In its lawsuit against IBM, the SCO Group has begun a direct challenge to the General Public License–the legal foundation for Linux, numerous other open-source programming projects and software SCO still ships today.
SCO Attacks Open-Source Foundation
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
that SCO has no case, and have begun trying to take as much down with it as possible.
anyone else find this to be a strange set of coincidence?
– SCO is slandering GPL during their usual tiresome tirade of baseless allegations.
– SCO announces their intention to use Samba in up and coming products.
– Microsoft announces protocol licensing.
– SCO purchases protocol licenses.
– SCO starts direct attacks against GPL.
<tinfoilhat>Microsoft has been in the periphery of the SCO case from before the start. They appear to still be directing SCO’s actions.</tinfoilhat>
I’m surprised. We didn’t heard of them in a month. Not that I was missing their FUD…
However, there’s something I still don’t get. If they don’t like the GPL, why do they ship their OS with GPL’d programs? Anyway…
Why did Novel give any rights to these people?
Over at Groklaw.net, there is a recent article about the latest brief filed by SCO. Basically they are saying that the GPL is unconstitutional. It doesn’t get much more ludicrous than this. Unconstitutional???? I am quite surprised that didn’t go one step further and say that the GPL violates Murphy’s Law and the Law of gravity and the three Laws of Thermodynamics.
It is becoming more and more obvious that SCO is nearing an end because they are pulling out all the stops in the lunacy. I honestly wonder how the lawyers writing this stuff keep a straight face. SCO either hired the world’s most incompetent lawyers or they are just basically telling the lawyers to write what SCO says and not say anything back.
It will be fun finally seeing SCO go down in flames. I am hoping the judge just laughs SCO out of the courtroom. Good riddance SCO!
Just more lawyer craft. If you cant prove them wrong..prove that the law is wrong, or the license is wrong. This just goes to the root of it all. They have no case. They have no proof. They are grasping at every and any straw they can. End of story.
SCO offered no details in its court filing, but it said in a statement, “Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. copyright law says that Congress can regulate copyrights, not the FSF or any other organization.”
Doesn’t sound implausible to me.
Everyone take a moment to consider the possibility, however unlikely, of what would happen were SCO to win…
“”Everyone take a moment to consider the possibility, however unlikely, of what would happen were SCO to win…””
I seriously hope they don’t. Not because of any softspot for the GPL, but because spending another decade listening to self-propogandist, pseudo-cultist, tree-hugging gibberish from RMS would be dire. :>
But it’s like every so often, a company will get posessed by Satan or something.
When is this thing with IBM gong to go to trial anyway? Or is it ?
Why do any of you even listen to anything SCO has to say? Doing that only serves to give them credibility. SCO is a non-factor. They’re like that crazy guy with long hair that stands on your college campus quoting the bible and screaming at the students. Just ignore them.
“”Everyone take a moment to consider the possibility, however unlikely, of what would happen were SCO to win…””
If the court finds that the GPL is unenforcable, that can only mean that all copyright-based software licenses are unenforcable… which means I’m gonna get me a TON of commercial software for free! Woohoo! :^)
(ps to WorknMan: they aren’t possessed by Satan, they’re possessed by the money of a scared and desperate Bill Gates, who sees that is software monopoly is in danger of ending and is doing whatever he can to delay the end)
The FSF certainly does not regulate copyright laws, but it doesn’t have to. The GPL works entirely within current copyright laws. Copyright law is very strict. It gives the author almost complete control over the work, save for some rights reserved for the public. Modern software licensing basically works on copyright holders relaxing some of the constraints of copyright law under certain conditions.
For example: Copyright law says that you cannot take a copy of Windows and install it. Microsoft will grant you a license to that work in exchange for payment plus the assurance that you will not redistribute the software to others. The same thing holds for the GPL. The GPL grants you a license to a work, with the restriction that any derived works must also fall under the license. Now, the changes are your property (you own the copyright to those changes) but if you don’t accept the terms of the GPL, you would be using the original software illegally, and so have no right to make those changes anyway.
Declaring the GPL invalid would call into question all software licenses. Remember, copyright law makes no stipulations on the terms and conditions set by each copyright holder other than to specify that they must not violate other parts of the Constitution. SCO would have to show that the requirement to distribute changes is so fundementally different from (say) the requirement that you not publish changes at all (in the MS source license) that it violates copyright law.
Even if the above sitution, by some slim chance, happened, SCO would still have to prove that the GPL is worded such that, if invalidated, GPL’ed sources would become public domain, rather than reverting to the default state of non-copyable. Doing this would put other software licenses in danger of being invalidated and placed into the public domain.
So to answer your question, ThanatosNL, SCO getting the GPL declared invalid would almost certainly result in all GPL software suddenly becoming non-copyable. All copyrights would go back to the copyright holders, and tons of US companies (including the US government) would be stuck using illegal software.
Sure. Then some corporations have to ante up to SCO, unless IBM can be persuaded buy SCO which is what I think they’re really hoping for. Cheaper than the $3 billion SCO is asking for.
Meanwhile, if SCO were to prove there’s offending code there, Linus & Co. change the kernel. A new license (one that’s Constitutional enough for even greedy corporations in the computer industry) is formed to cover Open Source.
But in the end, Open Source continues on, Linux goes on, etc. Life goes back to normal. How’s that?
SCO is just a pawn. They have no credibility and now, obviously no foundation.
“They’re like that crazy guy with long hair that stands on your college campus quoting the bible and screaming at the students.”
Willard Preacher? or he and his type universal.
SCO executives must have spent all their cash in Las Vegas during the last weeks and now, they’re trying to raise the stock so they can “pump and dump” their shares.
It is obvious they forgot to take their medication for a while. Unfortunately, strange business conducts don’t warrant psychiatric evaluations. Anyway, these days, news about SCO or Microsoft are just noise for me.
“They’re like that crazy guy with long hair that stands on your college campus quoting the bible and screaming at the students.”
ehehhe i love those guys!
IBM says SCO has no case against them for several reasons, one of which is based on the GPL. One of SCO’s counters is that the GPL is invalid. Simple as that.
At this stage, under U.S. rules of what’s called civil procedure (i.e., it’s not a criminal case), everything is very preliminary and theoretical. The process of developing proof/evidence/facts is just at its very beginning. Meanwhile, the court may or may not rule on legal issues such as the validity of the GPL. The court may find that a different legal issue disposes of the case entirely, or may want to have some evidence regarding whether the GPL should be applied to the particular issues in this case, etc.
A ruling that the GPL is invalid would *not* call the rest of copyright law or even software copyright law into question. The GPL is, like any other license, simply a contract from the copyright holder to the licensee, giving the licensee permission to do specific things with the copyrighted work in return for payment and/or certain undertakings by the licensee. Saying it is invalid would require no more than a court saying this particular contract isn’t legally enforceable. Various contracts are held unenforceable every day; it doesn’t mean all the rest are.
