Professional Web Applications Themes

Not just SCO but look at FSF.... - SCO

Joe Dunning <invalid> wrote:    I do think that SGI's statements are important: if anyone is in a position to refute SCO's claims, they seem to be. But it is still claim against claim, of course. -- com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Joe Dunning <invalid> wrote: 
     


    I do think that SGI's statements are important: if anyone is in
    a position to refute SCO's claims, they seem to be.

    But it is still claim against claim, of course.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Joe Dunning <invalid> wrote:
     
     

    Research what? We don't have the code SCO is complaining about.
     

    Correct. And that could be deliberate lie (as you insist) or
    confusion on their part, or it could actually be that they DO
    control it.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Roberto Zini <com> wrote: [/ref]
     

    I would guess that anyone who wants to do Linux development
    would be well advised to stay clear of signing any NDA related
    to SCO's code.


    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  4. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest
    Moderated Post

  5. #45

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Kim Petersen wrote: 


    >
    >
    > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6923
    >
    > which also contains an excellent discussion of why the NDA is
    > problematic to both developers (and journalists of trade mags).
    > [/ref]

    Kim,

    thanks for the pointer.

    I'll try to get a better understanding of it soon.

    Best,
    Roberto

    Roberto Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Roberto Zini <com> wrote in message news:<com>...
     

    "The world" need not stand in front of a court. "The world" did not
    infringe SCO's copyright. SCO are making the claim that their
    copyrights have been infringed by improper code donation to the Linux
    code base. SCO only need to identify these perpetrators and launch a
    suit. "The world" need not, nor should be a party to such a suit.
    Ethel Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On 23 Oct 03 08:50:39 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <invalid>
    wrote:
     
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >LOL! I see you managed to dig up the text of Microsoft's Licence 6.
    >1/2 :-)[/ref]

    Only half? I've actually read and reviewed various mutations of that
    license. It's also somewhat of a moving target as Microsoft responds
    to various unpopular policies. I think my software license is more
    liberal.
    http://members.microsoft.com/partner/licensing/
    Incidentally, MS has put quite a bit of effort trying to make their
    license terms uniform accross their product line. That lasted about a
    week after License 6.0 was announced. For example, not the Server
    2003 changes.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/overview.mspx


    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  8. Moderated Post

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Removed by Administrator
    /dev/null Guest
    Moderated Post

  9. #49

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    com wrote in message news:<bnavi9$edv$std.com>... [/ref]

    >
    > Oh sheesh, another person walks into thev theatre halfway through the
    > movie.
    >
    > Go read the thread.
    >[/ref]

    Oh sheesh, I have read the thread, sheesh. Sheesh, why don't you just
    answer the question, sheesh. Because, sheesh, I don't think you have
    any other explanation, sheesh. Although I may have missed something,
    sheesh, I don't think I have, sheesh.

    So - list the other possible truths. It's not so much to ask is it?
    Sheesh.
    fuzzywzhe Guest

  10. #50

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    com wrote in message news:<bnb1rm$edv$std.com>... 
    >
    >
    > Not necessarily. As Jeff's satiric post pointed out, licenses
    > that include such phrases as "buy me a beer when you are
    > in Boston" (and there are such silly things in Open Source
    > code) are unlikely to be taken seriously by the courts.[/ref]

    Show us such an example in an open source program.
    fuzzywzhe Guest

  11. #51

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....


    "fuzzywzhe" <com> wrote in message
    news:google.com... [/ref][/ref]
    news:<bmu62p$ins$std.com>... [/ref][/ref]
    so [/ref][/ref]
    in 
    > > 
    > >
    > > Oh sheesh, another person walks into thev theatre halfway through the
    > > movie.
    > >
    > > Go read the thread.
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > Oh sheesh, I have read the thread, sheesh. Sheesh, why don't you just
    > answer the question, sheesh. Because, sheesh, I don't think you have
    > any other explanation, sheesh. Although I may have missed something,
    > sheesh, I don't think I have, sheesh.
    >
    > So - list the other possible truths. It's not so much to ask is it?
    > Sheesh.[/ref]

    Perhaps, IBM feels threatened by Open Source, so they planted an IP bomb in
    Linux.

    Perhaps, this is a case of the Media wanting to see a Redmond corporation
    succeed.

    Perhaps, the media has totally misquoted and misrepresented SCO's position
    and linux hackers have manipulated SCO's website to make them look bad.

