** Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2003-08-24 13:16]:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 11:51, Paul Tansom wrote:
Catching up on my mail, so a bit slow to reply here, but...
Tell me about it :o)
Well it's like this, after a short spell working commercially with free software I've ended up starting my own business,... :-)
Only kidding, I'm not about to list out my life history, don't panic!
I'm no legal expert and I don't know how things differ in the US, but surely ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law?
Well, ignorance is actually a defence. For example, if someone cons you into signing a document that is actually a contract for something, that signature doesn't really mean much and you are not considered bound by the contract.
Agreed, but in this case there is also the act of deception to take into consideration.
The point I was making was that it seems to me to be different to redistribute software and to grant a copyright licence to your own software. The reason I think people argue the point is because with free software, you can see what is in it, and people think SCO should have been aware. I don't really think that matters though. They didn't give permission for people to distribute the code, so the fact they were effectively conned into distributing it shouldn't automatically GPL it.
A fair point if Caldera(SCO) were simply distributing the code with an amount of customisation to the distribution. In this case they were actually involved with the kernel development and as such had a close working knowledge of both the code and the process. (*)
I just think any other scenario would be unfair, in general, no matter what I might think about SCO themselves.
Whatever my views on SCO's actions, if I agreed I would say so. In the true tradition of freedom of speech/thought/etc. we'll have to agree to differ though. (*)
In SCO/Caldera's case, they had a product that had a close relationship to the Linux code they were/are distributing. As such they should have examined to code to ensure they weren't 'giving away' anything they didn't want to, and if/since they didn't that is their own problem.
I don't think so. The UnixWare/Linux groups were apparently very far apart (different continents). They purposefully kept the groups separate so that code couldn't 'migrate' from one to the other. On that basis, which of these groups was in a position to warn that Unix code was getting into Linux? Neither, in my opinion.
I which case it would be down to the UnixWare group to look at the Linux code. It's not as if they wouldn't have had access to it. It would be down to the upper management to ensure that they were properly briefed on the implications of running the two groups - they were certainly aware enough to separate the divisions.
I will agree that it is an extremely difficult situation for a company to be in. If a third party takes code from one group (UnixWare) and puts it into code being worked on by the other group (Linux) then the Linux group will have no way of realising this. The action should then be against the third party though. If Microsoft had used SCO code within Windows I would not expect SCO to be going after Windows users.
(*) I'm wavering a bit on my stance having written this in that if SCO can prove that none of their programmers had any involvement whatsoever with the sections of the Linux kernel containing the offending code then they have not made it available under the GPL license. If on the other hand they have hand involvement with that code then SCO, however unwittingly, have released the code under the GPL license.
The only people I know who regularly audit their whole code base would be the BSD people, especially OpenBSD. As I understand it, the majority of that auditing is done mechanically. If you expect people to audit free software before redistribution, you effectively remove their freedom to redistribute, because it's an almost unsatisfiable burden. It would also be a burden that only free software would bear, since with proprietary software you cannot see what is inside it and therefore cannot audit it.
I'm not saying anyone should audit the code in order to distribute it, just that parties in a position such as SCO's (similarly IBM and Sun) should take the necessary steps to protect their intilectual property if the value it. I'm not saying it is an easy situation to be in, but one they should take responsibility for.
If SCO had redistributed their Unix code as free-as-in-beer proprietary closed-source software, what would happen in your scenario? Are they still liable, even though they cannot actually see the source code and verify it? Or, are they not liable? If they are not, then you're making proprietary software much, much easier to deal with. Free software would become even more distasteful.
From reading my above comments the answer would be clear to this - no
they would not be liable since they have not worked with the source code. If they had been involved with the code of the closed source software then yes they would have released it under the license used. There would be less of an issue here though, as the code would still be closed source so the license would only apply to the binary and not the source code.
I wouldn't say distasteful, in fact I don't follow the 'more distasteful', but yes proprietry software is easier to deal with on its own. Free software is also easier to deal with on its own. In a tidy world there would be one or the other, in an ideal world there would only be free software (imho). Unfortunately in the untidy, less than ideal world we live in both have to coexist - and it's not at all easy sometimes!
** end quote [Alex Hudson]