« Blog Rules | Main | Serial Programmers »
August 08, 2003
Woo Hoo!
Let the fun begin! Open the champagne! All bets are off!
According to The Register IBM is getting into the spirit of things and SCO is shooting themselves in the foot:
SCO still offers 'infringing' Linux source code
SCO has told the public that its version of Linux is no longer for sale due to its legal pursuit of IBM and Linux users. That much is true. In fact, the code does not cost a penny with SCO providing a rather swift download site for SCO Linux.
Close to thirty Reg readers have sent along the following link that leads directly to a FTP download of the Linux kernel, at the time of this report. It's part of SCO's OpenLinux 3.1.1.
The funny thing about this source code, which does appear to be on a SCO server, is it's use of the 2.4 Linux kernel. That's the very kernel that has SCO's knickers in a twist.
SCO has claimed that IBM illegally threw Unix code into versions of Linux with the 2.4 kernel and above, and launched a $3 billion lawsuit to prove its point. IBM has fired back against SCO today with its own lawsuit, claiming that SCO cannot make claims to Linux code, since it sold its own version of Linux under the GPL. Big Blue's lawyers might be pleased to find SCO is still in the Linux distribution business to this day.
Without doubt, the link to SCO's code will disappear shortly after this article posts, but we would say the damage has already been done.
Well Mr IBM, if you need it - I downloaded it. For the first time since I was an undergraduate I am backing Big Blue. Let's face it, if SCO win, it implies the end of the software industry as we know it.
[For latecomers to this stoush, the issue at stake is that SCO is claiming that if you wrote software for Unix then it belongs to them because they own Unix (this is of course the simplified version because IANAL).]
Posted by Ozguru at August 8, 2003 08:08 PM
Comments
The story has been picked up by Wired as well.
Posted by: ozguru at August 8, 2003 08:08 PM
IBM is counter suing. Saying since SCO has put out a verison of linux it has agreed to the GPL, which states any modifacation to the kernal have to be shared. It will be interesting to see if the GPL stands up in the courts. This is a last ditch effort for the new owners to make some money off a bad purchase.
Posted by: Matthew at August 8, 2003 08:08 PM
As I understand the fundamental problem is that SCO is trying to use the "viral" aspect of the GPL. In the early days of the GPL, there were a lot of debates about ho wfar the GPL extended. If you used gcc to compile a c program was that program necessarily covered by the GPL. Of course, as we all know such issues were resolved amicably. The GPL covers software that builds on or includes GPL'd software (ignoring for the moment the LGPL or other licences). I would take it to mean that if I used a GPL program and wrote an embeded MacOS X front end in Cocoa, I would need to GPL my code (I would anyway). Non fans of the GPL call this behaviour viral because it spreads the code covered by the GPL into new areas.
SCO is claiming the same sort of thing in reverse. They are saying that anything written as an extension to a licenced version of Unix is covered by the same licence as Unix (i.e. property of SCO). The problem with this argument is that you have to accept the terms of the GPL before using GPL software and this "viral" aspect is covered in the licence. I don't believe the licences from SCO carry this type of clause nor is it likely that this clause would be enforceable, particularly in retrospect.
When the Register broke the story, I immediately downloaded the kernel from SCO so that, like many other unassociated with the case, I can demonstrate that I have a GPL'd copy of the code. Note that if I take proprietory code and release it part and parcel with GPL'd code then I lose the rights to that code (there may be exceptions if I can maintain them as individual modules ala smallworld/emacs). In this case the matters under dispute are embeded in the kernel and hence they are now GPL (even if they weren't GPL previously).
Posted by: ozguru at August 8, 2003 08:08 PM
The Register has great piece on the probably impact of the counter-suite from a European perspective. Well worth reading.
Posted by: ozguru at August 8, 2003 08:08 PM