    Perhaps, none of this really exists and everything I know to be true
    including this newsgroup and thread are just figments of my own imagination.

    Perhaps, it is a right wing conspiracy who feels that the open source
    movement is a threat to capitalism.

    Perhaps, it is a LEFT wing conspiracy who feels that the open source
    movement is a threat to capitalism.

    Perhaps, it is a MODERATE wing conspiracy who feels that the open source
    movement is a threat to capitalism.

    Perhaps, it is a CHICKEN wing conspiracy who feels that the open source
    movement is a threat to capitalism.

    Perhaps, it is a BUFFALO wing conspiracy who feels that the open source
    movement is a threat to capitalism (with extra sauce).

    Never ask a conspiracy theorists to list other possible truths.

    Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.


    Justin Guest

  12. #52

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    fuzzywzhe <com> wrote: 
    >> 
    >>
    >> Oh sheesh, another person walks into thev theatre halfway through the
    >> movie.
    >>
    >> Go read the thread.
    >>[/ref][/ref]
     

    If you really HAD read it, you wouldn't need to ask.

    I'll assume you have a crappy ISP that retires articles quickly.
     
     

    That SCO really has proof of IBM releasing code they can't.

    That SCO thinks IBM has done so, but that the code released isn't
    anything that SCO has rights to.


    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  13. #53

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:19:18 +0000, ton wrote:
     
    >
    > Not necessarily. As Jeff's satiric post pointed out, licenses that
    > include such phrases as "buy me a beer when you are in Boston" (and
    > there are such silly things in Open Source code) are unlikely to be
    > taken seriously by the courts.[/ref]

    Yes, but these silly clauses (to buy a beer, to not publish benchmarks, to
    prey for the authors financial success...) are obligations, that is,
    rights taken, not rights given.

    If such a clause were stricken, it would not affect the author's exclusive
    right to copy and modify his work. It would only affect the author's
    questionable right to control the actions of people who already have a
    copy. This is a key difference.
     

    No rights for the copier - and I think it's highly unlikely a court would
    rule differently. The author gives rights to the copier, so if a court
    decides the GPL isn't a valid way to do that, the author keeps his rights.
     

    If I understand you, you're saying it's possible a court would remove the
    condition - that they would change "you can copy iff copies are GPL'd" to
    "you can copy, period." This would effectively destroy the author's
    exclusive copyright, even though he's done nothing wrong. While I must
    concede it's possible, I don't think it's even remotely likely.

    One other question: this debate has been revolving around what would
    happen if the GPL were ruled unenforceable. But why would this happen in
    the first place?

    --
    Tom Felker, <com>
    <http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

    If you destroy me, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    -- Obi-Wan

    Tom Guest

  14. #54

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    fuzzywzhe wrote: 
    >>
    >>
    >>Not necessarily. As Jeff's satiric post pointed out, licenses
    >>that include such phrases as "buy me a beer when you are
    >>in Boston" (and there are such silly things in Open Source
    >>code) are unlikely to be taken seriously by the courts.[/ref]
    >
    >
    > Show us such an example in an open source program.[/ref]

    Here are several I just happen to have found with grep.

    openssh-3.7p1/md5crypt.c: * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
    openssh-3.7p1/md5crypt.h: * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
    php-4.3.0/win32/md5crypt.c: * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
    mozilla/nsprpub/pr/src/malloc/prmalloc.c: * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE"
    (Revision 42):
    (also in apache 1.3.26)
    /*
    *
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
    * <dknet.dk> wrote this file. As long as you retain this
    * notice you can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some
    * day, and you think this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in
    * return. [name removed]
    *
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    */


    ../713/apache_1.3.26/src/main/util.c:/* Roy owes Rob beer. */
    /* Roy owes Rob beer. */
    /* Rob owes Roy dinner. */

    ../apache/httpd-2.0.43/server/mpm/experimental/leader/leader.c: *
    I'll buy pizza and beers at Apachecon for the first person to do
    /* wow! if you're executing this code, you may have set a record.
    * either this child process has served over 2 billion requests, or
    * you're running a threaded 2.0 on a 16 bit machine.
    *
    * I'll buy pizza and beers at Apachecon for the first person to do
    * the former without cheating (dorking with INT_MAX, or
    running with
    * uncommitted performance patches, for example).
    *
    * for the latter case, you probably deserve a beer too.
    [name removed]
    */
    (several other beer comments in apache)

    Bob Cole

    Bob Guest

  15. #55

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    fuzzywzhe <com> wrote: 
    >>
    >>
    >> Not necessarily. As Jeff's satiric post pointed out, licenses
    >> that include such phrases as "buy me a beer when you are
    >> in Boston" (and there are such silly things in Open Source
    >> code) are unlikely to be taken seriously by the courts.[/ref][/ref]
     

    There are numerous. Why don't you just try a grep?

