all.
The only restrictions are if you copy, distribute or modify GPL'ed softs. SCO is in violation of the GPL for redistributing Nmap (and any other GPL'ed application) because they don't comply with the GPL (they try to "sub-license" the Linux kernel, they still distribute GPL'ed softs although they claim GPL is invalid, etc.)
I suppose that if it is legal (according to the GPL) to do this, then good for them. But what happens if SCO does not adhere to their license? Do they have the resources to take them to court (or whatever)?
No of course they will ignore it -they will arque that in their view the GPL is not a legal license therefore anything released under it falls into the public domain. However anyone with some money for a legal action (OSDL perhaps) could sue SCO on behalf of an agrieved GPL copyright holder.
In fact I think this is part of IBM's counterclaim against SCO - that they are illegally redistributed IBM's copyrighted software in the Linux kernel as SCO does not accept the GPL (IANAL and I'm not sure I am remembering it properly).
Actually nmap is a good first project to pull this stunt with. Since it is mostly controlled by one man, getting permission from all the copyrgiht holders is easier.
Second As a legit copyright holder Frydor can use the DMCA to stop SCO from distrubting his legally copyrighted works. Under the GPL one must agree to use the license in order to be granted distrobution rights. SCO has several places where they have said the GPL is invaild, if they don't agree to the license then they can't legally distrobute GPL based products. SCO has 3 options
1) fight a cpoyright holder for illegal distrobution, aint gonna be easy to destroy the GPL in order for this one to work.
2) Stop distrobuting his work, if they do this then they better stop distrobuting all GPL based works, and that will gut their products.
3) ignore him, and watch it go to court, frydor will have all the money he needs if he goes to court. 100,000's of OSS and GPL based people will leave a couple of bucks a peice.
Wow. Words on paper. Who's gonna pay the lawyers when SCO uses nmap, anyway?
A license is useless unless it is enforced.
Is there a need for license enforcement?
If SCO doesn't accept the GPL, copyright is valid, so they have no right to use it (unless the copyright holder grants it to them).
And enforcement of copyright should be easy.
I can't stand the morons that refuse to read an article or look into the issues. Read, think, then speak.
"SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source CD". In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms"
SCO probably haven't actually violated the GPL.
But so what? If the nmap owner sues them for breach of copyright, SCO can either pay up or they can say, "but we have a valid licence to redistribute". Which puts the big hole in their GPL-is-unconstitutional argument.
The quote from the nmap website reads like a childish rant from a developer trying to call attention to themselves. Sure, they have a "right" to do so, but exercising that right reflects more poorly on them than it does on SCO.
The GPL is not a perfect license, but it works well. Once you enter the realm of restricting licensure, the GPL becomes more of a political tool. If this gets out of hand, it will hurt OSS badly, because our favorite CSS companies will be at the ready saying "See? OSS is not the way to go."
One may argue that CSS license agreements often also allow the revocation of license at the license granter's discretion. The key difference is that the CSS company has something to lose by arbitarily doing so - customers.
> and they call it free software
It is. The developer made it and he's 'Free' to allow or disallow whoever he likes from using it. It works both ways you know!
This is a punch in the nose to free and open source software. Users of SCO/Caldera products are the ones getting screwed here - not SCO itself. That poor Unixware admin who counted on using nmap now has to find some other tool that will act as a drop-in replacement for all of his IDS scripts that rely on nmap. If the creators of nmap really had a clue, they might understand the spirit of the GPL or of the Open Source Definition goes out of its way to prevent discriminatory distribution. In fact, I would argue that nmap is now in violation of at least the Open Source Definition. Ask Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman what they think.
If you don't agree to the license, you can't use the software.
SCO does not agree to GPL, so SCO can't use Nmap.
Its that simple...
Nmap's creator has only stated that he was not going to grant SCO any special priveleges to use Nmap without agreeing to the GPL license.
Therefore, there is no moral judgement, or political decision why SCO cannot use Nmap.
It is simply because it does not agree with the license.
>Sure, they have a "right" to do so, but exercising that >right reflects more poorly on them than it does on SCO.
>
>Once you enter the realm of restricting licensure, the GPL >becomes more of a political tool
Nmap is not execising its right, or using the GPL as a political tool, or restricting licensure. It is SCO that REVOKED their own right to use Nmap by not agreeing to the GPL License.
Please stop accusing Nmap of favouritism or restricting licensure or whatever... Get the situation right...
But SCO has breached the GPL if you read the article it says where. in order to ditrubte GPL software you must accept the terms of the GPL. SCO has repeatedly said the GPL is invaild. By saying that it is invaild,they are saying they don't agree to it's terms. by continuing to distrobute GPL software they are violating US copyright law.
GPL software is not free as in beer it is free as in Freedom. The right to use modify and distrubte some one else's legally copyrighted material, as long as you abide by it's terms.
no the unixware admin, is an end user, if he wants to use nmap he can download it and install it himself. SCO is only prohibtted from DISTROBUTING IT. The end users of unixware can download and install it.
The only probelm with that is Frydor is not supporting unixware anymore, Such it may or may not compile correctly under specific instances of unixware.
The GPL specifically stats that even if a distributor's license to distribute GPL software is revoked due to their violations, it does not affect the rights of people to whom they distributed it. The "sin" is not passed on to the children, in other words. 
(1) This is not a matter of goodwill. Frydor will be setting a dangerous precedent if he allows SCO to use Nmap without agreeing to the license. Once SCO is allowed to do so, what will stop others from following suit? Who will bother about adhering to the conditions and rules stated in the GPL anymore?
Frydor is only right in making it clear that if SCO does not agree to the license, SCO cannot use Nmap. The goodwill of open-source software can only thrive if it is respected and reciprocated by others, and that requires rules to be set, and rules that are expected to be followed if you want to use the software. THAT is the goodwill of the open-source community.
(2) If Frydor does not restrict the right of SCO to use Nmap, then the validity of the GPL will be called into question. SCO does not agree to the GPL, yet can still used GPL'd software. Where does that leave the legal status of the GPL license? No enforcement of the GPL may cause some to think, and even argue, that GPL is unenforceable... Which is something SCO is trying to prove.
Therefore, Frydor has to make it clear that SCO does not have a right if SCO does not agree to the GPL, or Frydor will only be weakening the legal status of the GPL by not enforcing it.
(3) If the GPL is not enforced, Businesses that are considering developing software under the GPL may be deterred from doing so, as they may fear that the same thing can happen to their software. If SCO can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the GPL, what prevents others from using my GPL'd software without agreeing to the GPL?
Thus, the stand taken by Frydor is extremely important for the same reason as point (2).
Please think about these 3 consequences before commenting on whether Frydor should or should not have made Nmap's stand clear.
There seems to be quite a few posters who are confused about these two elements. SCO can no longer distribute nmap. SCO products users can still use it, and even SCO employees can still use it. But they cannot redistribute it anymore.
SCO's actions:
1) SCO claims the GPL is invalid in public.
2) SCO claims the GPL is void/voidable in court.
3) They added a license to GPL code in violation of the GPL.
4) They have actually sold 3 licenses in violation of the GPL.
GPL's meaning:
1) You can't add additional licenses on top of GPL.
2) If you accept the GPL license then you are free to modify/copy/distrute the code/program.
3) GPL is the copyright holder's license to the public to use his/her code so long as it stays in the public domain.
Frydor's actions:
1) He knows that SCO violated the GPL for the kernel.
2) He believes that the SCO license covers all code in the GNU/Linux distribution. (it may not, I haven't read it)
3) He believes that SCO doesn't accept the GPL as being valid.
GPL Inforcement actions:
1) The first step in inforcement is to revoke the right of the distributer.
2) The second step is mostly free: file for a crime report. Since the distributer continued to distribute the code with out a license, they are clearly in violation of copyright law and the DCMA.