Short version: it’s early days, much more to come, save your energy.
any of u had law degrees? NO?? didn’t think so
u ppl can’t interpret gpl or copyright law unless u lawyer. saying this means this or that means that is up to the courts, not u.
sco lawsuit about fsf can’t regulate copy write law is stupid 2. but that doesn’t mean gpl isn’t unconstitutional or against othre law. i bet if gpl went to supreme court it would lose.
my 2 cents
Declaring the GPL invalid would bring into question all other software licenses. It would not declare them invalid outright, but anyone could then bring a suit against the company using those licenses, and the license would then have to be considered in light of the precedence set by the GPL case.
Hahaha, woooh man… [wipes tears from eye]
Leno or Letterman could _*REALLY*_ use the guys that write this stuff, its fresh, its hip, and its relevant
Wait a minute… you say they’re serious? Aww… well that ruins it for me
Seriously tho, this is all starting to sound the same, one played out blur of nonsense. If it wasn’t for Groklaw we may have all gotten dumber for living through it (except for the part where Linus said they were smoking crack… priceless).
* For those not in the know I Stole the subject title from an episode of South Park where they make fun of Rob Schnieder(Sp?) and his string of brain dead situation-comedy movies. Run on joke/commercials go: “Rob Schnieder is a [Hot Chick|Carrot|Stapler]” and ends with non-speak like title.
How can [email protected] call himself a reporter?
He has failed to read the basic documentation on teh issue that he is discussing: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
He is trying to make you think that their is no difference in terms. He is trying to take advantage of you, the reader. Don’t allow this.
I encourage you all to email [email protected] and tell him why his description of the GNU GPL as a open source license is incorrect and link him to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
rowel…you really should refrain from posting while drinking 😉
that was some seriously funny jibberish
“Why did Novel give any rights to these people?”
Trust me, if Novell could take back their UNIX rights, they would.
But, remember that up until very recently, SCO/Caldera had been a relatively calm citizen of the Linux community. Ransom Love (a character unto himself, I might add) left, and then the place went totally nuts. I suppose that’s the big mystery at this point – what the hell happened in there?
-Erwos
Thankfully, it is possible to study (and yes, sometimes even understand) law without being a lawyer. You don’t have to be a lawyer to have taken courses in law, or to get a solid grasp of current legal issues, or of constitutional law — or even to be able to fluently read case law/decisions. The idea that one needs advanced degrees in a subject in order to have a valid opinion about it is rediculous.
This saga is so funny. If anyone takes SCO seriously they should read the legal commentry at http://www.groklaw.net which is written by a paralegal.
According to SCO’s thinking
Microsoft cannot regulate copyright either so lets just copy all their works for free. As if.
SCO,
Why do you complain about opensource software, when in fact you use it yourself?
Has anyone played the Neighbours board game? You get a set of cards with names, and a set of cards with actions, and all you do is put them down to make a episode.
I think the same thing is going on here:
SCO->Sues->IBM, Microsoft->Controls-From-The-Shadows->SCO
I’d like one of the resident Windows/SCO simpathizers to answer this question: how can it be illegal to release code that _I_ wrote, for free?
Sco claims that it is ok for SCO not indemnify their customers, who are using samba.
But it is not ok for IBM not to indemnify their linux customers…
Right….
…”Biting the hand that feeds you” ever been more apt. How can SCO piggyback on the work of people who believe in sharing their code, use it to make money, and then turn around and say they think it is unlawful. I think it will be quite a scene in court when SCO tries to convince the court it has some sort of right to GPL’d code, when it does not accept the license. Isn’t the GPL some form of contract. I do not know about USA, but where I am from this is pretty much a clear case. You either accept a contract, ratify it by your behaviour, or turn it down. It says clearly in the GPL license, nothing else gives you rights to this code, only the GPL. If you think the GPL is unlawful (why? its a valid contract) then you cannot have right to the code protected under it, because then it belongs to the authors of the code. Unless SCO can convince the court that it has contacted all the authors for all the code it uses and gotten permission to use the code. I can’t wait for the judge to ask, “How do you have the temerity to come before me complaining that others are violating your IP rights, and yet in the same breath ask me for permission to trample on the very same rights of others to suit yourselves?”
Still have some faith in these not too effective justice systems. If I where IBM/Rdhat lawyers, I would be working on putting these words in the judge’s mouth.
SCO has no shame.
Your post might actually have a hint of truth to it. No one really knows what will happen.
But if you don’t start writing like a normal human using proper capitals and puncutation and without the silly ‘u’s and what not, I really hope the moderators moderate down every one of your posts. You sound like you are 10, and while you may even be 10, that’s still no excuse to write like you do.
The GPL is a copyright Weapon of Mass Destruction! It was designed under MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] principals.
Some one pointed out above that you need a “license” to run windows…actually you do not need a license to run any software. That is a provision of copyright law…fair and intended use of software. If you pay for it you automatically have the right to run it. You have been fed a lie! You only need a “license” to distribute [note: even copying has fair-use rights under US law.]
The GNU GPL is one of the LEAST restrictive copyright contracts in existance. It places NO restriction on running software [none are legally required] it places no restrictions on duplication of a program [you can churn out copies all day and never violate GPL] It only places restrictions [making source available] on the act of modifying AND distributing. [Again, you can distribute all over the world, and modify all day, but only when you do both at once does the GPL affect you] There are clarifications about what is “modifying”, etc but those are minor details. That would seem to be very few items to declare “unconstitutional”. The GPL relies on the absolute bare minimum of extraneous contractual language to make its point. It was designed to stand the fire…not make a CEO warm and fuzzy. It is not an EULA because it only applies to developers, not end users.
The MAD comes in because those “lovely” EULAs rely on far more legal flexibility to provide any enforcement at all. If the GPL was struck down, you would have to argue not that the language was wrong, but that the Creator [who currently has ALL rights] could not somehow bestow thoses rights on somebody else for an “in-kind” payment…or any other “string” attached. One would have to blow a huge hole in Author’s rights to control their works…one that would undermine the entire software industry. The legal precedent would create open-season on pretty much every other software vendor out there [except perhaps BSD, who’s free with no strings attached]
I knew SCO’s loves Linux:
http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux/info/q_and_a.html
# Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released.
(I guess they wont be after me, it says in in black and white).
# Will UnitedLinux allow additional companies to join?
Yes. Today, four development members – SCO, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux – make up UnitedLinux, but the initiative is open for additional Linux companies to participate.
(I wonder if IBM/Novell will sign up?)
# What about other Linux providers?
Red Hat, Mandrake, and others were, and still are, invited to be a part of UnitedLinux. We hope they take us up on the offer.
(I think Red Hat is submitting the paper work as we speak)
First, your troll will be more legitimate if you weren’t writing like a 13-years-old AOLer. Changing your username would also help because we already know that you’re clueless.
