Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the more-and-more-surreal dept.

Caldera 1186

wes33 writes "Groklaw has a link to SCO's replies to IBM's amended complaints. Some choice bits: '6th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred. ... 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity. ... 8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.' Comments are pouring in ... not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy." Considering that the GPL and the GNU project rely on and affirm the protections of copyright, this seems like a strange argument to pursue.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Can you say, "Pump and Dump"? (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324518)

The only problem with all things I see here is DarlandCo. will probably never see the inside of a prison cell, which is unfortunate.

Re:Can you say, "Pump and Dump"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324654)

Conversly, every cell in their body could be considered imprisoned.
Bunch of meat puppets controlled by his Majesty Satanic.
The whole affair is a more perverse mockery of the legal system than the last Presidential election in Florida.
May God require of DarlandCo. their evil.

Re:Can you say, "Pump and Dump"? (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324673)

Pump and dump is correct. Any attempts to apply any logic to this are just a waste of time.

At what stage does the pumping cross any legal boundaries? I guess while they're getting professional legal opinions they're still in the clean legally.

...THERE it is (4, Funny)

r_glen (679664) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324520)

It just wouldn't feel like the start of the week without some new mind-numbingly idiot drivel from the SCO.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324522)

Frog Purse!
Fist Pus!
Fag Priss!

Re:FP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324582)

Failing Prominently!

I guess (2, Funny)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324525)

I guess IBM didn't want to show them their IP without a crippling NDA, so this is their next best attempt.

I can't take much more of this (1)

Silent Plummet (715802) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324527)

It makes me want to cry. Sheer greed. Why can't they leave well enough alone? We aren't harming -anyone- or stealing -anything-. Why can't they allow us the freedom to do free things for ourselves?

Re:I can't take much more of this (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324552)

Its a war on nerds, of course.

But what I want to know, is why we aren't teaching them a lesson they wont soon forget?

Re:I can't take much more of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324610)

Don't be such a naive, whiny baby. This is the real world. Deal with it.

Oh no (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324530)

Wait, they can't do that. The GPL gives rights, it does not take them away. How can somethign that gives rights be illegal? Know the GPL, and the GPL shall set ye free. The GPL gives me reason to wake up every day and face another day of unemployment, because I know I can give to the great community of IT profesionalls and they will give to me. Why does Corporate Nazi Bill Gates have to take this away from me?

FP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324531)

Ok, fine. Time to put this to the test.

You may distribute this post under the following terms:


Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.




How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
Copyright (C) yyyy name of author

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details
type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome
to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright
interest in the program `Gnomovision'
(which makes passes at compilers) written
by James Hacker.

signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324602)

I want those 5 minutes of my life back, dammit.

morons declare corepirate nazis obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324533)

that's it. re-fauxking-boot.

nazi hostage rescue element added to newclear/ppr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324597)

feel free to use the pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode as needed.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

CSharpMinor (610476) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324536)

7th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is selectively enforced.

8th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is Unconstitutional and invalid.

9th Affirmative Defense: ???

10th Affirmative Defense: Profit!

SCOX ticker says it all (3, Informative)

mackman (19286) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324538)

Over a 4% drop after hours looks like the investors are starting to lose faith in their questionable legal strategy. I wonder if SCO will just drop the suit once all the exec have finished dumping their stock.

Re:SCOX ticker says it all (1)

scott_evil (266713) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324577)

I just wish I'd bought SCO stock when this all started.

Re:SCOX ticker says it all (2, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324667)

Making yourself culpable for their actions since? My integrity is worth more than that.

Violates The Constitution?? (2, Funny)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324539)


Wow, now, I understand the legal "carpet bombing" theory, but COME ON NOW.

Then again, I'd like to "violate" certain folks at SCO, I'm sure they'd love a little man-meat...

Diagnosis (2, Funny)

pheared (446683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324569)

Hibbert: Aaah. Diagnosis -- delicious.
Homer: I've got the presciption for you, another hot beef injection!

Microsoft (0)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324546)

Now we know the REAL strategy. The point of the entire excercise is for Microsoft and their cronies to destroy the GPL and free software. Who didn't see this coming? It is time for WAR!