3) Wait for the government to destroy the distributer.
SCO has several problems:
1) If they say the GPL is valid and alows them to distribute NMAP, then they have the problem in the IBM case where they said the GPL is invalid. Thus, they'll need to be found in contempt of court and posiable pergery charges.
2) If they maintain that the GPL is invald, then you can only plead guilty of copyright infrengments and face the 3x damages for willfully violating copyright laws plus the $100,000 fines from the DCMA.
seems like "SCO Refused Nmap Usage by SCO" would be more appropriate when you consider how they cut themselves out by violating the gpl in the manner that they did
=)
RE: By chemicalscum (IP: ---.hwcn.org) - Posted on 2004-02-28 12:39:21
It's really cool, but it's not legal at all. So long as SCO obeys the terms and conditions of nmap's licence (the GPL) there is nothing that nmap can do. It doesn't matter how many GPL violations SCO may make as long as none of them are on nmap and it doesn't matter how much of a threat they may be to free software or how much they may dislike SCO.
They could relicence nmap so that new versions were under a different licence that would include a clause that would prohibit SCO from using said code. Of course, SCO would still be able to use the old GPL versions, the new versions would be GPL-incompatible, and relicencing would require the concent of every code contributer.
So cool, but so illegal.
no the unixware admin, is an end user, if he wants to use nmap he can download it and install it himself. SCO is only prohibtted from DISTROBUTING IT. The end users of unixware can download and install it.
Point taken. My mistake on the difference btwn usage and distribution. It does still seem discriminatory with regards to distribution since one could ask the question, "if SCO has ignored the GPL as Linux's license, does that mean the SCO has ignored the GPL as nmap's license". Clearly, SCO has expressed their disdain for the GPL - but I'm not sure that this means that they've ignored it in the context of non-Linux apps. Any thoughts?
The only probelm with that is Frydor is not supporting unixware anymore, Such it may or may not compile correctly under specific instances of unixware.
I agree, but this is Frydor's perogative. Can Frydor prevent derivative works from being ported to and distributed with the SCO platforms?
>>
1) The first step in inforcement is to revoke the right of the distributer.
2) The second step is mostly free: file for a crime report. Since the distributer continued to distribute the code with out a license, they are clearly in violation of copyright law and the DCMA.
3) Wait for the government to destroy the distributer.
<<
If this is truly how it can work, and enough copyright holders of GPL'd software did this wrt to SCO, then they could decimate the content of SCO's future distribution, or bring SCO to its knees if it failed to comply.
Cool, but
By Anonymous (IP: ---.dorm.brandeis.edu) - Posted on 2004-02-28 17:33:57
They could relicence nmap so that new versions were under a different licence that would include a clause that would prohibit SCO from using said code. Of course, SCO would still be able to use the old GPL versions, the new versions would be GPL-incompatible, and relicencing would require the concent of every code contributer.
So cool, but so illegal.
NO,
you dont get it.
NMAP has every right to do this, it is not illegal. They have said, that sco is not allowed to distribute nmap any more,
read the freaking gpl licence.
section 5 states
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
so for sco to be able to distribute nmap, they have had to agree to the gpl. Do you get it ?
Right they are distributing nmap but publicly have said that they do not agree to the gpl.. in which case they violate section 4 which states.
section 4 of the gpl states
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
note :
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
By not agreeing to the gpl they have violated the gpl. Therefore they have no rights to redistribute any gpled program, They broke the licence agreement.
In case the gpl is deemed as unlawful then the copyright of the code falls back to the author of the code. Which again sco is in violation of.
so explain to me how this is so illegal ?
it is perfectly legal.
There are a lot of people here that do not understand what is going on here.
Read the above post by "A nun, he moos"
He or she nails it!
All others should go back and read the article again, SLOWLY!
My point is this... Don't post incorrect theories or statements when you don't really understand what you are saying. Not to troll, but this behavior distracts from other constructive arguments.
If you REALLY care about these issues then get the facts.
Also, it's not "Frydor" it's Fyodor.
I'm reading this thread, and I can only shake my head. Fydor is perfectly within his rights, and I've wondered why the creators of Samba (earlier this year) didn't make the exact same announcement. This thing thats bothering me, however, is the reaction in this thread to Fydor's announcement. Without pointing fingers, there seem to be an awful lot of people who comment on this matter without what seems to be a basic understanding of the GPL. I would think that if someone liked Linux enough to come to this site and comment on a story of this nature, they would have taken a few minutes to confirm that they are right or wrong before throwing up an uninformed opinion. While everyone sees things their own way, the GPL is central to the heart of Linux and Open Source Software, and while debate is healthy, on this subject, the matter is pretty cut and dried. In my opinion, his statement (directly, or indirectly) protects our rights. Thats kind of a silly thing to criticize. I honestly wish people would take a few minutes to read the GPL before they start making public statements accusing the people in question (ie. Fydor) of publicity stunts, whining, and pettiness.
Sorry about misspelling Fyodor. Believe it or not, my spell checker had Fydor as a word, and must have gotten to it. Sorry, I should have caught that. (sigh)
I agree, but this is Frydor's perogative. Can Frydor prevent derivative works from being ported to and distributed with the SCO platforms?
no, not under the gpl - but the derivative works would be covered under the gpl, which sco violated, so they couldn't distribute any derivative works either.
quite simply though, fyodor hasn't done anything except say "i'm not making unix versions anymore". sco, under copyright law, don't have the right to distribute gpl code, since they have filed court papers revoking their right to use the gpl. sco unixware cannot legally come with gpl code, since they are not licensed to do so. fyodor has simply reiterated this - they revoked their own license to nmap, as well as other aspects such as samba.
Sorry about misspelling Fyodor.
Yeah same here, kind of a hard name to spell
// although i cant really comment because my name is worse :-D
"Once you enter the realm of restricting licensure, the GPL becomes more of a political tool "
WRONG! A license (such as GPL) exists EXACTLY AND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF "restristring licensure" in the terms specified in the licence text.
Since SCO violated those terms, the restrictions apply to them.
Another one writes:
"This is a punch in the nose to free and open source software. Users of SCO/Caldera products are the ones getting screwed here - not SCO itself. That poor Unixware admin who counted on using nmap now has to find some other tool that will act as a drop-in replacement for all of his IDS scripts that rely on nmap."
WRONG AGAIN! Those admins can just download and install nmap in their SCO systems.
It's just SCO's right to redistribute NMAP that is being taken away, not any end user rights.
"If the creators of nmap really had a clue, they might understand the spirit of the GPL or of the Open Source Definition goes out of its way to prevent discriminatory distribution. In fact, I would argue that nmap is now in violation of at least the Open Source Definition. Ask Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman what they think."
WRONG! If you took the time to read the GPL license you would see that this action is in accordance it.
"if SCO has ignored the GPL as Linux's license, does that mean the SCO has ignored the GPL as nmap's license". Clearly, SCO has expressed their disdain for the GPL - but I'm not sure that this means that they've ignored it in the context of non-Linux apps. Any thoughts?
Heinrich has a point - if it's unquestionable that SCO violated its Linux license (which happens to be the GPL), nothing implies that SCO violated its nmap (or samba or whatever) license (which also happen to be the GPL), and so while being illegal for SCO to distribute Linux, that doesn't immediately apply to the GNU system,
However, given SCO's rejection _in principle_ of the GPL (which is only part of its violation of it regarding Linux), I think SCO managed to violate any GPLicense it may hold. And so, it's illegal for SCO to ditribute any single GNU software. FQED.
If the creators of nmap really had a clue, they might understand the spirit of the GPL or of the Open Source Definition goes out of its way to prevent discriminatory distribution. In fact, I would argue that nmap is now in violation of at least the Open Source Definition. Ask Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman what they think.
