sharealike.org

The letter SCO sent to Fortune 1000 companies today says in part:

The ABI Code identified above is part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry USL / SCO copyright notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution, inasmuch as the affirmative consent of the copyright holder has not been obtained, and will not be obtained, for such a distribution under the GPL. (emphasis mine)

Assume for a moment that SCO does hold the copyright on these files (which I seriously doubt). Then the italicized portion is simply false. These files are part of the Linux distribution. Caldera (part of SCO) distributed Linux and these very files under the GPL. So, SCO has already given the permission they now claim that they have not given. Their have been a number of subtle contradictions in their statements since this all started, but this one is blatant. And recall that’s only on the assumption they hold the copyright on these files at all. VERY doubtful. The Slashdot crowd has probably already shown that claim to be false too.
UPDATE: Sorry. I was wrong. Linus himself already proved they don’t hold the copyright on these files.

Slashdot readers learned recently that Debian’s servers were compromised. More info. And then learned that a kernel exploit was apparently the means of attack. It appears that the Free Software Foundation’s servers have been compromised using the same exploit. The servers are back up in part. You may recall, Savannah is a central point for development, distribution and maintenance of GNU Software. With two extremely similar attacks on the two Free-est of Free Software projects, the question has to be asked: Does someone hold a grudge against Free Software? Who stands to gain from these sites having security vulnerabilities based within the Linux kernel? Or is it just a coincidence? The acts of a random cracker? Either way, what can the community do to catch this/these criminal(s)? (This was a rejected Slashdot submission of mine.)

Wow. SCO is sunk. Their CEO, Darl McBride, just wrote another open letter explaining why they think the GPL is unconstitutional and invalid. It demonstrates such an amazing lack of understanding of the GPL, that if this truly represents their legal strategy, they are doomed. The overall strategy seems to be to paint the GPL’s author, the FSF, and its adherents, e.g., Red Hat, as anti-profit, anti-copyright, anti-capitalist scumbags and from that to then conclude that the GPL is all those things as well, and hence based on a bewildering leap-of-logic from Eldred v. Ashcroft, claim that the GPL is contrary to the purpose of Copyright, and hence unconstitutional. The key problems with his letter are:

• Most of the letter is an ad hominem attack against the FSF and Red Hat. The strategy seems to be, put Richard Stallman on the stand, let him say some outrageous stuff that many wouldn’t agree with, and then look reasonable in contrast. You’d then have to count on a jury to be dim-witted enough to fall for such a strategy, rather than parsing out the actual issues.
• The FSF is indeed anti-software patent, and also is indeed in favor of Copyright reform, but they cannot be characterized as completely anti-Copyright for the simple reason that the GPL is itself a Copyright License intended to work within existing Copyright Law. That McBride does not know (or chooses to ignore) this fact is one of his largest downfalls. It will be a simple counter to his argument to point this out.
• The GPL is not anti-profit. Indeed, it explicitly allows for people to charge whatever fees they can get for service to GPL-licensed software.
• We live in a country where people are free to do what they like with the products of their work. If Darl’s argument were sound, then it would be unconstitutional for a painter to paint beautiful artworks and then give them away. He would be ignoring Copyright’s purported profit-based motivation and by Darl’s reasoning therefore be engaged in unconstitutional activity. This is absurd. If someone writes a piece of software and wants to license it in a less-restrictive manner than Darl does, that’s their choice. They can even donate it to the public domain, something the GPL explicitly does not do.
• No one is forcing Darl to use the GPL if he doesn’t like it. The software industry is not threatened by the GPL, unless they are incapable of creating equally good products and providing equally desirable service. He can slap “All rights reserved.” on the software he writes himself all day long, and nothing the FSF does will stop him. Now, if it’s crap, then no one may care about SCO’s crappy software. But’s that a business problem everyone faces, and it has nothing to do with the GPL. You got to give the people what they want!

When all is said and done only one of two possibilities present themselves. Either SCO’s understanding of its own business, its own past actions, and of the basic legal facts surrounding their business is so amazingly lacking that they could only be characterized as total idiots, OR their pretense of such idiocy and their sham hand-waving legal arguments are in fact criminal attempts to artificially inflate their stock price or to damage the business of their competitors. Idiots or criminals. Those are their options.