SCO and DOS (0)

adius (613006) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324550)

I can see SCO being DOS'ed out of existence soon.

Re:SCO and DOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324634)

You mean DoS, right?

No wait... I see now, since DOS is dead, so will SCO soon. Ok. I get it now.

Re:SCO and DOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324663)

No, I can see SCO being DRDOS'ed out of existance soon.

Re:SCO and DOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324705)

Newsflash buddy, having your website off the internet doesn't mean you cease existance. Step out your front door for a second and you'll see what I mean.

Comments (4, Funny)

r_glen (679664) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324551)

"Comments are pouring in ... not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy"

This /. article will help at least

Pretty strong claims.. (1)

the uNF cola (657200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324557)

This hasn't gone to trial, and you have thousands and THOUSANDS of developers who agree, "You can't do this or that unless you follow the following."

Pretty big words for a company who has no berring over how the law is interpreted. Take it to court first.. we'll get the official word and the plausable reasons first.

Proving freedom of speech (5, Funny)

HeX86 (536126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324558)

At least he proves that people can run around beeing flaming idiots, thus upholding the bill of rights.

SHUT THE FUCK UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324633)

see subject, you fucking asshole.

I agree! (5, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324564)

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright (laws),"

Yes! I, too, feel that current copyright laws violate the U. S. Constitution! I'm glad somebody has finally come on-board with this, even if it is SCO. :)

they admited to releasing the kernel under GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324573)

damn, they just majorly shot themselves in the foot and blew their own case. I mean, that's like taking a rocket launcher to kill a tiny ant crawling across your new shoes. It's jus too funny. That's going to come back and haunt them in court.

Re:they admited to releasing the kernel under GPL (1)

Chris_Mir (679740) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324701)

No, it just means they go all the way, all or nothing. As they have stated, the GPL doesn't mean anything, so releasing the kernel under GPL means void to them.

EFF (5, Insightful)

erikharrison (633719) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324576)

It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.

If Linus is unequal in his pursuit of his intellectual property rights vis a vis the GPL that only renders Linus property rights at issue, not the GPL. The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA) and not an institution. Since the GPL is one of the more innovative licences we often lose sight of that fact.

(IANAL, of course)

Re:EFF (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324643)

i was under the impression that you didn't lose your rights to enforce a copyright by selectively enforcing it. only trademarks.

that's kind of a weird position for sco to take anyway, considering that "their" source has been available for 30 years

Re:EFF (2, Redundant)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324682)

As another poster has said, "selective enforcement" is irrelevant as far as copyright is concerned. You're free to license your copyright to somebody and then let them do whatever the hell they want - regardless of the terms of the license, you don't lose copyright.

Now, if you fail to enforce *trademarks*, you can lose them.

Re:EFF (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324696)

The EFF certainly aren't the licensor. In fact, I don't personally know of any software where the copyright is owned by the EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Now the FSF on the other hand, the Free Software Foundation... that's a different kettle of fish. They own the copyrights on a large suite of applications. As you say, they only enforce the GPL for the software they own the copyrights to, though in the past I believe they've helped with things like Linux (the kernel).

EFF, FSF. I guess it's almost as bad as that RIAA/MPAA thing that Slashdotters keep getting confused about...

Re:EFF (1)

mkettler (6309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324700)

Well, it's the FSF they mentioned, not EFF, but close enough.

Regardless, it shouldn't matter who is doing selective enforcement. If I recall correctly, only trademarks and the like are subject to loss of rights due to lack of enforcement. However copyrights are subject to no such restrictions, and the GPL is a contractual license, offering broader rights than base copyright.

I don't think there's any restrictions on enforcements of contracts either, unless they can prove that said enforcement is only done in violation of some other laws (ie: discriminatory based on race).

But I'm also not a lawyer.. I merely pontificate about the topic on slashdot like all the other unqualified people :)

Re:EFF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324706)

i cannot beleive some lame-ass moderator modded this up. The EFF has nothing to do with this case. The FSF, OTOH.......

First Post! (1, Redundant)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324584)

For me I never posted on Slashdot before. I do like the GPL though! It's agonising to see the GPL is still untested after all this time. Do you think it will be SCO that sets some legal precedents for the GPL?