I don't think Mr. rms thinks too highly of whatever may be 'the Open Source Definition' <g>
However, punishing misbehaviour isn't discrimination in any sense it may have. 'Discrimination' implies that the discriminee did nothing to deserve it. Somehow all these reactions seem to stem from the belief that, like the BSD licence can't avoid proprietary use of what's realesed under it, the GPL can't protect the 'unjust' use. It seems that, at least in this situation, it can.
SCO can make public claims about the validity of the GPL and still continue to use it. That's at least a grey area.
HOWEVER, when they are adding license terms to the Linux kernel, which they have previously distributed under the GPL, then they are rendering void their license to distribute the LINUX KERNEL. NMAP is licensed by a different copyrightholder (Fyodor) and is a separate product under a SEPARATE LICENSE AGREEMENT, even though the text is nearly the same (the Linux version has some small changes). SCO has claimed that the Linux Kernel contains bits of their code, which is why they are trying to sell licenses for it. They have made no such claims about Nmap as far as I know. They have not tried to re-license Nmap (why would they; it doesn't contain any of 'their code'), so they have not broken the LICENSE AGREEMENT for Nmap. The real question is why haven't the copyright holders of the Linux Kernel done this. I suspect the answer is that it would be very complex with so many contributors and because the Linux GPL does not give copyright to FSF as some programs do.
So, please don't confuse the GPL, which is just a license agreement text, with a LICENSE AGREEMENT based on the GPL which is an agreement between two parties. Breaking an agreement with one party does not mean you have necessarilly broken it with others, even if the text is similar.
So, I'm affraid his case looks weak, but it will hopefully make others look at their options for doing the same.
While I don't agree with SCO's actions, far from it in fact, I dispize SCO for their recent actions. I do now however believe that 2 wrongs make a right. The open source community should not treat SCO the same way they are trying to treat GPL based software. Its wrong, its free software, if SCO desides to use it, but still disagree's with it, it just means that SCO is proving many of their own claims wrong.
Also, on a side note, wouldn't this mean that these versions of NMAP are no longer valid in Debian systems? The DFSG specifically rules against discrimination, thus, NMAP is no longer DFSG-free software. Should be interesting to see if they take out this clause so Debian can again distribute this software...
"This is a punch in the nose to free and open source software. Users of SCO/Caldera products are the ones getting screwed here - not SCO itself. That poor Unixware admin who counted on using nmap now has to find some other tool that will act as a drop-in replacement for all of his IDS scripts that rely on nmap. If the creators of nmap really had a clue, they might understand the spirit of the GPL or of the Open Source Definition goes out of its way to prevent discriminatory distribution. In fact, I would argue that nmap is now in violation of at least the Open Source Definition. Ask Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman what they think."
The Admin does not have to find a new tool. They can still USE nmap. SCO is just restricted from DISTRIBUTING nmap. The words USE and DISTRIBUTE have 2 totally different meanings. No one is stopping anyone from using it. They are just stopping SCO from including it in thier products, however it can still be used in SCO products providing the customer puts it in themselves with no assistance from SCO. Any Admin should be able to accomplish that task without a support call to SCO.
"Also, on a side note, wouldn't this mean that these versions of NMAP are no longer valid in Debian systems? The DFSG specifically rules against discrimination, thus, NMAP is no longer DFSG-free software. Should be interesting to see if they take out this clause so Debian can again distribute this software..."
Okay, I am going to take the bait on this one...
What does SCO have to do with the Debian distribution? According to the terms this has no effect on Debian or any other Distribution of Linux. Only SCO is no longer permitted to distribute nmap. I am sure the courts would love to know if SCO was assisting in the development of another Linux distro besides thier own. 
do you get it now ? , sco can bullshit from here to next tuesday, about the gpl being unconstitutional
I am surprised to be to be so misunderstood - dopey you really are dopey. I am a strong supporter of the GPL and regard the SCO actions as a criminal pump and dump scam with some financial backing directly and indirectly from MS to generate FUD.
My points were however:
1. To suggest that SCO would still distibute Nmap (cool tool) and what SCO's defense would most likely be.
2. To point that it would be possible for OSDL or some other benefactor to finance Fyodor or other developers in a case against SCO.
3. As far as I could remember that IBM is using a similar arguement to Fyodors in its counterclaim against SCO.
Overall dopey I don't think there is much difference between our positions.
When I saw "chemicalscum spewed" I was expecting an attack from some SCO shill !
Sco deserves this. They are a company doing what MS wants them to. I really would love to see SCO lose and see what is MS reaction to it
I am surprised to be to be so misunderstood - dopey you really are dopey. I am a strong supporter of the GPL and regard the SCO actions as a criminal pump and dump scam with some financial backing directly and indirectly from MS to generate FUD.
rofl, yeah sorry wasn't targeting you specifically but other posts around yours and specifically this comment you made:
They will argue that in their view the GPL is not a legal license therefore anything released under it falls into the public domain.
The problem with that sort of defence from sco is that it doesnt become public domain, if the gpl is revoked it becomes licenced to the authors, not under a bsd style licence. the spewed comment, fit your name (chemical scum, i was intending it as a pun, lame i know)
re: He may not have a strong case
By Henrik (IP: ---.gotadsl.co.uk) - Posted on 2004-02-28 20:05:22
SCO can make public claims about the validity of the GPL and still continue to use it. That's at least a grey area.
IANAL, but i see it pretty clear cut as fyodor being in the right
anyway for more info check here :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040227135714777
and specifically this comment:
Catch 22 for SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 04:17 PM EST
They have to either:
a) Say they think the GPL is valid, in which case there is no case to stop them
distributing the program. This of course opens up a whole can of worms with
regard to the other actions against them
or
b) Say that the GPL is invalid, in which case the way is pretty clear for them
to be sued for copyright infringement. And not just by one person, but for every
single person who was written a "non derivitive" Linux app (whatever
that may be)
Then again they may just refuse to say anything. Let's hope this is backed up by
a lawyers letter to SCO demanding comment.
Oh the irony of seeing SCO in court being *accused* of copyright violation :-)
You have to respect fyodor, for doing it as it puts sco into a very tight corner,
Catch 22 for SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:24 PM EST
Yep, this is precisely the point.
Either SCO will state that they are distributing under
the terms of the GPL -- admitting that it is, at least
sometimes, a valid license -- or they must stop
distributing. Period.
The sooner this all ends and sco dies the better..
The only good thing to come out of this sco thing is tighten the linux community, infact it probably has done more good than actual harm.
Frank wrote...
"While I don't agree with SCO's actions, far from it in fact, I dispize SCO for their recent actions. I do now however believe that 2 wrongs make a right. The open source community should not treat SCO the same way they are trying to treat GPL based software. Its wrong, its free software, if SCO desides to use it, but still disagree's with it, it just means that SCO is proving many of their own claims wrong.
Also, on a side note, wouldn't this mean that these versions of NMAP are no longer valid in Debian systems? The DFSG specifically rules against discrimination, thus, NMAP is no longer DFSG-free software. Should be interesting to see if they take out this clause so Debian can again distribute this software..."
---------------------------------------
Frank,
1. Wake up! RTF article and RTF GPL.
2. Learn what the DFSG is. Debian? discrimination? DFSG-free software? Again, refer to point number 1.
3. Get the facts.
4. Don't post again until you do.
If you do these things and are able to truly understand (not interpret) their facts, then you will have the chance to wage a correct argument.
Hope this helps.
they have not broken the LICENSE AGREEMENT for Nmap.
I'm afraid they have, they have claimed that the model it follows ad litteram (the GPL) is invalid and hence reject it. They cannot reject say the GPL in the Linux license agreement is unconstitutional and that the one in the nmap's's not.