BBC News has an article describing Brazil’s GNU/Linux Free Cybercafes. Two and one-half years ago there were about three million people in Sao Paulo without any access to computers. Now, about 250,000 people are using the nearly 100 net cafes.

Since last year, all the centres have been using the free operating system GNU/Linux.

“The government is the biggest software buyer,” said Ms Tibirica. “We can save a lot of public money using the free software solution.”

She pointed out that the free software has many advantages: no need to pay for licences and it is possible to use a simpler version of the computer, with one server and several thin clients – computers without hard disks.

These computers, according to Ms Tibirica, cost a quarter of the price of a machine and have reduced maintenance costs.

The government has plans within the next few months to buy 10,000 more computers for schools. Let’s hope this doesn’t turn out like the metric system. When the rest of the world is running Free Software, hopefully the U.S. will get on board too.

Last night I download the source for the 2.4.20 Linux kernel from SCO’s website. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by its authors, as all computer code is, and in the case of the Linux kernel, the authors have chosen a Copyright License called the General Public License or GPL. In SCO’s latest court document in its suit against IBM, its Reply to IBM’s Amended Answer with Counterclaims, SCO claims in its Sixth Affirmative Defense, “The General Public License (‘GPL’) is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM’s claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.” and in its Eighth Affirmative Defense they say, “The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM’s claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.” So, it is clear that SCO does not accept the GPL or find it to be a valid Copyright license.

That is, of course, problematic for SCO, since just last night, they distributed the Linux kernel to me without any license to do so. One is always free to reject the license terms offered. SCO apparently rejects the terms offered to them by the Linux kernel’s authors. The problem then is that without that license SCO is bound by the default standards of Copyright, which is “All Rights Reserved” which includes the rights to copy, modify, or distribute. SCO is copying, modifying, and distributing the Linux kernel without a license, and as a result can face pretty steep damages under Copyrihgt Law for each infringement, up to $150,000 per instance.

My download was just one such instance. If you downloaded the source too, it might create another. The damages for SCO would pile up. They might want to rethink this…

This press release from the Consumer’s Against Government Waste lambasts the state of Mass. for adopting open source software. Here’s the letter I wrote them trying to steer them away from their misunderstandings:

Hi,

Your press release at: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b

seems to exhibit a couple of misunderstandings that, if corrected, would likely lead to a change in the position of the CAGW.

The CAGW says in another current press release that “Competition leads to improved production and higher customer satisfaction.” I could not agree more. Competition is a good thing. That’s also why Massachusett’s proposed move to open source software will also be a good thing, because it will increase competition. A simple example can illustrate:

If Massachusetts uses a proprietary vendor, like say PeopleSoft, for its numerous human resources software needs, then when they need upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there is a single vendor they can turn to for those services, namely PeopleSoft. The proprietary vendor of a closed-source program has a monopoly on the servicing of that software, which you rightly recognize as a major component cost of software used by the state.

On the contrary, if an open-source program were used instead to meet those same state needs, then when the state needs upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there are an unlimited number of potential vendors from which the state might choose. The reason for this is obvious: with an open source program any competent IT vendor can familiarize themselves with the source code and offer services for that software. Indeed, widespread government use of open source software would almost certainly spur the formation of new businesses whose sole aim would be to service such software. This situation is impossible with proprietary software because a single vendor holds monopoly control over its source code.

Also, nothing about the adoption of open source software excludes traditionally proprietary companies from joining the competition. Open source software creates a level playing field where even Microsoft themselves could decide to support such software with service contracts. Indeed, traditionally proprietary vendors could also still sell their software if they simple opened the source for inspection. And as you point out, the “Free” in “Free Software” does not necessarily refer to the price. Traditionally proprietary vendors can still make profits on selling open sourced software if they choose to. There are numerous NASDAQ-listed companies whose whole business model is selling open-sourced software for a price.

