Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Jan 2006 14:11 UTC, submitted by Jack
Linux "Companies using Linux for embedded applications may be unwittingly violating the Linux license and even breaking federal securities laws, according to a research published by Wasabi Systems. According to the study, the problem lies with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that companies disclose ownership of intellectual property to their shareholders. The study indicates that dozens of companies are discovered each year to have violated the terms of GPL, and if they are public companies, they are violating Sarbanes-Oxley."
Thread beginning with comment 87560
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

At least you are free to violate other software licenses, and not violate Sarbanes-Oxely. At least that is what I gathered from the article.

I suppose only violating the GPL is a SOX violation, and violating other software licenses is okay. Otherwise, why write an alarming article about it?

From the article: “Linux is a powerful operating system,” says Jay Michaelson, an author of the study and Wasabi Systems’ General Counsel. “But if companies violate the license, the consequences can be more severe than they think. . . "

Before I read this, I thought violating *any* software license was illegal, but now I see it's only illegal to violate the GPL. I guess it's okay to violate other software licenses. Otherwise: what the difference?

From Wasabi's website:

"Wasabi Certified BSD, a certified, tested, and optimized version of the BSD operating system, offers the rich functionality of BSD Unix without Linux's troublesome GPL License. "

Whew, thank god, Wasabi exists. Now I can violate the Wasabis license agreement, and not do anything illegal. After all, only violationg the GPL is illegal.

Reply Score: 2

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

At least you are free to violate other software licenses, and not violate Sarbanes-Oxely. At least that is what I gathered from the article.

Wrong this actuallly applies to any software licence. "the problem lies with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that companies disclose ownership of intellectual property to their shareholders"

If you illegaly bundled in a product some MS software that you had no valid licence for, you to would be violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It simply means that for any third party software you use in a product that you distribute then you must have a valid licence for it. The implication of the article is that the BSD licence is so loose that it is nearly impossible to violate it.

Reply Parent Score: 1