"Okay, I am going to take the bait on this one...
What does SCO have to do with the Debian distribution? According to the terms this has no effect on Debian or any other Distribution of Linux. Only SCO is no longer permitted to distribute nmap. I am sure the courts would love to know if SCO was assisting in the development of another Linux distro besides thier own. "
Fair question. Debian has some sort of non-discrimination policy. I believe they are also a bit more strict than some distros, on what free software is, and what can be included in Debian distro. Anyway, I don't know details, cause I don't even use Debian, outside of one sparc install. There have been some articles recently on Debian loosening the rules to allow some other forms of freeware.
I personally think the statement by Fyodor is funny as hell. I took it as a joke at first. Perhaps it's also a political statement, as evidenced by the elimination of the SCO packages of nmap. In any event, while Fyodor is a good coder, I don't think of him as a guru on the GPL.
Anyway, nmap generally compiles from tarball just fine. I hope though this won't start a trend of discrimination.
Anyway, i still love nmap. It's the best public, free scanning tool.
"In any event, while Fyodor is a good coder, I don't think of him as a guru on the GPL."
Speaking about GPL guru's, Eben Moglen recently pointed out a way to work this out in court. More interesting, is how his logic can be applied in this situation to point out how SCO digged their own grave:
From "Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech - The Transcript" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040226003735733
The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."
At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."
One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."
The last paragraph is VERY important in this discussion.
"Anyway, nmap generally compiles from tarball just fine. I hope though this won't start a trend of discrimination."
This cannot set off a trend of discrimination for there is no discrimination applied in this very situation. The GPL itself does not discriminate against any group of people; and that is it's very purpose (except for patents, unfortunately).
What happened here is entity X in public claims license Y is invalid; entity X distributes program Z under the terms of license Y; developer of program Z therefore "terminates" license to entity X.
The question is wether that "in public" will hold. Fyodor doesn't need to be a GPL guru. He can hire people to do that job; perhaps he did. When SCO backfires or doesn't comply, it is money he needs to hold this up in court. I hope for him he looked futher than his nose is long.
With no offense to this site and it's visitors, i found the comments on Groklaw much more enlightening than yet another yes/no game which is played here. Groklaw thread about this very subject "Fyodor Terminates SCO's Right to Distribute Nmap" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040227135714777
"They cannot reject say the GPL in the Linux license agreement is unconstitutional and that the one in the nmap's's not."
Well, i have been wondering about this, and something else, for a _long_ time and IANAL and IANAUSC (I Am Not A US Civilian).
Basically there are 2 things i am wondering about, and the thing i'm replying to and wondering about is, afaict, coherent to the following:
* When SCO sues anyone based on copyright enfringement they do not proof they are right. It has not been proven in court that the {individuals|organisations|corporations} they sue are actually not in their rights regarding the GPL. They have the GPL and they think they are in their rights; nothing has proven the opposite. Therefore, i'd conclude that first they'd have to proof they're right; which is what they're trying in court now. Therefore, any of 3 earlier said groups would be better off with waiting before SCO has proven their point in court (hence the discount is a part of the puzzle which fits quite nicely, and the fact that anyone who buys this license buys rights to run SCO IP copyrighted material instead of any rights regarding the Linux kernel also fits in nice, and the fact this raises them money before anything has been proven [...]). The point is, what SCO _claims_ has not actually been proven _truth_.
* Therefore, when SCO claims they _believe_ the GPL is "whatever" which is not stated in the GPL (ie. unconstitutional in the USA), that isn't proven to be the truth either. Court rulings would apply on that first, then truth is told. Wether SCO _believes_ in this or not, does not mean it s truth; therefore one (ie. Fyodor) cannot base actions like terminating a license based on this very _believe_ by anyone (ie. SCO).
That's my rational, and i'm wondering wether i'm right or not.
The point is that SCO has signed legal documents claiming the GPL is invalid. Not the GPL when applied to Linux, the GPL as an entity. Read that again. They have stated, via court documents, that they reject the GPL.
This leaves three options - they can say the GPL is invalid, and it can be found to be invalid in court - in which case all GPL code reverts to the copyright of those who authored it, who may re-license t as they see fit (i.e. if the GPL is illegal then Fyodor can make a new "everyone but SCO license", and all existing nmap code is copyright him & contributors). They can say that the GPL is invalid, and it is found to be valid in court - in which case their previous legal denouncement of it in court means they have broken GPL clauses 4 & 5, and they lose the right to distribute GPL code. Finally, they can say the GPL is valid - but they can't un-say the court papers filed already, and would require individual pardons from the licensors of all sections of GPL code in order to continue their distribution.
Revoking of GPL licenses is NOT explicit - it is IMPLICIT. if you break the licensing terms, they you automatically lose your rights under it. Anyone read a microsoft EULA or even a mobile phone contract recently? They all contain EXACTLY this kind of clause.
SCO have filed papers in court stating they do not follow the licensing terms of the GPL. They have lost this license now, and legally do not have the right to redistribute nmap, SAMBA, or any other GPL tools. You cannot revoke the GPL from someone, they have to do it themselves - and in this case they have done. Full stop, end of debate
A <u>SEPARATE</u> issue is Fyodor no longer supporting UNIXware versions of nmap. THIS is done for vindictive reasons - though I suspect it is to prevent SCO from ignoring their legal requirements & including up to date versions of nmpa illegally. No longer supporting UNIXware is a political statement, wheras the GPL issue is a legal reiteration, not pollitical. Is he within his rights to do so? Yes, he is. Red Hat don't make a distribution for Sega Dreamcast, because nobody is forcing them to. nmap doesn't suddenly become tainted because Fyodor has lost any particular desire to support SCO.
For all we know, Fyodor can no longer afford a UNIXware system to test on, since he spent all his money on a SCO Linux Kernel license.
I've seen one post so far that states this. I'm sure if I kept reading posts, I would run into more posters stating this. However, I've seen many posters complaining that this leads to discrimination. I've also seen people complain that the code is under the GPL. Therefore, they cannot restrict usage. The developer of nmap is well within his rights and the bounds of the GPL to restrict usage of his software by the SCO Group. Section 4 of the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ) states that all copying, modifying, and redistribution of GPL code must adhere to the principles of the GPL. Any person or entity that violates the license automatically loses their right to use and redistribution of the software. This is not a means to discriminate against individuals, groups, or corporate entities. It is the means by which the GPL protects the rights of the community developing the software. It ensures that the world respects the developers' desire that the code be free (as in libre).
* Therefore, when SCO claims they _believe_ the GPL is "whatever" which is not stated in the GPL (ie. unconstitutional in the USA), that isn't proven to be the truth either. Court rulings would apply on that first, then truth is told. Wether SCO _believes_ in this or not, does not mean it s truth; therefore one (ie. Fyodor) cannot base actions like terminating a license based on this very _believe_ by anyone (ie. SCO).
But that's not the issue. SCO's nmap licence isn't revoked because if Linux's licence is illegal so must nmap's be. It is automatically revoked by SCO's rejection in principle of the GPL (hence not only of Linux's but also nmap's), whether that rejection has any basis or not.
FAIW, SCO (or anyone) might just affirm 'we do not accept the GPL because we don't like the typeface' or 'we do not accept the GPL because' - that would mean they do not accept the GPL, and if they do not they cannot distribute GPL'd software. Period.
You know what happens when you say 'I don't agree' in a EULA dialog? The installer exits. It doesn't matter if you paid zillions for the software. You don't accept the licence, you don't use it (or distribute, in this case).
And if SCO rejected the GPL in general, they rejected it not only for Linux but for any GPL'd software. Had SCO claimed, for instance, that the GPL was unfit for OS kernels, and backed that with OS kernels' specific reasons, then there would be no issue. But...