    But the larger point is that it isn't definite that the very
    idea of the GPL itself can survive a court challenge. If the fanatics
    here paid any attention at all, they'd know that the lawerly people
    are concerned about that and have proposed alternates that they
    think might be better. Of course the hope is that it doesn't
    come to that, but to pretend that this is unassailable is quite
    naive.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  16. #56

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Tom Felker <com> wrote: 
     
    >>
    >> Not necessarily. As Jeff's satiric post pointed out, licenses that
    >> include such phrases as "buy me a beer when you are in Boston" (and
    >> there are such silly things in Open Source code) are unlikely to be
    >> taken seriously by the courts.[/ref][/ref]
     
     

    Yet it might affect the entire license. Judges are noted for
    not appreciating frivolity. The entire license could be
    damaged because of such silliness: a judge could take the quite
    reasonable position that the author wasn't taking it seriously,
    and therefore decide he has no rights.

     [/ref]
     

    Not necessarily. That seems to be a mantra "if the GPL doesn't
    stand up, then it reverts to ordinary copyright". But wishing and
    hoping doesn't make it so.

     [/ref]
     

    Depends on who is making the decision. Propert rights are taken
    very seriously by the courts, and are strongly tied to money.
    When money or other compensation is specifically eschewed, copyright
    might not protect it. That's exactly the position of one proposed
    attack, by the way.

     

    Because there are people who would gain from that: Microsoft and
    anyone else who is threatened by open software. Breaking the GPL
    is breaking Linux and all other Open Source threats.

    Understand, I'm not saying they will succeeed, but they definitely
    are going to keep trying.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  17. #57

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:33:37 +0000, ton wrote:
     
     
    >
    > Yet it might affect the entire license. Judges are noted for not
    > appreciating frivolity. The entire license could be damaged because of
    > such silliness: a judge could take the quite reasonable position that
    > the author wasn't taking it seriously, and therefore decide he has no
    > rights.[/ref]

    Suppose a judge found one of Microsoft's "no benchmarks" clauses
    frivolous. Do you honestly think that, instead of striking that clause or
    reverting the software to regular copyright, it would be put in the public
    domain?
     
    >
    > Depends on who is making the decision. Propert rights are taken very
    > seriously by the courts, and are strongly tied to money. When money or
    > other compensation is specifically eschewed, copyright might not protect
    > it. That's exactly the position of one proposed attack, by the way.[/ref]

    Again, I assert that an author's right to grant his copyrights (not one
    copy, but the right to distribute copies) to a limited subset of people
    based on whatever criteria he wants has not been questioned. Nowhere does
    it say this must be in exchange for money, nor is there any precedent
    supporting that idea.
     
    >
    > Because there are people who would gain from that: Microsoft and anyone
    > else who is threatened by open software. Breaking the GPL is breaking
    > Linux and all other Open Source threats.
    >
    > Understand, I'm not saying they will succeeed, but they definitely are
    > going to keep trying.[/ref]

    Granted, many companies believe they would benefit from the loss of the
    GPL, but above a certain threshold, money isn't much of a factor - and
    there are plenty of organizations who would defend the GPL. But
    "Microsoft would gain" isn't sufficient to strike down a license. They
    would need a logical reason, one which I have yet to see.

    --
    Tom Felker, <com>
    <http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

    Hack user friendliness onto a pure and simple system, because
    you can't hack purity and simplicity onto a user friendly system.