Second, AFAIK, the GPL was written with the help of some lawyers. BSD people are often using that fact to bash the GPL (i.e. it’s hard to understand because it’s long and written in layman terms).
I am somehow convinced, that MS has not fingers but hands in this game.
Enforcing the GNU GPL
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
It certainly looks like SCO has stepped up to volunteer as the sacrifice for the first test of the GPL in court. What an honour!
And, they’re not getting Eben Moglen’s quiet diplomacy – they’ve opted for the tender mercies of IBM’s full legal squad, in open court.
I would say, that in so doing, SCO has repudiated beforehand, just in this occasion, any right to argue that this case be sealed in any legal sense.
Read http://www.groklaw.net for comment on the details that SCO unforgivably left out – the details of how the GPL causes cancer, violates the second and third laws of thermodynamics, etc – and I expect, will cause the bulk of America east of the San Andreas Fault, to sink into the Atlantic.
SCO is nowhere near creative enough!
Is it indicated that SAMBA going to be next target because it has implemented the protocol to talk to Windows?
I’m sure Samba is the next target and I’m sure that
MS is involved. They have just been very careful not
to cover up every single step.
Where else does the money for the trial come from?
If this is so, the trial can continue for quite some time
and the success for Open Source (or FSF if GPL is attacked)
depends on some big moneymaker to sponsor the defence.
IBM for example. Its quite ironical after hearing Stallmans
speach about software patents where some big companies
are mentioned as example.
I don’t think the threat should be treated so lightly.
This is more about endurance than right or wrong.
Isn’t this whole thing about the portions of UNIX which were basically cut/pasted into linux, thus ushering them into the open-source community against the wishes of their owner? Seems to me they have a pretty good foundation if the code was copied.
ROTFL
The whole company is ridiculous.
Who is funding the SCO group in order to sue GPL, IBM and coming
victims?
SCO (and MS if they are really involved) are taking a huge gamble because if they loose then the GPL, Linux and the whole Open Source world itself will become so strong.
Challeging Linux in court and then loosing will prove to every IT manager out there that’s um’ed and ahh’ed about using Linux that its safe to do so in a way no marketing ever could. Also it would give GPL/Linux/OSS an amazing amount of integrity.
If MS is behind this, they don’t even have to win.
They only have to continue the trial for as long time as
possible. This will make companies suspicious about if
Linux can actually be used comersially.
But lets be positive and hope that the even bigger fish
will eat the not so big fish.
@Gill
> «SCO offered no details in its court filing, but it said in
> a statement, “Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. copyright law
> says that Congress can regulate copyrights, not the FSF or
> any other organization.”»
>
> Doesn’t sound implausible to me.
It doesn’t, but then again,FSF is not regulating copyrights at all, so what SCO has to say about the matter is irrelevant.
<< I am somehow convinced, that MS has not fingers but hands in this game. >>
My 0.02 – SCO is desperate to be bought so that the big fish there can cash out. But sincerely, the MS-bashing group on OSNews is paranoid and silly.
The idea that companies need a big brother to go down in flames is ridiculous on its face. Would MS be happy if GPL were (in a dream world) rendered illegal? Sure. Is MS somehow funding this SCO gambit? The very question is ridiculous.
If you read here the posts you will often here about MS and FUD. No doubt they are guilty (as is every competitive company running a business). But the idea that MS is behind every anti-GPL move is a paranoid fantasy. Many, many companies allow their executives to ride them into the ground, and in this SCO is not the first or the last. To believe that MS is funding this travesty, however, is delusional.
I was the earlier “Anonymous” IAAL poster – forgot to include my name (it was late, sorry:).
Rayiner, you’re correct that other courts may consider the reasoning of this court re the GPL if this court actually reaches that issue, but here are the reasons it is unlikely to affect other licenses of copyrighted material, even other software licenses:
– Copyright in the U.S. is part of the Constitution. No lower Federal court will be invalidating parts of the Constitution – in fact, no court in the U.S., including the Supreme Court, has the power to do so.
– Courts considering other licenses will be looking for cases that are as similar as possible to the ones they’re working on, and will not find a case regarding the GPL relevant unless the license they’re considering is very close to the GPL. So other courts might pay attention if they have a case involving the LPGL, for example, but not if they are considering provisions that differ between the GPL and the LGPL.
I am not a programmer, but if I can try to draw a parallel: If you want to write a program that will make use of object-oriented aspects, you are more likely to look to C++ rather than C for helpful examples. Courts do the same – they look to other cases that are most likely to help with the specific situations they are considering. The GPL is so different from most other software licenses that courts aren’t likely to find a ruling on the GPL relevant to cases involving other software licenses.
In any event, as I said, it’s early days – it remains to be seen whether it will even be necessary for the court to reach the issue of the GPL.
“I’d like one of the resident Windows/SCO simpathizers to answer this question: how can it be illegal to release code that _I_ wrote, for free?”
There are people, influenced I think by Ayn Rand, who believe that it is wrong to give anything away because it could stop somebody from earning money by selling a similar item.
I think many people in Microsoft do object to you writing software and giving it away. It just seems wrong to those whose whole life is dedicated to selling software as a commercial product. Not only wrong but un-American.
“To believe that MS is funding this travesty, however, is delusional.”
But they _are_ funding it. They paid SCO for a lot of licenses they didn’t need.
I find it wholly un-Capitalist and un-American to be anti-competitive. After all capitalist and American values are based on healthy competition and not the stifling of it. OSS, by “giving away” creates a whole lot more competition as anyone _CAN_ create, modify, sell something that someone else has given away for free.
Think of bread as the corner stone of capitalism (and Americanism if you like – Tea applies in the same way). The beauty of capitalism is that anyone can bake bread, the recipe is no secret and the equipment is cheap and easy, all you need is a few basic ingredients that are relatively cheap or free (and in the public domain – anyone can grow wheat). Everything about bread is open and free and in the public domain. The point of capitalism is that everybody has the freedom not to just bake bread (this incredible ‘free’ stuff that anyone can have) but to sell it as well. This means people can make money to further progress their lives (capitalism exists to improve the lives of individuals in a non-bias way).
Now the key difference between communism and capitalism comes into play now, in communism the sale of bread is regulated and so is wheat etc. sure anyone can grow and make but not everyone can sell. In capitalism because everyone can sell this creates competition. If I can buy my bread from anyone then each person must provide me with something unique that keeps me with them – quality, customer service, speed, price etc. This makes people start thinking about their products (the bread), so they start to make it better or unique (this is research and innovation). So they add olives to the bread or sundried tomatoes or make new recipes or shapes or flavours. This is innovation. The loaf of bread has evolved, become better, more range for the consumer and more opportunity for the hard working entrepreneur. Those that bother to work hard to improve the bread industry are rewarded financially. This of course creates a never ending cycle of competition and improvement.
