IBM/SCO/GPL (Was: Re: (L)GPL remarks and FreeGIS licensing)
home at alexhudson.com
Tue Aug 26 14:45:02 UTC 2003
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 23:30, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > 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,... :-)
... as a comedian? :o)
> 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. (*)
The above doesn't sit well with....
> 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.
... since you are saying that their Linux developers should be spotting
the stolen code, but that the UnixWare team should be the ones reviewing
Linux. Doing either/both would be suicidal for SCO, so I don't agree
with either scenario. IBM are in the same position (developing Linux and
AIX), as are Sun (I would guess), HP (to an extent) and probably all the
guys doing embedded work.
If you have one team working on a proprietary kernel and one on a free
software kernel, I don't see how the two can be allowed to mix, and one
to review the code from the other. I don't think any companies mentioned
previously would countenance doing it, either.
If the UnixWare chaps were reading the Linux code, they would have to be
doing this regularly to pick up any copying (given the vast size of the
code). To do this well, they would become immersed in the code to a
sufficient degree that they may well copy it into UnixWare unthinkingly.
SCO would never allow that, neither would any other developer. There is
no onus on them whatsoever to do it. If they keep things separate
themselves, they have no reason to look for cross-pollenation.
> 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.
That's exactly what's happening. They're not taking action against
users. I also think SCO's licensing system is subtley clever: they are
ensuring it continues to be infringment to run Linux, but not to use it
(if you have a SCO licence). This doesn't conflict with the GPL, AFAIK
The problem they have with their licensing system is that it would be
impossible to reconcile the conflict with the GPL for distribution going
forwards, but I don't think they would care about that: they're going
after the Linux distributors, so blocking distribution would suit them
fine. I think it's fairly clear that if they did find Linux 2.4+ to be
infringing, then we would pretty much be back to Linux 2.2 - I don't
think the subsequent code could be salvaged, except maybe device
drivers, without a lot of work, which would involve starting with 2.2
and pulling in newer stuff.
> 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.
How can you release something unwittingly? Only if they released the
actual code in question, would they be doing that. I would go back to my
previous example of stolen video recorder.
I just don't see how they could be expected to detect the code, if it
was indeed copied from Unix. Their Linux programmers wouldn't know what
it looked like, even if they came across it.
> > 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.
Less of an issue how? Their code has still been nicked. Source and
binary are not licensed differently (in fact, they might fall under
'translations' - not sure).
It seems to be that you are setting a barrier of detection: that there
are certain scenarios in which you expect them to detect the stolen
code, and others in which you don't. Quite apart from the fact that the
hurdle you set is arbitrary, I also don't see that it is relevant. If
someone steals something from you, it remains stolen under all
circumstances (statutes of limitations not withstanding). The flagrancy
of the theft doesn't matter.
> I wouldn't say distasteful, in fact I don't follow the 'more
Distasteful to companies who are already scared of the GPL. If the
result of this case is that your proprietary code can be lost as a
result of someone else stealing it and publishing it, then that will
make Free Software verboten in a huge number of companies. It would
perpetuate this 'GPL IP virus' meme; to a horrible extent. The only
'crime' SCO would be guilty of - in your world - is not detecting the
theft soon enough. But, they have lost their 'valuable' proprietary
code. If other companies see that happen, that would serve to kill off a
huge amount of development that could otherwise happen. I can't think of
many worse scenarios.
More information about the Discussion