    Tom Guest

  18. #58

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:31:17 -0500, Tom Felker <com>
    wrote:
     

    Yep. Methinks there's a problem called "clear understanding". If we
    hammer out a business contract, that allows me to use your software,
    and where I autograph a written contract, it's a fair assumption that
    I've read the contract, understand its implications, am aware of my
    responsibilities, and have innumerated my expectations. In other
    words, we both know what we're getting into. Software licenses are
    not so clear cut. Have you read License 6, EULA, GPL, LGPL, BSD
    license, your ISP's TOS, AUP (acceptable use policy), etc? Probably
    not. Yet, software licenses are probably the most common legal
    contract that we "accept" with a press of a button. Duz this
    constitute clear understanding, where both parties involved understand
    the implications of the contract? Probably not. The courts have also
    been rather erratic about enforcing such contracts. They will do so
    where obvious damage can be demonstrated (e.g. resale of stolen
    software), but hesitate when it comes to less obvious issues such as
    transfer of ownership or non-monetary exchanges. If there's evidence
    of fraud, contradiction, confusion, or lack of understanding by either
    party, the courts tend to rule that one or both parties did not
    understand on what they were agreeing and therefore could not be
    expected to comply with its fine print. Also, if the software license
    included "a pound of flesh" or my "lifetime indentured servitude", the
    contract would be in conflict with various criminal or criminal codes
    and therefore be unenforceable.

    Speaking of non-monetary transfers, there are also some unenforceable
    clauses found in many software licenses. All the AT&T/USL Unix source
    licenses included a clause demanding that any derivative work
    (enhancements and bug fixes) performed by the licensee must be
    supplied back to AT&T/USL for inclusion into the source code base. In
    effect, AT&T/USL had claimed ownership of everything derived from
    their Unix OS. As far as I know the clause is still there. In
    theory, SCO can also claim ownership of every last piece of Unix based
    code scribbled by IBM and others based upon their Unix source license.
    That probably includes all of AIX. It's certainly not enforceable and
    I'm sure no sane judge would rule that SCO now owns AIX, but that's
    the way it's written in the contract. Remind me to add that I own all
    derivative works in my next Predatory License Agreement and Wholesale
    Repudiation of Responsibility.

    Note: I'm not an attorney and have very limited personal experience
    in how such things work.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  19. #59

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Tom Felker <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     
    >>
    >> Yet it might affect the entire license. Judges are noted for not
    >> appreciating frivolity. The entire license could be damaged because of
    >> such silliness: a judge could take the quite reasonable position that
    >> the author wasn't taking it seriously, and therefore decide he has no
    >> rights.[/ref][/ref]
     

    No. But GPL licenses are rather different, starting out with one foot
    already dangling in the public domain.

    Shrug - if you want to keep your head firmly in the sand and insist
    that nothing like this could ever happen, fine. I hope you
    are right, and that in years to come you can tell people about
    the moron in this newsgroup who thought it could be otherwise.

     
    >>
    >> Depends on who is making the decision. Propert rights are taken very
    >> seriously by the courts, and are strongly tied to money. When money or
    >> other compensation is specifically eschewed, copyright might not protect
    >> it. That's exactly the position of one proposed attack, by the way.[/ref][/ref]
     

    Nonsense. There is tons of precedent: show me any license prior to
    open source that didn't involve money or other renumeration. Did you
    ever see a contract made out that said something like "one dollar
    and other consideration"? What would you suppose made people think
    they needed the "other consideration" phrase?

    See http://cobrands.consumer.findlaw.com/newcontent/consumerlaw/chp2_f.html

    "In order for a contract to exist, both sides must give some
    consideration. There is a crucial principle in contract law called
    mutuality of obligations. It means that both sides have to be committed
    to giving up something or doing something. If either party reserves
    an unqualified right to bail out, that person's promise is illusory:
    no promise at all."

    There's no visible consideration in a GPL license. I don't have
    to do anything. There are things the license supposedly restricts
    me from doing, but that's quite different.

    Certainly some lawyer type is going to insist that this doesn't
    apply. Great. But if enough powerful people WANT it to apply,
    other lawyer types will twist themselves into knots showing you
    why it does. And that's really all it takes: when a court wants
    to do something, all it has to do is find a credible reason, and
    the free aspect could be just that reason.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  20. #60

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:32:54 +0000 (UTC), com
    <com> wrote:
     

    I think the consideration is the requirement to license any
    modifications that you distribute under the GPL. You can't simply take
    GPL code, incorporate it in your own product without releasing your own
    product under the GPL. That would seem to be a fairly high price.

    But to take your thinking a little further: what about any product where
    there is a click-through license. You have already paid for the product,
    now the vendor is putting addition restrictions on you, for which you
    got no consideration?


    Joe Guest

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139