Linux is an unauthorized version of UNIX? (5, Interesting)

pstreck (558593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324585)

Denies the allegations of paragraph 16 and alleges that Linux is, in actuality, an unauthorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable from UNIX, and practically is distinguishable only in that Linux is a 'free' version of UNIX designed to destroy proprietary operating system software.
How can Linux, which is merely a kernel, be called a version of UNIX? In theory it is possible to build a completely non-unix like operating system that runs on the linux kernel. Shouldn't they claim that GNU is the unauthorized UNIX derivitive?

Re:Linux is an unauthorized version of UNIX? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324657)

Oh, man, you're right Stallman!

Re:Linux is an unauthorized version of UNIX? (2)

gnuber (605327) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324712)

Shouldn't they claim that GNU is the unauthorized UNIX derivitive?

But "GNU's Not Unix".

Re:Linux is an unauthorized version of UNIX? (4, Interesting)

joto (134244) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324717)

In theory it is possible to build a completely non-unix like operating system that runs on the linux kernel.

In practice too [pliant.cx]

OB Chewbacca Defense quote (4, Funny)

gaj (1933) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324587)

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?

Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:OB Chewbacca Defense quote (1)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324611)

But.... Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor, he lives with Han Solo on the Millenium Falcon.

Re:OB Chewbacca Defense quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324691)

Exactly! It does not make sense.

Re:OB Chewbacca Defense quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324661)

aaah: yeay for the obligatory futurama quote... of DOOM!

Re:OB Chewbacca Defense quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324683)

aaah: yeay for the obligatory futurama quote... of DOOM!

South Park quote, but whatever...

Re:OB Chewbacca Defense quote (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324719)

Look at the monkey! Look at the pretty monkey!

[Juror's head explodes...]

The message is clear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324590)

SCO has failed!

Maybe it would be a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324591)

I don't like the GPL anyway. If the GPL turns out to be void, people would have to use other, better licences like the BSD or MIT licenses.

What would happen to all that GPL code? Would it become public domain?

In Other News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324593)

Anonymous Coward calls WinXP EULA Unenforcable and Void. This gives me a right to make as many copies as I want, as there's nothing governing it.

Seriously, the GPL only grants rights that copyright would normally restrict. What freedom are they trying to gain by declaring the GPL unenforcable?

unenforcable = void? (3, Interesting)

eagl (86459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324598)

You mean I can break any license I want if it's unenforcable? I can just say "they can't catch me" and that's a valid legal reason to declare a license void?

Schweet! I have an unlimited number of win9x copies now, because all those licences are VOID BABY! Music copyright? Unenforcable, therefore VOID BABY!

SCO allegations unenforcable? I have an unspecified copies of unspecified versions of unspecified distributions of Linux... SCO can't enforce anything on me, so their claims are VOID BABY, YEA!

"Your Honor, I'd like to cite precident, SCO vs. everyone, in which it was ruled that any unenforcable license is void. Since I'm only being tried for stealing a tenth of the stuff I stole, but you can't prove I stole the other stuff, the licenses covering all of it is void. I move for dismissal of all charges plus I claim ownership of every physical object my stolen stuff touched, because their ownership rights is unenforcable and therefore void."

Strung up by their own rope (4, Insightful)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324599)

If the GPL is unenforceable, then unless SCO got written permission to distribute the code by all the myriad other kernel contributors (and in fact the developers of every other bit of GPL'ed software that they are distributing in their own distr - still available via FTP) then they themselves are in breach of all those people's copyright over code they wrote.

Please, I beg ANY developers of GPL'ed code that is in SCOs distro on their FTP site. Please sue these bastards for breach of copyright. I am willing to pony up $100 to anybody about to do this.

This madness has just got to end.

Re:Strung up by their own rope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324641)

isn't that suppose to be "petard".. as in "strung by his own.." ?