That one even needs to explain this is revealing of the quirked ideas people uncounsciously build about subjects.
It is automatically revoked by SCO's rejection in principle of the GPL (hence not only of Linux's but also nmap's), whether that rejection has any basis or not.
I forgot to add in proper place that nmap's author terminating SCO's rights is only a _reminder_, since it was SCO itself's doing that terminated their rights automatically. That is to say that that's not his 'attitude'. He can't terminate SCO's rights because SCO did that already! And not only for nmap, but for every single GPL'd software they use/bundle/modify - they're doing it illegally!
SCO can't even use gcc in its own basement.
I'm not upset that SCO doesn't have the right to publish GPL'd applications anymore... I'm upset that some hacker out of nowhere claims that he revokes the right to a 3rd party to distribute his application. I fear it would push other developers to limit their applications further and not only to SCO. If somebody violates the licence of your application, stop babbling and do something!
It's a good idea, but I'm sure that SCO will find some way to claim that nmap is derived from the UNIX sources that SCO owns the rights to. :|
And not only for nmap, but for every single GPL'd software they use/bundle/modify - they're doing it illegally! SCO can't even use gcc in its own basement.
In fact, the GPL only explicitly terminates itself if you reject it for distribution/modifying. However, it might be argued in court that the rejection of any part of the software's licence implicitly revokes the right to use it, whether the licence spells it out or not.
But since the GPL explicitly puts mere use of the software beyond its scope, I think that wouldn't hold.
It would seem that the mere use of GPL'd-only software is not covered by any licence at all, except the one(s) accepted by the author in case the software isn't written from scratch.
Wrawrat, you're upset over something that exists only in your own imagination.
Fyodor didn't revoke The SCO Group's license. TSG did, when they refused to accept the GPL.
Fyodor merely pointed out that TSG is violating his copyright. If they were to accept the GPL, then TSG would have a legal license to distribute nmap. But they explicitly rejected the license, so they are distributing his copyrighted code without any permission to do so.
TSG has filed papers with the court stating that they consider the GPL invalid. Whether the GPL is a valid license or not, TSG clearly cannot have accepted the license if they believe it to be invalid. And they only have distribution rights if they accept the GPL.
No one else can withdraw your right to distribute programs licensed with the GPL. You are the only person whose actions can prevent you form distributing GPL code. Violate the terms of the GPL, and you lose any right to distribute. Reject the GPL, and you lose any right to distribute. Obey the terms of the license, and neither the copyright holder nor anyone else can withdraw the distribution rights previously granted to you. It's very simple.
Yes it is very disgusting and low handed to do such a thing, restrict free software from usage by a particular group.
<<< No it isnt. The GPL has a specific clause that states that if you breach the licence, you are no longer entitled to use of that licenced software. i.e if i release software Y under the GPL, and company X breaches my licence, they no longer have the right to use any version of software Y without my specific forgiveness of their breach. >>>
Unfortunately SCO has not breached the GPL. Talking crap about the GPL and pointing out flaws in the GPL are not violations. Nonetheless, while what NMap does is not effecting just SCO, it is affecting SCO's users who in this case are innocent. Furthermore, NMap cannot restrict someone else from creating a fork of the product and allow SCO to distribute that. Luckily it just takes a recompile of the NMap sources to build on UnixWare and Open Server. I have taken it upon myself to create packages for OpenServer and UnixWare. I will be contacting SCO on Monday, and the reason for this is so that I can give them my permission to use my Fork of NMap and distribute it as they wish, of course the only requirement I will have to provide is to change the name. I am doing this because of two very important reasons. I believe everyone should have access to Open Source software and that includes Open Server and UnixWare customers and it is the right thing to do. I will do this for every and any Open Source Project that decides to violate the fundamentals and status quo of Open Source. So in reality, yes, thank you. The arrogance and shortcomings of the Open Source community has turned me into a UnixWare and OpenServer developer. I may not agree with SCO and I may dislike the route they have taken but I do not believe in discrimination of a certain user base and besides that if they want to do this to SCO, why didnt they do it to Microsoft who called the GPL a cancer? And I can do this becuase the GPL to allow me to. Feel free to e-mail me with your hate mail so a not to clutter this forum with it.
I will be contacting SCO on Monday, and the reason for this is so that I can give them my permission to use my Fork of NMap and distribute it as they wish
You can't do that. For 'your fork' to be legal its licence must include and not contradict the GPL. SCO have rejected the GPL, hence, by the GPL, they cannot distribute GPL'd software. PERIOD.
<< You can't do that. For 'your fork' to be legal its licence must include and not contradict the GPL. SCO have rejected the GPL, hence, by the GPL, they cannot distribute GPL'd software. PERIOD. >>
Yes, I can. Unfortunately, talking smack about something is not a rejection of the GPL. My fork will be GPL'ed and will not contradict the GPL. My interpretation of SCO's actions is what matters and I dont feel they have rejected the GPL. If rejection of the GPL is based on verbal statements then maybe someone should tell RMS to revoke Microsofts right to distribute GPL'ed code as Microsoft does with Windows Services for UNIX. I will continue and if Fyodor or GNU wish to sue me or pursue legal action than that is their right. Furthermore, to create the fork I as the distributor of the Fork am bound by the GPL which I agree to be and it falls under my interpretation as distributor of whether SCO has violated the GPL or not, which I dont think they have.
Go and do what you like, you miss the point.
why didnt they do it to Microsoft who called the GPL a cancer? And I can do this becuase the GPL to allow me to. Feel free to e-mail me with your hate mail so a not to clutter this forum with it.
is microsoft distributing gpled tools with their operating system ?
i dont think so. They can slate the gpl as much as they like, they also have not gone to a court of law and said the gpl is invalid.
If the gpl is invalid then they must not agree with the terms of the licence :. they are in violation :. fyodor can turn around and call the violation of clause 4.
Even if you were to change something, your code would still be under the gpl. You cannot change the gpl, your code will be gpled along with nmaps exisiting code.
Also fyodor has not banned people who use the sco platform from using nmap, he has banned sco from distributing nmap, and will no longer support the sco platforms.
If you can support the unixware platform, then do it. Good luck to you,
Yes it is very disgusting and low handed to do such a thing, restrict free software from usage by a particular group.
<<< No it isnt. The GPL has a specific clause that states that if you breach the licence, you are no longer entitled to use of that licenced software. i.e if i release software Y under the GPL, and company X breaches my licence, they no longer have the right to use any version of software Y without my specific forgiveness of their breach. >>>
Unfortunately SCO has not breached the GPL. Talking crap about the GPL and pointing out flaws in the GPL are not violations.
Agreed. However, filing papers to the courts as well as congress saying "we do not accept the terms of this license" means, believe it or not, that they have officially stated that they do not accept the terms of their license.
Shocking I know, but if you say something and sign your name to it as a legal document, generally you mean it.
Nonetheless, while what NMap does is not effecting just SCO, it is affecting SCO's users who in this case are innocent. Furthermore, NMap cannot restrict someone else from creating a fork of the product and allow SCO to distribute that.
Under section 4 of the GPL, you cannot sublicense GPL code or code based upon it. A fork of nmap would have to be covered by the GPL, else it would be in breach of the GPL, and of the copyright of the code. If you had even the faintest grasp of the whole issue, you'd see that this is THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT
Luckily it just takes a recompile of the NMap sources to build on UnixWare and Open Server. I have taken it upon myself to create packages for OpenServer and UnixWare. I will be contacting SCO on Monday, and the reason for this is so that I can give them my permission to use my Fork of NMap and distribute it as they wish, of course the only requirement I will have to provide is to change the name.