Now the problem with the MS/SCO IT model is it lumps patents on everything. So no one can bake bread anymore, because no one can see the recipe or afford the tools and ingredients to create these products. Open Source however just gives away all those recipes for anyone to use meaning anyone can bake their own OS. To conclude Open Source (in this current climate) is absolutely essential for a healthy capitalist society.
As a final thought bread (i.e. food and agriculture) are the very basis of an economy, accounting for over a third, an unstable agricultural economy means absolute ruin and poverty. That’s why the bread model works so well!
<< But they _are_ funding it. They paid SCO for a lot of licenses they didn’t need. >>
Ah, but that is your opinion. The licensing cost was trivial, and a symbolic “nod” to SCO’s IP rights. Sun paid as well – are they equally evil? To say that “they didn’t need them” is your opinion (and false, IMO, given that they have Unix Services to license for interoperability – who ESLE are they going to license interoperability from given that even Novell admits that SCO owns the rights?).
If your “licensing” argument is your “funding” argument you’ve made my point for me.
No one can forbid people from spreading knowledge for free.
This GPL issue is all about the spread of software knowledge, MS/SCO and others try to stop knowledge flowing into society, because that knowledge is the basis of the money they make.
This whole Open Source Movement is the result of unfair play from the big companies trying to steal knowledge from the general public. If they (MS in the front line) didn’t try to abuse the market this whole situation will be non existent. It’s their own fault, hey helped to create the creature which is going to kill them.
Software is made of “knowledge” and the implementation of that knowledge. You can protect a certain implementation of an idea, let’s talk about data compression, say you create WinZip. But you can not lock away the idea of data compression to avoid someone else to make a competing product, let’s say WinRAR.
This is what all of those companies try to do with all of the patenting and source locking of software. They try to avoid people using their idea to make a competing/better product.
The same thing happened to the “explosion engine”, a corporation on the states tried to patent the idea of the “explosion engine”. In that occasion the patent office denied the patent, because the “explosion engine” wasn’t invented by one single person, but by many people using other people’s previous ideas. However you can still patent a certain “explosion engine” model.
Fortunately it’s too late. There’s no way to stop Open Source because as one person said here, if I make a piece of software and I give it for free… what’s the problem???
If GPL disappears no one would be happier than me. I think the license is all but free and just horrible.
Can you somehow donate money to the cause of removing GPL from the market?
There are so many other OSS licenses which fulfills their purpose while GPL just restricts everything.
Howabout MPL, MIT, BSD, Apache license and so on.
If Linux got relicensed to something proper such as the BSD license maybe it would get the acceptance it so badly needs. As it is now the license is the biggest issue to why Linux develops so slowly..
To say that “they didn’t need them” is your opinion (and false, IMO, given that they have Unix Services to license for interoperability
Uh, you don’t need a license for interoperability.
I also disagree that the amount was trivial. Wasn’t it like 6 million dollars or something? Also, there might have been other investments by MS – check out http://www.groklaw.net.
I usually don’t go for MS paranoia, but I’ve got to admit that something really is fishy here. There has to be a reason why SCO is sacrificing itself to destroy Linux.
Anonymous
Can you somehow donate money to the cause of removing GPL from the market?
The question is, can I donate money to remove Anonymous posters such as you from OSNews? 🙂
Seriously, if you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it, and don’t release programs under it. But what you’re suggesting is taking away the freeedom of developers to release software under it. For someone who supposedly doesn’t like the GPL because it’s not free enough, you certainly don’t seem to have qualms limiting others’ freedoms.
>>If GPL disappears no one would be happier than me. I think the license is all but free and just horrible.
Well, you’re welcome to your opinion.
>> Can you somehow donate money to the cause of removing GPL from the market?
Buy a license from SCO perhaps?
>> There are so many other OSS licenses which fulfills their purpose while GPL just restricts everything.
I thought you said it was all but free? Now you way it’s too restrictive. Make up your mind please!
>> Howabout MPL, MIT, BSD, Apache license and so on.
What about them?
>> If Linux got relicensed to something proper such as the BSD license maybe it would get the acceptance it so badly needs. As it is now the license is the biggest issue to why Linux develops so slowly..
It’s funny, SCO’s been claiming that Linux has developed much too quickly and so must be using their code.
On a more serious note: the GPL does what it was designed to do. It has restrictions to how the code can be used, but to be honest they are restrictions that I approve of (I don’t like the idea of people selling products based on my work but not allowing me access to the changed version of my code – this can happen with some of the other licenses such as BSD).
That nice Mr Thovalds originally released his kernel under a non-commercial license but choose the gpl for what he considers its best feature – it guarantees forks can be remerged. I’m not sure if the the other licenses you mention are suitable in the same way.
Personally I find the polemic at the start of the GPL a bit wearying but have no philosopical problem with the thing as a whole.
My understanding of US law – gained purely from confused arguments on various news sites – is that at this stage SCO have to list all the arguments they might use, however insane. If the US didn’t have a separation of church & state they probably be going on about blasphemy.
>> If GPL disappears no one would be happier than me. I
>> think the license is all but free and just horrible.
Then do not use GPL software, what’s the problem???
Or are you trying to steal something?
The GPL is only restrictive if you want to use other people’s code in a lock-in way. No more no less…
So again… what’s wrong with the GPL????
>> I think the license is all but free and just horrible.
> I thought you said it was all but free? Now you way it’s too restrictive. Make up your mind please!
The person who wrote the first quote, is probably Dutch (like me). We have an expression “allesbehalve” of which the constituent parts would literally translate into “all but”, but in fact means the opposite (“as far away as possible from”, “anything as long as it’s not”). So (s)he made up his/her mind.
Personally I agree with the rest of the response – if you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it. If you find enough people agreeing, your MPL/MIT/BSD codebase will flourish. The GPL doesn’t devour that.
“There are people, influenced I think by Ayn Rand, who believe that it is wrong to give anything away because it could stop somebody from earning money by selling a similar item.”
This is way off, Ayn Rand actually believed that anything produced by an individual was his to do with as he pleased.
If he wished to give it away that was his business.
What is wrong is (according to Objectivism) when someone forces you to do things with what you have produced. For example you write some spiffy new program that regulates traffic flow in a very effiecient fashion. The government decides it shouldn’t have tompay for it, so it takes it from you for the good of drivers everywhere.
I am not as familiar with the GPL as I would like to be ( I need to change that), but it would seem that there is nothing in the GPL a that would run counter to any of Ayn Rands ideas. No one is forced to use it. Now if all software was GPL’ed, that might be a problem.
Which leads me to a question. If I use a GPL’ed complier to compile some software, does that fall under the derivitive works clause? If so what would happen if all compilers were GPL’ed? Wouldn’t that effectively make all subsequent software GPL?
The argument that has been made by some lawyers is that the GPL is not a legally binding contract because of the fact that it is a one way contract. Basically, legal contracts are generally based on some kind of exchange. With the GPL, no exchange takes place.