I agree that “the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing” but your release fails to recognize that choosing a proprietary program puts a monopolist in a position of total control, whereas choosing an open-sourced program places all software service vendors on the equal footing we both would like to see.

I could elaborate more, but I trust you are fully capable of reflecting on these issues yourself and I believe if you look at all the information carefully you will see that the way towards greater competition on an equal footing is through open source.

Brian W. Carver
Oakland, CA

For posterity: If you want to install Debian Woody on a machine using a Matrox G550 graphics card, then realize that the version of XFree86 that comes standard with Woody won’t work. After the basic install you will be stuck at a command line and must do this:

1. brush off your vi editing skills and edit /etc/apt/sources.list to include only the unstable sources.
2.. apt-get update
3. apt-get install xserver-xfree86
4. edit /etc/apt/sources.list back to stable sources only.
5. apt-get update
6. edit /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 to delete the line setting UseFBDev to true.

Now it will work.

Check this out. The Slashdot Discussion of SCO’s peek at the allegedly offending code is an amazing illustration of the power of the internet. SCO claims some of their copyrighted code has been stolen and put into Linux. When they finally offer up a public view of the allegedly offending code, it takes only a matter of hours before thousands of geeks worldwide have shown that the code is actually over 30 years old and either in the public domain or already licensed under a free software license. In fact, the prior incarnations of SCO even gave away this code for free on their own website! All the links are in the discussion, but it is a strong first glimpse at how pathetic the chances are that SCO can sustain their case against IBM, et al. This army of Linux defenders will dissect every piece of evidence they can get their hands on, and IF their is found to be some truly stolen code, the predictions that it will be mere hours or weeks before kernel developers write suitable replacements also seems extraordinarily certain. The power of a motivated internet-organized community to do distributed research projects is greater than most people (and apparently SCO) realize… Update: 8/19 Bruce Perens has a great summary of the history of this code.

Friday I attended the Free Software Licensing and the GNU GPL conference at Stanford’s Law School (mentioned in my previous post.) It was a very good conference. It struck just the balance I had hoped in that it was not just on the obvious basics of the GPL and it was also not in the stratosphere of legal mumbo-jumbo. I learned several things I didn’t expect to and Prof. Lessig’s lunch time speech was inspiring, of course. I got a free Creative Commons T-Shirt. It says, “Some Rights Reserved” on the back. Nice.

One thing I was struck by were the number of attorneys there from the big software companies. IBM, Oracle, Sun, etc. sent lawyers there. You get the impression from all of these people that they are deadly serious about Linux. This is not some garage-based geek project that will whimper out of existence any day now. Billions of dollars are on the line so far as these folks are concerned and they are behind it 100%. The FSF guys realize this too. They aren’t going to compromise their principles one jot, but they also know if push comes to shove they have more than one 800-lb gorilla in their corner. Speaking of which, Microsoft sent people too. They paid their fees, sat dutifully and quietly, and kept tabs on the enemy. The guy I knew was from MS seemed to take the most notes during the LGPL segment of the day.

Overall, I’d say most of the participants were pleased with the day, but some were irked that they couldn’t get more detailed information about when the FSF would consider them/their clients to be violating the GPL and when not. Since the FSF has never had to go to court to get people to comply with the GPL the lawyers have no cases to cite and this really tweaks their noses. The FSF is not really apologetic about not going to court. They say they just want compliance with the GPL and if they can get that without court costs, then they’re thrilled. So far, they’re batting 1000.

I’m overjoyed. I’ve got my LinkSys WPC11 Ver 3 Wireless PCMCIA card working with Debian. It’s the first time I’ve gotten this card to work with any distribution. The weird thing was that the wireless card has a little green light indicating a connection when solid and none when blinking. Well, I couldn’t get it to stop blinking, even though it is one foot from the access point. What made it work, strangely, was plugging in my wired card (it then went solid). Nothing else seemed to help. I was then able to do: pump -i wlan0 and it got an IP address via DHCP. I then unplugged the wired card (because I was suspicious the wireless card wasn’t really doing the work!) and the green light stayed solid and I got the net! Whew. It shouldn’t be as hard as it was.