Consitutional Copyright Protection (4, Interesting)

SupeRobot Ninja (719240) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324600)

What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material? It may be the case that the GPL is selectively enforced--possible if highly doubtful--but to call it unconstitutional is like saying that laws protecting churches from arson (like all buildings are protected from arson) are unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.

in other news... (3, Funny)

painehope (580569) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324603)

SCO's research team announces break-through partnership with CIA, distributing their newly-announced SuperCrack(tm).
"Our field testing has proven very effective," says Ralph Synles, head of SCO R&D, "Subjects spend almost every waking moment in a projected fantasyland, and the way their hearts are racing, I would say they are high as fucking hell."
"Pink fuzzy secret code wonderful property tastes like intellectual NDA violations. Call my stock broker!" SCO's CEO, Daryl McBride, was quoted as saying, before giggling and waving around several blank sheets of printer paper.

Beliefs. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324605)

You know, this sounded rediculous to me.. and it still does of course.. but in discussing this with other people, who perhaps are victims of anti-OSS fud...

There are a great many people out there who believe things like:

You can't write commercial software for linux; if you use GCC to build something, it's GPL also. and so on.

The GPL is only enforced by the FSF. All GPL code belongs to the FSF.

They do NOT see it as just like any other operating system.. they think you are bound to keep everything you do with it open and free.

That makes it for SCO (1)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324606)

Until now, one PHB or other could be tempted to think that there was somre reasoning to them.

But that is it. With these claims, in any country were law and rights could be barely understood as such, it would be a matter of FSF stepping in and getting SCO shut down forever.

In USA lets see how much time does it take to happen.

What? (5, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324609)


This is how I understand it:

Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.

Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.

The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.

The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.

So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.

The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.

Yeah, right. This'll never make it to trial... (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324614)

I'm not even getting my popcorn out.

Seriously. There've been so many times when nerds have asserted that, "This'll be the case to prove the GPL! Yeah!" and they never come to fruition.

So no, I'm not sitting eagerly in my chair waiting for the trail to start. This is a non-story that reporters are following because nothing better is worth writing about right now.

Oh well.


Not a GPL fan, but... (2, Interesting)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324620)

I'm not the world's biggest GPL fan. But reading it rightside up, upside down, and backwards held to a mirror, it's seems to me to be a valid license in every way. There may be some very minor issues regarding definitions, but there's nothing there that SCO can use to wiggle out of their current predicament.

The US courts have upheld the much more lenient BSD license, and many much more restrictive EULAs, so the GPL seems quite court-safe where it is in the middle.

All your UNIX... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324624)

SCO: All your UNIX belong to us!

What planet did their lawyers come from (5, Interesting)

taustin (171655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324629)

7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity

I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.

8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.'

Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."

Selective enforcement of copyright violation (2, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324703)

Doesn't matter.
If the FSF decides to selectively enforce the GPL and in some way that manages to release their copyright (stay with me).

How exactly does this action relate to IBM?

Even if the FSF was selectively enforcing trademarks, how does that relate to IBMs rights?

If anyone cares... (2, Interesting)

oGMo (379) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324644)

I dunno if anyone saw this or cares, but I used my (lack of) GIMP skills to make some borg/SCO icons at the request of KilobyteKnight [slashdot.org]... it just got posted late so I don't know if anyone saw it.

As I said previously, these just differ by filter; I couldn't decide which I liked. Feel free to use them however.

Re:If anyone cares... (1)

Tyrdium (670229) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324709)

Numbers 3 and 4 are definitely the best, with #4 coming out slightly on top. #2 is pretty crummy, and #1 isn't the best. I like numbers 3 and 4 a lot, though...

Blah blah blah SCO (0)

tofubar (631690) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324646)

Have you read ESR's letter to SCO? These are not the people we should have representing us.

well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324647)

SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void

I could've told ya that.

Sometimes the solution is outside the realm of law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324650)

There are many industries where a few jerks with fat legal budgets and little to no conscience have made enormous amounts of money by screwing over the American people. Some would say the most integral part of any free market is the possibility of consumers doing violence to producers, not just by boycotting and shunning their product but actually by burning their offices to the ground, you know, as with many logging, chemical, animal experimentation companies. As long as there are angry people with matches and gasoline, a broken legal system (as any legal system cannot help but be) can coexist with a happy populace.

I'd hate to see (2, Insightful)

SwansonMarpalum (521840) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324660)

SCOX after everyone gets wind of this nonsense tomorrow.