Another argument that has been made is that the clause requiring a programmer to GPL any code they add to existing GPL code, or link against GPL code, is not legally enforcable because the GPL programmer cannot infringe on the other programmer’s right in that way.
Anyone who believes that MS is not heavily involved in this is delusional. It is a cheap way to buy years of FUD against Linux given the slipping timescale for Longhorn -the current SCO FUD war is just what MS needs at the moment.
MS knows that SCO has no chance of winning against IBM so does the Canopy group bosses who are the ones who are really making the money on this pump and dump scheme. The pump and dump scheme (very comples and based on the aquisition of Canopy group companies by SCO) requires maximum anti Linux FUD. MS is prepared to pay the legal costs for this by License purchase (SUN has joined in too – what company is losing out to Lintel most in the Enterprise ?)
The latest Baycrest $50M venture capital invetment has sticky fingers that point back to MS. The whole SCO legal stategy of trying to delay the cases as long as possible all fits in with MS’s interests and the Longhorn release schedule. MS doesn’t expect this case will kill Linux it is just using it as a tool to intimidate IT execs away from Linux adoption.
Paranoid – No just an honest appreciation of US business ethics.
The GPL does not claim to be a contract. But nothing gives you the right to copy other people’s copyrighted software *except* the terms of the GPL. So you don’t have to accept it, but you have no legal right to copy the software otherwise. It’s taking advantage of the current “intellectual property” situation where everything is unfree by default.
None of this matters anyway. Why? Because operating systems are dead. Proprietary systems are dead. The days where vendors can lock their users into a single platform are dead. The future is Java and .NET. Sure they aren’t the perfect holy grail of software portability, but with careful programming, they come damn close.
.NET is especially interesting, because it shows that even Microsoft was forced to conceed that it can no longer keep its customer’s locked into a proprietary operating system. So Microsoft has released parts of the .NET framework for standards approval. (Yes, I know they only released enough to barely allow a third party to write a C# compiler for another platform. But still, it is a start).
The battle now is not between Windows and UNIX, or between Windows and Linux. The battle is between Java and .NET.
That’s bad news for Microsoft, but good news for Apple, Linux, FreeBSD, and other OS vendors as long as they write a JVM for their platform.
“So you don’t have to accept it, but you have no legal right to copy the software otherwise.”
Sure. But the question is whether the GPL programmer can legally call a linking against a header file “copying his software”. There are legal arguments for both sides of that. And existing copyright law is poorly set up to deal with the issue. So the GPL is experiencing a trial by fire right now. And I can almost gurantee that no matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, it is going to result in new laws to make clearer what exactly is or is not enforcable in software agreements.
“No one can forbid people from spreading knowledge for free.”
They can and do. It is called censorship.
“None of this matters anyway. Why? Because operating systems are dead. Proprietary systems are dead. The days where vendors can lock their users into a single platform are dead. The future is Java and .NET.”
Neither of those are operating systems – they are languages. You still need an operating system on every computer to link the hardware to the programs you want to run, whether these are coded in C or Java or whatever.
“Which leads me to a question. If I use a GPL’ed complier to compile some software, does that fall under the derivitive works clause? ”
No. If you have a license to use a program whose function is to create images, music, text or programs, the items you create are your own.
“The argument that has been made by some lawyers is that the GPL is not a legally binding contract because of the fact that it is a one way contract. Basically, legal contracts are generally based on some kind of exchange. With the GPL, no exchange takes place.”
Umm, no. You can do the things the license allows (run the program, read and copy the source, make changes to it, etc.) in *exchange* for your agreement to provide all the same rights of open copying, source availability, etc., to everyone else.
“Another argument that has been made is that the clause requiring a programmer to GPL any code they add to existing GPL code, or link against GPL code, is not legally enforcable because the GPL programmer cannot infringe on the other programmer’s right in that way.”
The GPL is a license, that is to say, a contract. You can choose to enter into the contract or not.
(1) If you freely choose to enter into the contract, no “rights” of yours are infringed. To use a simple example, if you agree to sell a loaf of bread to me, when I have bought it you cannot claim I have infringed your “right” to the bread.
(2) If you freely choose not to enter into the contract, then certainly no “rights” are infringed. Using the same example, if I choose not to buy your bread, no rights of yours are infringed.
“The GPL does not claim to be a contract.” Since a license is a type of contract, and it calls itself the Gnu General Public *License*, yes, it does claim to be what in fact it is, a contract.
It seems to me, although IANAL, that releasing code under the GPL undermines their claim that the GPL is invalid, unconstitutional, communist, whatever.
Doesn’t adherence to a written contract make that contract enforcable? I think it does.
“Umm, no. You can do the things the license allows (run the program, read and copy the source, make changes to it, etc.) in *exchange* for your agreement to provide all the same rights of open copying, source availability, etc., to everyone else.”
Well, I’m only reporting what I have read that has been written by anti-GPL lawyers.
“If you freely choose to enter into the contract, no “rights” of yours are infringed. To use a simple example, if you agree to sell a loaf of bread to me, when I have bought it you cannot claim I have infringed your “right” to the bread.”
Not everything that is put into contracts is legally binding. That’s why they always have the “If any part of this contract is found to be unenforcable, it will not affect the enforcability of the rest of the contract” clause. Because contract writers know that certain parts of their contracts might be ruled unenforcable because they violate intrinsic rights granted by law.
With the GPL, the law in question is copyright law that explicitly states that derivative works are NOT copyright violations. That’s where the question comes in. If you link against GPL code, you have created a derivative work. And because of that, one can make a strong argument that the portion of the GPL that requres a programmer to GPL any code that is linked against existing GPL is not legally enforcable because it violates individual rights that are granted by existing copyright law.
“Doesn’t adherence to a written contract make that contract enforcable? I think it does.”
Not necessarily. Hence the clause in all contracts about if any part of the contract is rendered unenforcable, it will not affect the enforcability of the rest of the contract.
“Neither of those are operating systems – they are languages. You still need an operating system on every computer to link the hardware to the programs you want to run, whether these are coded in C or Java or whatever.”
.NET is not a language. It is a virtual machine. As is Java. Sure there is a language called “Java”, but other languages can, and have been written to run on the Java virtual machine, the most well known of which is probably Jython. (Python for the Java platform).
So it is so much more than just a language. It is a virtual computer platform that is almost immune from hardware archetecture differences.
Obviously, people will still need operating systems. But they will take a back seat because they won’t be as important anymore because the same Java software I currently run on my Windows XP box will also run on an OS X box if I decide to switch platforms tomorrow. And I won’t even have to recompile.
It also means that I, as a Java developer, am not locked into the platform that my customers want to run the application on. I can develop and compile on my Solaris workstation, give the result .class files to my customers, and those class files will run on their Windows boxes.
So basically, although operating systems are still needed, they will take a back seat in the future because choice of operating system won’t matter as much.