See above. You can make UNIXware and OpenServer versions of nmap, but only under the licensing terms you agree to in modifying GPL code - that is, that yoru fork would also be GPL. However, since SCO don't adhere to the terms of the GPL, they couldn't distribute your fork. End users could download & compile it happily, as they are less likely to file "we don't follow GPL terms" papers to the courts. If your fork is not GPL, you're in contempt of copyright law. If people distributing your fork do not follow the licensing terms of the GPL, the same applies to them. That's how it works.
I am doing this because of two very important reasons. I believe everyone should have access to Open Source software and that includes Open Server and UnixWare customers and it is the right thing to do.
They can get the sources to nmap or any forks of it from wherever - however they cannot get it from SCO, as they are not licensed to redistribute it.
I will do this for every and any Open Source Project that decides to violate the fundamentals and status quo of Open Source.
I think you're confusing "public domain" and "open source". Like I say, you're within your rights to make UNIXware forks of anything you like, assuming you follow your licensing obligations. However you'd make a more positive impact porting Windowmaker to Gamecube-Linux, as far as I'm concerned.
So in reality, yes, thank you. The arrogance and shortcomings of the Open Source community has turned me into a UnixWare and OpenServer developer. I may not agree with SCO and I may dislike the route they have taken but I do not believe in discrimination of a certain user base and besides that if they want to do this to SCO, why didnt they do it to Microsoft who called the GPL a cancer?
Because Microsoft have fully complied with their GPL requirements, as laid out in the only GPL-based product they distribute (Services For Unix). If Microsoft filed papers with the courts stating that the GPL is invalid, then they would also lose their right to distribute GPL code (SFU). As to whether people on random open-source projects want to make projects that work on Windows, that's up to them. I can't run KOffice on Windows. Does that make the Open Source community petty and vindictive, or do they just have better things to do?
And I can do this becuase the GPL to allow me to.
The GPL will allow you to make GPL-based forks to run on whatever platform you like. It won't allow you to sublicense with your own public-domain license. Nor will it allow you to distribute GPL code to those in violation of the GPL. Deal with it.
Feel free to e-mail me with your hate mail so a not to clutter this forum with it.
I'd rather have a reasoned debate than rely on your junk mail filter.
"Yes it is very disgusting and low handed to do such a thing, restrict free software from usage by a particular group."
Of course, that hasn't happened. It can't happen to GPL software, the GPL doesn't allow it.
Anyone who accepts the license and adheres to its terms can distribute GPL software. TSG does not accept the license, so they can't distribute it. Fyodor didn't revoke TSG's license, he's just pointing out that TSG has refused to accept the license, and therefore has revoked the license themselves.
TSG did this to themselves. They could state that they accept the GPL, and they would automatically have the right to distribute GPL software. Instead, they have filed court papers stating that the GPL is invalid. I don't see any way that they could claim to accept an invalid license. That leaves ordinary copyright law, which does not give them any right to distribute nmap.
They can't have it both ways. If the GPL is invalid, then they have no permission to distribute GPL software, and they should cease doing so immediately. If the GPL is valid, and they use the permission granted by it to distribute GPL software, then they should withdraw the legal challenge to the GPL from their court case. One or the other; they can't hold the GPL valid where convenient and invalid where it isn't.
Unfortunately SCO has not breached the GPL.
Actually they have, by requiring users of Linux to buy a license from them under the not-so-veiled threat of a lawsuit. However, this may not apply to nmap itself, since SCO isn't requiring a license for nmap. It seems that they are planning on making the GPL invalid as part of their defense from IBM's whopping counter-suit, though. This hasn't happened yet, but one can wonder how SCO will then be able to distribute GPLed software with its products.
There is, on the other hand, nothing preventing Fyodor from relicensing nmap under a modified GPL licenses, i.e. a "GPL to anyone but SCO" license. He's the copyright holder, he can decide whatever terms and condition he wants as far as licensing goes.
You can fork nmap if you want (though that seems a pretty childish thing to do, even when considering your pro-SCO bias), but unless you actively develop it no one's really going to care.
Now, those who should relicense their software to "everyone but SCO" should be the Samba team. That would be a real blow to Unixware. Not that SCO really cares about Unixware anymore anyway...
Furthermore, to create the fork I as the distributor of the Fork am bound by the GPL which I agree to be and it falls under my interpretation as distributor of whether SCO has violated the GPL or not, which I dont think they have.
You may distribute it all you want, but that still won't make you a copyright holder of the nmap code you didn't you yourself write. Fyodor could still argue that SCO violated the GPL on his code even if you didn't.
Really, the lengths you go to to defend SCO... I know you have problem with Linux advocates, but this is ridiculous.
I think you are missing the point. My fork will be covered by the GPL and I am not modifying the GPL in any way.
<<< Agreed. However, filing papers to the courts as well as congress saying "we do not accept the terms of this license" means, believe it or not, that they have officially stated that they do not accept the terms of their license >>>
They stated that they feel the GPL is invalid and their letter to congress stated basically the same argument. The words " we reject the GPL " never found their way into the text, I suggest you read it again, and it falls under my interpretation of whether I feel SCO has violated which I do not feel they have done. Your interpretation and mine obviously do differ.
<<< They can get the sources to nmap or any forks of it from wherever - however they cannot get it from SCO, as they are not licensed to redistribute it >>>
They will be licensed to redistribute my fork of Nmap and I did explain it in my first draft to SCO that they will not be allowed to distribute anything with the NMap name. As I stated whether I feel they are in violation or not is open to MY interpretation.
<<< The GPL will allow you to make GPL-based forks to run on whatever platform you like. It won't allow you to sublicense with your own public-domain license. Nor will it allow you to distribute GPL code to those in violation of the GPL. Deal with it. >>>
As I stated this falls under my interpretation and I will do as I wish. If anyone has a problem with this. They can attempt to take me to court and settle it, either way I am doing as you would say, Im dealing with it.
I will do this for every and any Open Source Project that decides to violate the fundamentals and status quo of Open Source.
And yet you would defend a company and individuals whose avowed purpose is to weaken Open Source in favour of proprietary software?
I think your purpose is rather to provoke Linux advocates on this board while shamelessly draping yourself in the mantle of political rectitude.
Please come down from your high horse. It's just not very credible.
As I stated whether I feel they are in violation or not is open to MY interpretation.
Nope. It's open to the interpretation of the copyright holder. The rest of your argument pretty much falls apart right there.
<< He's the copyright holder, he can decide whatever terms and condition he wants as far as licensing goes. >>
When he decided to go GPL he gave up that right as a copyright owner. He has to abide by the terms of the GPL as do I and he cannot modify or change the terms of the GPL.
<<< You may distribute it all you want, but that still won't make you a copyright holder of the nmap code you didn't you yourself write. Fyodor could still argue that SCO violated the GPL on his code even if you didn't. >>>
I never asserted that I would be the copyright holder and I wouldnt want to be. But I hav not violated the GPL and if I want to distribute to Bill Gates I can.
<<< Really, the lengths you go to to defend SCO... I know you have problem with Linux advocates, but this is ridiculous. >>>
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 do believe that SCO users are entitled to use Open Source software and to have someone out there that is willing to support them. Fyodor is not, he stated he is discontinuing support for OpenServer and UnixWare. They need a supported version and someone out here thats not going to shun them just because the developer of a project shuns their vendor and it looks like I am the only one. I dont have a problem with Linux advocates. I tend to ignore the inflammatory ones and I do support Linux as a supplier and user I have to. I also support Microsoft and I use Windows does that mean I can only develop and use software for either SuSE or Microsoft? This has been something that I have been doing for awhile. I do distribute and support Open Source software for Windows and I will just add UnixWare and OpenServer to my portfolio.
When he decided to go GPL he gave up that right as a copyright owner. He has to abide by the terms of the GPL as do I and he cannot modify or change the terms of the GPL.
You're missing the point. He can still sue for GPL violation even if you distributed the code.
