Did SCO Violate the GPL?

eWeek ^ | June 10, 2003 | Peter Galli

[John Robinson]

Some members of the open-source community are claiming that the SCO Group may have violated the terms of the GNU GPL (General Public License) by incorporating source code from the Linux kernel into the Linux Kernel Personality feature found in SCO Unix without giving the changes back to the community or displaying copyright notices attributing the code to Linux.

A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.

[John Robinson]

It seems more likely to me that SCO incorporated freely available source code into their closed source project than the other way around. I would guess few Linux programmers have access to proprietary SCO code.

[Fred Mertz]

Not at all, the JDO got TGS in hot water. But all is better now.

[John Robinson]

Penguify Bump

[Ramius]

Hmm... violating licensing for freeware. The fine should be at least 100 times the price of the freeware.

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[DarthFuzball]

Hmm... violating licensing for freeware. The fine should be at least 100 times the price of the freeware.

Actually, if this story turns out to be true, then SCO should be required to publish ALL of the UNIX Syetem V source code under GPL.

[Ramius]

Yah... probly so. I wouldn't *even* want to be on the side of defending SCO here. From what I've read, though, it sounds like Novell is the one that really got screwed.

But, then again, that's nothing new either. :-)

[John Robinson]

I know you're joking, but to start off the discussion on a tangent, GPL software is hardly "freeware".

The cost of free (as in beer) GPL software is a greatly restricted set of freedoms. Seems odd, I know. Derivative works are required by the GPL to distribute their source code--to return the modifications back to the community. In addition, derivitive works are required to carry the GPL. Distributors of GPL software are required to provide the source code. Etc. Its a harsh license.

That is not so with many other licenses, such as the BSD. With the BSD license, an author of a derivative work is free to keep his changes to himself, and may license his work under any license he chooses. Few requirements, easily met by traditional closed source companies like Microsoft, which uses a significant amount of BSD source code in their software.

And just to illustrate how easy it is to incorporate third party software into one's own project (and to fall prey to the viral GPL), consider that no software of significant size written today is free of third party software modules--or libraries, as they're more often known.

Any project using a GPL library would become tainted by the GPL, requiring the project using the library to suffer all the implications of being GPL software. Yech! (GNU recognized this problem and created a LGPL specifically to exempt users of software libraries from this viral effect, but of course the software library has to be licensed under the LGPL and not its more viral cousin.)

(DISCLAIMER: I'm hardly a license lawyer, I may have everything completely wrong!)

[gore3000]

It seems more likely to me that SCO incorporated freely available source code

Seems that these folk are turning themselves into a home for unemployed lawyers rather than a software company. People that live in glass houses....

[Ramius]

You're right about that, of course.

Even as a confirmed MS kool-aid drinker (and check-writer) I don't have a problem with open source as a concept. It might be the thing that saves us. Or not.

I practice tolerance and diversity of OS's. :-) I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but it works for me.

[Paleo Conservative]

The fine should be at least 100 times the price of the freeware.

Make that 1,000,000 times.

[Jay D. Dyson]

As an aside, the whole SCO vs. Linux shebang may be more than meets the eye...

See http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0527.petreley.html for details.

-Jay

[Ramius]

Say... yes... that would make a big difference.

[B Knotts]

Its a harsh license.

I disagree rather vehemently.

The licensing terms of GPLd software is quite a bit less harsh than those of most commercial, proprietary software.

For one, you pay in cash money and severely restricted freedom; for the other, you pay in returning improvements to the community.

[Fractal Trader]

FR tech bump list

[John Robinson]

True. Exempt most commercial, proprietary software licenses, the GPL is harsh among fellow open source licenses.

To carry out the TLA's a little further, I guess I'm more likely to be in the ESR camp than the RMS camp. (Not that I really give a damn about the personalities.)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Earlier articles:

First Analyst Impressed By SCO's 'Proof' ^

SCO says it will show code in Linux dispute

Opinion: SCO-Microsoft conspiracy theory

Sun's Schwartz on Solaris vs. Linux ^

Unix is ours not SCO's, says Novell

Boies' Take (SCO Sues IBM Over Linux ) ^

Microsoft Co-Opts Open Source On Its Terms ^

Novell Puts the Lie to SCO's Linux Attack ^

Microsoft Buys SCO Group's Unix ^

SCO suspends Linux sales ^

The SCO lawsuit as dark comedy - Slow motion PR train wreck (says infringing code in Linux kernel) ^

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Messed up the last link:

The SCO lawsuit as dark comedy - Slow motion PR train wreck (says infringing code in Linux kernel)

[thedugal]

For one, you pay in cash money and severely restricted freedom; for the other, you pay in returning improvements to the community.

There is no "severely restricted freedom" in commercial licenses. You get exactly what you pay for. If you use commercial software, you pay for your distribution licenses and you are completely free to do whatever you want with your OWN software. I honestly have no idea what "restricted freedom" you are talking about.

And as far as giving to the "community" is concerned, everyone in the entire non-communist world including all other industries outside the "open-source community" refer to the "community" as the "competition".