“””Which leads me to a question. If I use a GPL’ed complier to compile some software, does that fall under the derivitive works clause?”””
“the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).”
Kinda fun playing “online lawyer” here.
(Disclaimer: Yep, IAAL, but my statements here do not constitute legal advice, and you should not rely on them in any way.)
“It seems to me, although IANAL, that releasing code under the GPL undermines their claim that the GPL is invalid, unconstitutional, communist, whatever.”
Simply releasing GPL’d code, though it certainly doesn’t help SCO, probably doesn’t amount to the sort of conduct that would prevent them from trying to claim it’s invalid. (OTOH, releasing GPL’d code may amount to permission to anyone else to use it freely under the terms of the GPL. That is one of the things IBM contends, and is the reason SCO in turn is saying the GPL is invalid.)
“Doesn’t adherence to a written contract make that contract enforcable?”
Nope.
Example: I agree with you in writing to shoot your wife in return for your payment of $1000. When I shoot her, I can’t come to court and demand my $1000. So the fact that someone adheres to an invalid contract doesn’t make it enforceable.
There’s a related concept that the parties’ conduct provides evidence of how they interpreted a contract. For instance, let’s say I agree with you to paint your house for $1000. I paint it white during the course of a week while you watch. You then refuse to pay, and tell the court you wanted blue. The fact that you watched while I painted it white is evidence that your stated preference for blue is just an excuse for not paying. But such evidence applies to interpreting a *valid* contract. It doesn’t make the contract itself enforceable (valid) or unenforceable (invalid).
“I’m sure Samba is the next target”
Why?
“and I’m sure that MS is involved.”
Care to state proof? I’m interested.
There is a difference between contract rights and intellectual property rights. Let’s say you write a program and sign a contract with a software company to market it for you in return for a cut of the sales proceeds. The fact that you have made an original, copyrighted program doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow through on your contractual obligation to pay the software company its cut.
If something is a derivative work, it is copyrightable in itself, but that says nothing about whether the GPL applies. Remember, the GPL is a contract. You can choose not to accept the contract; but if you do accept it, the fact that you have independently copyrightable software doesn’t mean the contract won’t apply to you.
“You can choose not to accept the contract; but if you do accept it, the fact that you have independently copyrightable software doesn’t mean the contract won’t apply to you.”
That’s debtable. Because once again, just because you agree to something in a contract does NOT mean that it is legally enforcable. There are things that simply are not enforcable in a contract because they violate guranteed rights. No person has the right to take away guranteed rights, whether through contract or any other method.
“There is a difference between contract rights and intellectual property rights.”
True. But intellectal property rights are no not copyright law. They are patent law. And when you start talking about intellectual property rights, you get into the “non-trivial and non-obvious” mess.
And intellectual property rights are the thing that Linux users are always screaming about anyway, about how they have no place in software and such.
Well, maybe they do, since it seems plausible that copyright law cannot protect software against the “derivative works” laws.
@dpi
“and I’m sure that MS is involved.”
Care to state proof? I’m interested.
SCO has received a providential investisment from $50 Million
Check who would like to invest in a dying company.
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/16/2347257.shtml?tid=187&tid=88&…
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/17/2110216&mode=thread&tid…
Which company invest in baystar ?
http://www.baystarcapital.com/public/pdf/BayStar%20White%20…
Ctrl-F microsoft
(Note: Vulcan Ventures belongs to Paul Allen, co-fondator of Microsoft)
“Isn’t this whole thing about the portions of UNIX which were basically cut/pasted into linux, thus ushering them into the open-source community against the wishes of their owner? Seems to me they have a pretty good foundation if the code was copied.”
If the code was copied they would be okay. One of the reasons these threads keep happening is that SCO wants the advertisement, as they refuse to publish to anyone the alleged code. Unfortunately that indicates that no code actually exists, since they can not or will not say what the code is.
“The argument that has been made by some lawyers is that the GPL is not a legally binding contract because of the fact that it is a one way contract. Basically, legal contracts are generally based on some kind of exchange. With the GPL, no exchange takes place.
Another argument that has been made is that the clause requiring a programmer to GPL any code they add to existing GPL code, or link against GPL code, is not legally enforcable because the GPL programmer cannot infringe on the other programmer’s right in that way.”
The answer to the exchange in the first paragraph is what you posted in the second paragraph. Basically the exchange for using the code is should you modify it, you must release the source for the modification with the modified program. That is an exchange, one thing for another, instead of cash, the exchange is code.
If you link against GPL code, you have created a derivative work. And because of that, one can make a strong argument that the portion of the GPL that requres a programmer to GPL any code that is linked against existing GPL is not legally enforcable because it violates individual rights that are granted by existing copyright law.
Well, that depends on what you consider linking. If you mean making a single program out of two programs, one of which is GPL, well then, yes, you need to make the whole thing GPL, because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to redsitribute it without violating the GPL (note that you still own copyrights on your part of the work). So in that sense the final program is very much a derivative.
On the other hand, if your program makes calls to another program, but is not bundled with that program – i.e. if the two programs communicate but are not in fact the same program – then you don’t have to release your program under the GPL. For example, I could make a proprietary Samba configuration and admin tool that would communicate with Samba, change its config, etc. But I couldn’t make this program an intrinsic part of Samba, however. It would have to be distributed separately.
Obviously, there’s room for interpretation here – even the FSF acknowledges that. From their web site:
“If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.”
Also, note that the developer is not forced to do anything if he does not redistribute the modified software.
Again, the solution is simple: if you don’t want to release your software under the GPL, don’t use GPL code to make it. In the example you give, if it wasn’t for the GPL in the first place, you wouldn’t be able to use the code (or link to it) at all! So the GPL does not restrict the developer’s freedom, it grants him additional freedoms under certain condition. Remove the GPL, and the developer has less freedom with regards to that piece of code; with that in mind, I don’t think the argument holds.
“derivative works are NOT copyright violations”
This would not cause problems for the GPL but all types of licenses. What does derivative mean in the software context. It means you take code and put it in your program. If the GPL is invalid becaue derivatives are not copyright violations, then what of the assertion made by SCO that Linux is an illegal derivative of their UNIX code and that there are copyright infringements. It becomes very tricky for them to try argue on both sides of the coins, depending on what suits them. The only thing that protects them is their license for their code. They are trying to argue in courts that their copyrights were violated. And that Linux is illegal because of that remember. And they are trying to argue that NUMA, JFS and other code makes Linux an unauthorised derivative of their code. If this doesn’t make them be treading a tricky legal minefield, then I don’t know what does.
So what does the constitution mean when it says derivatives are not copyright violations. Does it mean I can copy any part of something, book, software program, and use it as I please because I am not violating any copyrights. No, I do not think so. But I am not a lawyer.