You may choose to distribute stuff to Unixware users, and that's fine. But SCO won't. That's the whole point.
Listen...
To all that have defended their arguments against those who have NO CLUE... DON'T BOTHER. It's a waste of time!
To all that have not read the article in question or the GPL... DO IT NOW AND THEN POST A RELEVANT ARGUMENT!
This "thread" is SO distorted by idiots that speak before they understand!
Once and for all... If you REALLY CARE, then learn and understand. Otherwise you are a "troll" or a "distraction from the truth"!
Nothing personal against those who have posted remarks without fact, but YOU SHOULD LISTEN AND LEARN FROM YOUR FAULTS! If you are truly an intelligent individual, you will only benefit this issue and yourself! Learning the facts IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fyodor is ONLY disallowing SCO from REDISTRIBUTING NMAP, NOT USING IT.
This is black and white folks, don't read into it.
OK... do those who do not understand get it now?
I suggest you read sections 4 and, more specifically in your case, section 5 of the GPL again...and again....and again...
"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."
By forking any GPL software you're simply creating a derivative for SCO to illegally distribute so nothing has changed. SCO are still on record (I understand you choose not to believe this but it's fairly cut and dry to everyone else) as stating they disagree with the terms and conditions of the GPL and believe it to be invalid and unenforceable, so they don't have a valid license to redistribute the software. Pretty simple really. Now if only the rest of the open source community would follow Fyodor's lead...
...now I have to go. My Windows port of KOffice won't write itself
TSG has filed papers with the court stating that they consider the GPL invalid. Whether the GPL is a valid license or not, TSG clearly cannot have accepted the license if they believe it to be invalid. And they only have distribution rights if they accept the GPL.
And why not? To my knowledge, you can accept some terms and contest them after you did. It's even more true since the GPL (and, in fact, most - if not all - software licences) was never deemed valid in a court. It probably is... but you never know. Moreover, I believe they're challenging the GPL not because of the programs but rather because of the Linux kernel. Remember that they claim there are some SysV code in it? It's in their best interest to challenge it in case there's really some code in it as the court could judge that they distributed their "secret" code themselves. Their stance is actually logical to me. Well, I've seen better, but I've seen worse too.
Personally, I couldn't care less of SCO/TSG but I just don't like the attitude of the nmap developer. It seems to me that he just wants some promotion. His babbling doesn't matter at all: it won't change the situation until he actually do something. Not only it could help his cause but it would greatly help the cause of the FSF.
"That's not a wish. If i create a product i can do whatever i want to do with it. This includes restrict usage purposes, persons, companys, governments, you name it.
IMHO all big OSS projects should do the same as nmap. If a company sells or uses GPL based products but refuses to comply to GPL demands, they should be totally rejected from the project usage at all."
I realize it is his project/product, and he does have absolutely every right to do what he just did - but short of holding a gun to Darl's head, he can't enforce his wishes can he? Thus, it is a wish. "SCO, I revoke your right to use my software" - but will they heed him? I doubt it. Is this something he could take them to court over if they refuse and continue to ship it? I have no idea, but I'd hope so. Chances are he couldn't afford to take them to court...so a wish it remains. However, I do back your statement that all OSS projects should do this. Desert 'em. Once Linux had to emulate SCO in order to run commercial apps, now the tables have turned and they emulate us...yes, I think it is now safe to say we have arrived. Solaris, SCO UnixWare, AIX all have Linux Compatibility in it - does HP-UX? I doubt Irix does. The writing is on the wall, the lawsuit only underscores it.
Well, you've opened your mouth and put your foot right in it, right up to the knee-cap and probably past it.
From the horse's mouth:
http://www.thescogroup.com/5reasons/
SCO Open Letter on Copyrights - from Darl McBride, CEO
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. . . ." "Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software industry was a mistake. The positions of the Free Software Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible direction."
[...]
"We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe 'software should be free' cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that 'the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science.'"
From what you've said, Roberto, you're basically ignoring the fact that SCO doesn't want the GPL, anyway, anyhow, anywhere. It doesn't want it here or there, it doesn't want it anywhere, it will not have it in a house, it will not have it with a mouse, it will not have it with a goat, it will not have it on a boat - or afloat, for that matter.
http://www.mvista.com/sco-ibm.html#gplinvalid
SCO now claims that the GPL is pre-empted by federal law or even unconstitutional: are they right?
On August 14, 2003, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal that SCO's lawyers claim the GPL is "pre-empted by copyright law." 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."
You are offering to make multiple copies of software contrary to the declared and express will of the copyright holder, and furthermore, contrary to the SCO Group's own, rather weird theory of copyright.
Get real, wake up and smell the coffee, please. You're only hurting your own credibility with this - and I would hate to see that happen.
RE: Roberto J. Dohnert
I believe you are mistaken. I am not certain though because I do not understand exactly what you plan on doing. Per the GPL you are allowed to make Unixware packages of nmap and distribute them yourself without a problem. Now if you decide to allow SCO to distribute the packages then SCO is still violating the copyright of the original author of nmap. The code belongs to him. He wrote it. He owns the copyright. He gets to choose how it is distibuted, not you. The copyright does not transfer to you just because it is GPL. Only the code you write is under your copyright. Thus you can clone nmap and allow SCO to distribute it as long as you are not distibuting another copyright holders code.
------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this whole ordeal in general. I don't see the downside for nmap in doing this. What happens from here is one of the following:
1. SCO complies and other copyright holders follow suit, crippling SCO.
2. SCO does not comply and is taken to court. The judge can decide either:
a. SCO is not in violation and it's just time wasted. IANAL but it is feasible that the judge will say that just because it is the same license doesn't mean they violated it because they did not fail to contribute modified code. There are many other scenarios where the judge will not agree that there has been a copyright violation but in effect, unless the judge concludes that it is not a valid license, everything goes back to normal. (on a side note, if the license is declared invalid, the the author on nmap retains the copyright and can relicense it under a license that does not allow SCO to use the code.)
b. SCO is in violation and they are forced to stop distributing it along with incurring damages. Other copyright holders follow suit and SCO is crippled.
3. SCO claims they have a valid license (I highly doubt it) and thus throw out their entire case about the GPL being invalid. SCO, once again, is crippled.
Well, aren't we all getting tired from OpenSource advocates telling us that user is the code owner, comparing to bad ugly proprietary software where user is on mercy of software landlord?
Thank you, Fyodor, for putting this marketing slogan to rest. Thank you for pointing to all of us that OpenSource or not, software belongs to its rightful owner, not user.
Thank you for showing that the rightful owner of software can make distributor stop sharing his/her software at any time.
<<< From what you've said, Roberto, you're basically ignoring the fact that SCO doesn't want the GPL, anyway, anyhow, anywhere. It doesn't want it here or there, it doesn't want it anywhere, it will not have it in a house, it will not have it with a mouse, it will not have it with a goat, it will not have it on a boat - or afloat, for that matter >>>
No where in there does it say that they do not agree not to be bound by the terms of the GPL. 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. Does that mean I dont agree to be bound by the terms since I do have to use the code? No it doesnt. Also, Im tired of arguing this with you people because you are all missing the point of it. There are some that have said that if I do a press release that i would be insulting Fyodor. Well, I sent the man an e-mail and explained to him what my intentions are and if he agrees thats fine, if not thats okay too either way its going to come to pass and I dont care who's blessing I have.
<<< On August 14, 2003, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal that SCO's lawyers claim the GPL is "pre-empted by copyright law." 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." >>>
Still doesnt say anything about rejection. I agree with that and my companies corporate lead lawyer agree's with it somewhat, we have discussed it. Matter of opinion
One thing that I have noticed from what hatemail I have gotten already is that a lot of people are not pissed off about my creating a fork for OpenServer and UnixWare, they are more pissed that I would support UnixWare and OpenServer and their assertation is that I should just let UnixWare and OpenServer die. I disagree with them and I wont let it happen. I will do as I wish when I want to do it and unfortunately this is one time where ther GPL jumps right back up to bite you. Oh and by the way, I do know what I have to do.