They quite knowingly accepted the terms and conditions of the GPL, long before they ever acquired the rights to UNIX or worked on Project Monterey. Even if by some crazy ludicrous miracle of stupidity they actually managed to get anywhere with their lawsuit regarding Unix rights, I'd be incredulous to see them get anywhere with attempts to prosecute users of Linux, commercial or otherwise.

Despite verbosity, IANAL

During these hostile and trying times... (1)

MrPoopyPants (146504) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324665)

I think we can all agree that SCO can cram it with walnuts.

(... and OpenBSD may be your family's only line of defense.)

This is a good thing. (5, Insightful)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324669)

It sounds like the GPL is going to get an airing in court. IBM and most of the other big firms with a stake in Linux probably want that because the GPL is the cornerstone on which Linux was built. If the GPL can't handle a legal challenge, it's better to find that out sooner rather than later. This makes it pretty much guaranteed that IBM won't buy out SCO; they'd rather see the legal test through to the end and make sure their reliance on Linux being owned openly (leaving them free to sell hardware and services) stands up in court.

If the GPL stands up in court, it's SCO's case that is going to be crippled.

it's a shame.. (2, Funny)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324678)

It's a shame that IBM can't buy out SCO without a bunch of assholes making a lot of money. IBM should do some crazy hostile takeover of SCO.

SCO's strategy reminds me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324681)

of Monty Pythons Holy Grail.
Daryl - Maybe if we built a large wooden badger.

Is that all? (1)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324685)

Wow. And to think that they had STFU for almost 2 weeks. Did the stock drop a bit? Hmmmm. Yup, they were well overdue for more outrageous statements.

copyright licence clue for McBride (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324687)

any lciense that relies on US and or Geneva copyright laws and statues is enforceable including GPL, LGPl and SCO's onw copyrightlicense..

if GPL i s not enforceable ie US and or geneva copyright law is somewho overturn in courts than SCO's own copyright license is also not enforceable!

I don't believe it (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324694)

This is such a stupid move. If they want to claim that GPL is unenforceable, then SCO cannot enjoy the 'right to distribute' granted by GPL in their Linux products, effective IMMEDIATELY. That's to say, every GPL software authors can now request billions dollars for each copy of every GPL software distributed. KA-CHING!!!!!!

And since this is a self-proclaimed revocation of right on their side, thus a purely case of refusial of license agreement in the deal, i.e. no need to root-up the entire industry by applying this unique license-violation case to all other GPL users.

When I thought hiring monkeys as programmers is bad enough....lawyers...

equity? (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324697)

Since when do you need to be 'equitable' with enforcement of copyrights (which is all the GPL is)? Never!

A copyright is just like a patent, you can let it lapse as long as you want and enforce it the last year if you so please, and against whoever you want. That's what lets you keep profiles of 'defensive patents', that's what let Unisys try to collect on it's GIF patent 2 years before it was going to expire. That's what let some company claim copyright on the movie "it's a wonderful life" after everyone thought it was in the public domain for decades.

Excuse me. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324699)

Excuse me, SCO, but it seems that now, instead of a couple hundred lines of unsubstantiated code, we now have YOU in massive, willful, and continual violation of the FSFs copyright(The gpl assigns a copyright to the fsf, if I'm not mistaken, probably to assist in attacking offenders). Because of this, you LOSE the court case with IBM by default, you FORFEIT any claim to the Linux Operating System, or the many GPL licensed software packages the platform is built upon, as well as any revenue you have earned through the unlawful sale of Linux, and SCO Group will now be branded as hypocrites forevermore, so the company will be destroyed, and you, Mr. Mcbride, will be held responsible for it's extremely humiliating public defeat.

Have a nice day.

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324708)

No 10th affirmative Defense of Heresy, or Blasephemy? I should probably be quiet they may append this to thier suit.

Truly amazing, no? (1)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 10 years ago | (#7324714)

How is it that the press (once again) fails to run with the fact that SCO signed onto and continues to use GPL software IN THEIR OWN PRODUCT! SAMBA, GCC, and more are contained within UnixWare and yet this seemingly important and obvious fact doesn't seem to escape the tech circles.

"SCO? Strong buy, strong, strong BUY!"

"Comments are pouring in ... " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7324725)

"...not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy."

Ya think?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account