“.NET is especially interesting, because it shows that even Microsoft was forced to conceed that it can no longer keep its customer’s locked into a proprietary operating system. So Microsoft has released parts of the .NET framework for standards approval. (Yes, I know they only released enough to barely allow a third party to write a C# compiler for another platform. But still, it is a start).”
Well, part of the trouble is that .NET is only and will be only designed to run on MS OS. Interoperability would be a good thing, but .NET does not give us that. If it did, then the .NET Framework, required to run anything .NET, would be available for OS other then Windows. That is not the case. They are trying to get them added into the standards only so that people with other OS can develop for Windows, not the other way around.
There are things that simply are not enforcable in a contract because they violate guranteed rights.
True, but this does not apply here. You do not have a guaranteed right to freely redistribute copyrighted work (whether you have modified it or not). The GPL grants you this right. So in this context this point is moot.
True. But intellectal property rights are no not copyright law. They are patent law.
Incorrect. The term “Intellectual Property” refers to copyrights, patents and trade secrets, not patents only. Mickey Mouse is (still) Disney’s IP, yet it does not involve patents or trade secrets in any way. The Coca-Cola formula is a trade secret, and there might conceivable be patents involved, but it isn’t in itself protected by copyright law.
And intellectual property rights are the thing that Linux users are always screaming about anyway, about how they have no place in software and such.
Untrue. The GPL is based on copyright law, which is part of “intellectual property” law. What some Free Software proponents (most notably RMS) are railing about is Software patents, arguing that software methods are akin to mathematical formulas and/or free speech, and as such should not be covered by patent law, but only copyright law (to oversimplify the whole thing). But copyrighted material is still considered IP.
IBM used to be one of the most hated companies in the industry. More hated than Microsoft, even by people who had never done business with them. Popular belief would make me believe that IBM’s head office was located just south of the third circle of hell.
Roll forward and enter the SCO case. Suddenly IBM is getting a brand new reputation…as being something of a socially responsible company. IBM lawyers can finally raise their heads above the parapet in expectation that there’s at least a 50% chance there isn’t someone waiting to shoot them (Only 50%…they are lawyers after all :>).
Are we to believe in a kinder, gentler Big Blue that’s stopped growling and rolled over to have its tummy tickled?
If so, would it be worth paying SCO to attack themselves to generate such a new image? :>
***
On a more serious note.
I agree with others here that if you don’t like the conditions attached to using GPL software then don’t incorporate it into your projects.
My personal objections are related to a misleading use of the word “free” (In my opinion, I’m not gonna argue it again so do bother trying to start a discussion on it) and a more subtle argument involving burden of proof for future original software that resembles prior GPLed software once the publicly available GPL source base becomes extremely extensive. Neither of those objections have any relevance to the legal case, this thread, or the good/bad nature of the GPL.
Thank you, O Great Cthulu.
Anonymous, the Constitution does indeed guarantee the right of Copyright. These rights are the copyright holder’s property, *to do with as he, she or it wants, including selling them or giving them away.* Just as you can sell or grant or give away part or all of a piece of land that you own, so you can sell or grant or give away part or all of the bundle of rights that you have as the copyright holder. So you can grant others the rights required under the GPL in exchange for linking.
Here’s another example: SCO employees give SCO all their rights to any copyrighted software they make in return for being employed by SCO. Hmm, guess that assigning your rights under a copyright is un-Constitutional if it’s the GPL, but perfectly routine and OK if the rights are assigned to SCO, eh?
Very insightful comments Peter Moss.
People should also read the following for more information on his topic:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-dream.html
“Anonymous, the Constitution does indeed guarantee the right of Copyright. These rights are the copyright holder’s property…”
You are right. But once again, if you read copyright law, you will see that derivative works fall under the fair use clause. That means derivative works are NOT a violation of copyright.
“yes, you need to make the whole thing GPL, because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to redsitribute it without violating the GPL (note that you still own copyrights on your part of the work). So in that sense the final program is very much a derivative.”
You would be violating the GPL, yes. But because what you created is a derivative work, then the rights granted you by the fair use clause of copyright law may very well trump the GPL, in which case, that clause in the GPL is unenforcable.
“then what of the assertion made by SCO that Linux is an illegal derivative of their UNIX code and that there are copyright infringements.”
But SCO is claiming patent violations. Not copyright violations.
But also, remember that there is a difference between directly cutting and pasting someone else’s code into your own code, and the linker of a compiler including a header file. The second case ise a stronger argument for a derivative work.
Also, software copyright runs into problems because there are often only so many ways you can do something. In otherwords, it’s possible, and in some languages, even likely, that if I duplicate the functionality of a class or method, that I am going to end up writing the exact same code as another programmer did, without having even seen that programmer’s code. Copyright law is very tricky when it comes to software.
“What some Free Software proponents (most notably RMS) are railing about is Software patents, arguing that software methods are akin to mathematical formulas and/or free speech, and as such should not be covered by patent law, but only copyright law (to oversimplify the whole thing).”
And the reason I disagree with this is because once again, there are often only so many ways to implement certain funtionality in a given language. With strongly syntaxed languages, it becomes a very real possibility that someone could duplicate someone elses code without ever having even seen that code.
if you read copyright law, you will see that derivative works fall under the fair use clause.
Not if you redistribute them. Fair use doctrine allows for a single (archival) copy to be made, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t allow redistribution.
But because what you created is a derivative work, then the rights granted you by the fair use clause of copyright law may very well trump the GPL, in which case, that clause in the GPL is unenforcable.
Considering that SCO seeks to prove that they own any derivative work of Unix, I doubt this is a strategy they will pursue. In any case, I don’t think fair use can be used to trump the GPL, because it does not allow for redistribution as far as I can tell.
“They’re like that crazy guy with long hair that stands on your college campus quoting the bible and screaming at the students
Your not referring to Richard Stallman in the above passage are you;) Seriously though turning SCO into a pariah as a means of ignoring the underlying issue is of little value to the future of OSS. I welcome the day the courts rule on this issue and provide the GPL the teeth required to prevent this issue from cropping up in the future.
“You would be violating the GPL, yes. But because what you created is a derivative work, then the rights granted you by the fair use clause of copyright law may very well trump the GPL, in which case, that clause in the GPL is unenforcable. ”
The GPL does not forbid derivative works. It encourages them but with restrictions. I do not know USA copyright law, but I think in terms of software in general, source code in not published, it is made available for those who want it. I would like to think copyright and derivative works were originally meant to deal with published works like book, magazines and so on. This is possibly an inherent flaw in copyright in terms of software. Is SCO trying to argue that by making their code viewable and freely obtainable, coders have basically relinquished their rights to it.
Anyway, derivative works are allowed under copyright for a fee. If you do not believe this, try sampling a bit of that famous, or not so famous song, and turn it into a hit. You have created a derivative work, but royalties will be charged. If SCO pulls that one, the consequences could be interesting. I imagine someone needs to write on this, and tell it to the music industry. IBM may as yet find an unlikely ally in RIAA.