It amazes me that some people seem to need to hear the exact words "we reject the GPL" and don't see how A LEGAL CHALLANGE OF THE GPL IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS has anything to do with the matter.
Roberto, interpretation aside, SCO talked smack about Linux and the GPL for a while in the beginning stages of the IBM Lawsuit, and nothing happened. That would be because talking smack about the GPL is perfectly legal (as long as “smack” is defined as “concerns” and not outright lies).
However, when SCO states "by allowing unlimited copying and modification, [the GPL] conflicts with federal copyright law, which allows software buyers to make only a single backup copy." SCO is saying that the GPL is not legal, and if it is not legal, YOU CANNOT ACCEPT IT. This is where the talking smack ends and the rejection of the GPL begins.
If you need to hear the exact words "We reject the GPL", THEN CALL SCO AND ASK THEM IF THEY REJECT OR ACCEPT THE GPL. I really don't think that they would say that they accept it, quite the opposite. And if they do say they never rejected it, hey, come on back here and let us know. We'll follow up independently.
I don't know why you cant see it, but you forking is just a reactionary gesture, and one thats taken without full understanding of the situation. But go ahead anyway. It won't matter, as SCO won't be able to distribute it.
Yeah, if "the rightful owner of software can make distributor stop sharing his/her software at any time" depends on the distributors rejects the one document that grants them the right to distribute. Whatever, pal, like MS or SUN licenses are not 500 times more restrictive. And they can't revoke rights based on lots less than rejecting the GPL. I mean, MS has the right to AUDIT YOUR BUSINESS at their convenience (Look up the BSA) to make sure you're not using their software without permission. The GPL doesn't do this, and you're implying that the GPL is easy to use for selfish purposes? Buy a clue.
Ever hear of Ernie Ball? (heres a link, search google for more: http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh) MS shut his business DOWN while they audited his business software usage. Ever hear about this happening with the GPL? Thats because it's designed to protect against businesses exploiting software inappropriately. In other words, the code is copyrited by the writer, but the world is allowed to use it provided they repect the rights laid out in the GPL. And you think this is bad, huh?
...asking for a simple unequivocal Yes or No as to whether they accept the "illegal and unconstitutuional" GPL licensing terms.
Wonder if they will reply.
<<< It amazes me that some people seem to need to hear the exact words "we reject the GPL" and don't see how A LEGAL CHALLANGE OF THE GPL IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS has anything to do with the matter. >>>
Thats right the words need to be said. I dont see a legal challenge as anything specific. Just because you challenge something does not mean rejection.
<<< Roberto, interpretation aside, SCO talked smack about Linux and the GPL for a while in the beginning stages of the IBM Lawsuit, and nothing happened. That would be because talking smack about the GPL is perfectly legal (as long as “smack” is defined as “concerns” and not outright lies). >>>
As I stated before, talking smack does not mean anything. If that is the case then as I stated, RMS needs to notify MS that they cannot distribute GPL components with Services for UNIX. And they did not tell any lies and most of what they said does make sense to me, and I agree with some of their points and not with others. If talking negative about the GPL is in fact a rejection of the GPL then alot of people would not be able to distribute GPL code.
<<< It won't matter, as SCO won't be able to distribute it.>>>
Yes they will. I never undertake any kind of project unless I am positive of something. I know the GPL very well and I know its terms and conditions and I know what I have got to do. As for my fork I already have the FAX and e-mail for McBride and Sontag drafted and ready to go. I know I will not make any new friends over my decisions and its one that I made and will have to live with. I have support from some and I have gotten 89 e-mails on the subject, some of it was hate-mail. Just because you think SCO vilated does not mean that I do.
<<< It amazes me that some people seem to need to hear the exact words "we reject the GPL" and don't see how A LEGAL CHALLANGE OF THE GPL IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS has anything to do with the matter. >>>
Thats right the words need to be said. I dont see a legal challenge as anything specific. Just because you challenge something does not mean rejection.
<<< Roberto, interpretation aside, SCO talked smack about Linux and the GPL for a while in the beginning stages of the IBM Lawsuit, and nothing happened. That would be because talking smack about the GPL is perfectly legal (as long as “smack” is defined as “concerns” and not outright lies). >>>
As I stated before, talking smack does not mean anything. If that is the case then as I stated, RMS needs to notify MS that they cannot distribute GPL components with Services for UNIX. And they did not tell any lies and most of what they said does make sense to me, and I agree with some of their points and not with others. If talking negative about the GPL is in fact a rejection of the GPL then alot of people would not be able to distribute GPL code.
<<< It won't matter, as SCO won't be able to distribute it.>>>
Yes they will. I never undertake any kind of project unless I am positive of something. I know the GPL very well and I know its terms and conditions and I know what I have got to do. As for my fork I already have the FAX and e-mail for McBride and Sontag drafted and ready to go. I know I will not make any new friends over my decisions and its one that I made and will have to live with. I have support from some and I have gotten 89 e-mails on the subject, some of it was hate-mail. Just because you think SCO vilated does not mean that I do.
While MS has complained about the GPL, they have never said that they would challenge it in court and try to make it invalid as part of their defense in a lawsuit. They also have never breached it, unlike SCO. It's not about "talking bad" about the GPL, but taking legal action to have it declared invalid and unconstitutional, in addition to taking steps that go against it in the case of the Linux kernel which is what SCO is doing. So the comparison with MS is useless.
For someone who allegedly does not support SCO, I find that you're acting as quite the apologist for their position. Your actions contradict your words.
You claim to do this for the Unixware and Openserver users, and that's your right - though it's clear that SCO doesn't care about those users anyway, that they are now purely in the litigation business (and pretty likely to lose everything, if you ask me).
But even if you fork nmap, you won't be able to prevent Fyodor from suing SCO if he wants to (which is probably why he said that he was fine with you forking it, because it changes nothing). So your reactionary gesture, which really is just a provocative act in your own personal war against Linux, will be completely and utterly pointless.
BTW, there is nothing preventing Fyodor to relicense future upgrades of nmap so that it specifically state that SCO may not redistribute it. What are going to do then? Write your own upgrades to nmap? I'm sorry, but I'm not quite convinced that you're up to the task.
Finally, a quick word: if you're going to take SCO's side, you're bound to get hate mail. Stop acting the victim and complaining about it. If you can't take the heat, just get out of the kitchen, m'kay?
<<< It won't matter, as SCO won't be able to distribute it.>>>
Yes they will. I never undertake any kind of project unless I am positive of something. I know the GPL very well and I know its terms and conditions and I know what I have got to do
It's funny that you state this but failed to refute my post, or even mention it. Read it again. The original author can still sue SCO because he wrote it, not you. You do not own the code and the GPL does not transfer ownership.
Here my post is again...just in case you missed it:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6192&offset=75&rows=90#20...
@ anonymous, 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"?
@ dopey, "is microsoft distributing gpled tools with their operating system ?" yes. It's called "UNIX Services for Windows".
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.
"I never asserted that I would be the copyright holder and I wouldnt want to be. But I hav not violated the GPL and if I want to distribute to Bill Gates I can."
That is correct. You can distribute it to whomever you like. That is not the issue here. The issue is that even if you distribute it to SCO, SCO can not put it in thier products and distribute it.
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.
Sorry if you don't like it that way, but there are copyright laws involved, and the copyright holder has called SCO's bluff. What you are saying as I interpret it, and I could be wrong, is that since you don't believe in copyright laws they do not apply to you. They do.
" 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?