[Sigh.]
Anonymous, sorry to drop Da Bomb here, but you have a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between software licensing and copyright. I say this as a lawyer who has been involved with patent and copyright litigations (though admittedly not for quite a few years – still, the fundamental principles are unchanged).
Let’s try this one more time slowly, then I give up.
You have created a work of software. You own the entire bundle of rights pertaining to that software known as “copyright.” These rights are yours to do with as you please.
There is some software you want to link your creation to. It was created by someone else, who owns the copyright to it. Since he owns the copyright, you cannot use his software unless he permits you to do so. And no, linking your software to his doesn’t make *both* your software and his a single derivative work to which you own the copyright, any more than attaching a copyrighted review of “Star Wars” to a DVD makes you the new owner of George Lucas’s film. Only the piece you created is copyrightable by you; the rest of the original remains the property of the person who created it.
He offers you a deal (a/k/a a “contract” or “license”) – the GPL. Agree to the GPL, you can link to his program. You also have the choice not to agree to the GPL, *but then you can’t link to his program.* As the copyright owner, he has the perfect right to prevent you from making use of his program unless you agree to the GPL. If you wish to defend copyright, what about the copyright of the person whose program you wish to link to?
He is like a person with land you want to build a house on. You can choose to accept his contract offer and pay his price. Or you can choose not to pay his price, *but then you cannot build your house there.* And certainly, if you don’t pay but go ahead and build your house on another’s land, it is ludicrous to say you are defending the rights of landowners – just as ludicrous as saying you are defending copyright by refusing to follow the GPL in defiance of the copyright holder’s rightful request.
Imho M$ is the backbencher in this so called SCO-case and if it turns out a lost case then M$ will stop funding SCO. M$ payed
a ‘lot’ of money giving SCO a legal marker in order to sue any software company that is bothering M$.
“any more than attaching a copyrighted review of “Star Wars” to a DVD makes you the new owner of George Lucas’s film. Only the piece you created is copyrightable by you; the rest of the original remains the property of the person who created it.”
True. But George Lucas also cannot force me to pay royalties if I use his characters in a parody. That’s fair use. Derivative works and works of satire are NOT copyright violations. This is why Saturday Night has not been sued out of production.
“You have created a work of software. You own the entire bundle of rights pertaining to that software known as “copyright.” These rights are yours to do with as you please.”
Within the bounds of copyright law. If I write a book, and someone quotes some passages out of it in a bad review of my book. I can’t turn around and sue that person for quoting my copyrighted material in his review. Once again, quotations for the purpose of review fall under the fair use clause.
Copyright law does not give one unlimited rights to dictate how others can use their creations.
“As the copyright owner, he has the perfect right to prevent you from making use of his program unless you agree to the GPL.”
Maybe and maybe not. Just like I don’t have the right to prevent someone from quoting my book in a review that they right.
I say this a published author who deals with copyright law all the time. Once again, copyright law does NOT give an author unlimitted right to dictate what can and cannot be done with their work. Fair use in copyright law prevents consumers from being sued for such things as works of satire, quotations in reviews, and derivative works.
Software is covered under the same copyright law, so I still argue that one can make a strong case that the GPL is unenforcable in this area because derivative works do not violate copyright. Therefore, the author of the software that is being linked against may not have a legitimate claim that his copyright was, in fact, violated, since derivative works fall under fair use.
Within the bounds of copyright law. If I write a book, and someone quotes some passages out of it in a bad review of my book. I can’t turn around and sue that person for quoting my copyrighted material in his review.
That’s true – however it is incorrect to claim that because this “derivative work”, is allowed, all derivative works are. In fact, not all derivative works are protected by Fair Use.
From http://www.nolo.com:
Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
Criticism and comment — for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
News reporting — for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
Research and scholarship — for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations.
Nonprofit educational uses — for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
Parody — that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67-1A…
Furthermore, even in these situations Fair Use is not necessarily guaranteed. There are a number of factors that may affect if a derivative work is allowed or not: the extent of the copied material is one, for example.
One of particular interest for software is whether or not the derivative software will compete with the original one. Again, from http://www.nolo.com:
Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person’s protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work. Thus, if you want to use an author’s protected expression in a work of your own that is similar to the prior work and aimed at the same market, your intended use isn’t likely a fair use.
Another thing to consider is the quality of the copied material:
The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use.
Finally, just because some derivative work from software might possibly be considered Fair Use (something which can’t be guaranteed, as demonstrated above), that doesn’t make the GPL unenforceable in that area – just like copyrights are made void by the fact that Fair Use derivative works can be made from copyrighted material. All it means is that if a derivative work is considered Fair Use (which, contrary to your assertion, is not a given), then the GPL doesn’t apply in that case. However, considering the nature of software, most redistributed derivative works would probably not be considered Fair Use, and therefore would in fact be covered by the GPL.
Generally, it isn’t an issue because most libraries are licensed under the LGPL.
But QT’s GPL version of the toolkit might be an example where the GPL is unenforcable.
If some creates a desktop application using a GPLed GUI toolkit, and then distributes that desktop application without providing the source code for it the toolkit author might not have a legitimate claim that their license was violated since that clause of the GPL might be unenforcable in this case–especially if the application in question was created for research or educational purposes.
In this case, the desktop application is not competing with the toolkit since it has not created a competing product. Moreover, it is not all that important to the toolkit. All it does is use the toolkit widgets, which really are a trivial part of the program. The vast majority of the program’s work is done using underlying logic that has nothing at all to do with the toolkit widgets.
This is a very questionable use of the GPL. And I seriously question whether the GPL would have any legal authority in forcing one to open source their entire algorithm set, entire underlying program logic, etc., which have nothing at all to do with the toolkit. The toolkit’s only purpose in the program is to provide a nice looking display to the user.
There are other complications as well.
The actual code that someone writes, does NOT contain any GPL’ed code. All it does is call library functions from a GPL’ed library. Therefore, it can be argued that the library programmer has no right to tell a person that they have to open source the code.
Basicially, anything you write is automatically copyrighted by you, which gives you the right to distribute or not distribute as you see fit. And your rights under copyright law might trump the GPL.
What that basically means, is that the GPL can tell you that if you use a GPL library, you have to distribute the library source code along with your application. But it’s extremely questionable whether it has any legal ability to force you to also distribute your own source code that you wrote.
…if you do not abide by the terms of the GPL (or LGPL), you may not use the software or link to LGPL in the first place – just like you can’t use a proprietary software if you don’t agree to the EULA.
The GPL is a contract in which the transaction is permission to use and redistribute the software in exchange for compliance with the GPL. In the example you give, the prgrammer cannot write a program that uses or links to a GPL library without abiding by the terms of the license in the first place. Permission to link to the library is thus conditional on accepting the terms of the GPL.
I don’t understand where the controversy is.