Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
on Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 02:22:14AM -0500, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The letters SCO do not stand for anything. Sure the do. Smoking Crater Operation. Curiously, the definition of Caldera. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 21:29, Daniel Carrera wrote: I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects. As much as we, in this forum, would like to believe that licensing is a prime motivator, empirical data shows that it is not: http://www.osdn.com/bcg/ http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED], I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL product because they weren't sure if the license would stand in court. It's a point commonly brought up by analysts when handing out advice through c|net, BusinessWeek, InfoWorld, and friends. Are those analysts all called Rob Enderle by any chance? Nope. Whenever I see that name attached to an article I skip it. There are others making these claims, and what's odd is they seem to believe them. The odd part is where you don't see these claims, or even inquisition, on proprietary licenses hidden in the shrinkwrap. They assume that proprietary licenses hidden in the shrinkwrap were crafted by people who know what they're doing and don't need to be challenged, and that open-source licenses are by definition not. As Zak pointed out, this is not a logical or cohesive argument. So, we end up with analysts not asking the tough questions, online publications such as those above giving said analysts airtime, and the wrong idea gets conveyed; the association between the GnU General Public License and Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt. This is why you keep seeing very odd opinions and ideas of what the GPL represents, versus what it actually does. But since declaring a license invalid out-of-hand will cause an analyst to be subject to extreme ridicule on the grounds they're straying from their field of expertise, they also claim that, were the GPL to be tested in court found meritorious, that would be proof absolute that you could rely on it not to land you, your colleagues and your customers in a nasty spot. It all sounds very silly, doesn't it? But I've read it enough times to know how the story goes. And each time I see it, I remain surprised at how short-sighted some of these people can be. I believe it will reduce further as Linux-distributions and other technologies become more mainstream, and thus a fact of life. They don't put stock into the GPL apparently because a high-priced team of lawyers didn't create it. That is, of course, a silly point to make, but they make it anyway. And people listen, including The People Who Matter at any given workplace. Sigh... Typical PHB. Unfortunately, yes. I was surprised though, at my current workplace, to find a distinct lack of PHB's in IT areas. It only means that silly decisions and sillier convictions are less per month than the average, though :-( If Linux were BSD there would be no suit, simply because there would be no competition. I agree wholeheartedly with this point. And there wouldn't be thousands of volunteers if they thought they were providing free labor for others, particularly development houses that then released products only for the Windows platform. Fortunately, we're not in that dimension. I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects. Zak made good points here about Apache, Perl and PHP. I'll just add that the reasons for not choosing to go with the GPL are as much ideological - from what I've seen, having been close to some projects - as they are with choosing the GPL for the reasons the FSF intends... despite what RMS says about open-source. Cheers, Nathan. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
To OSI License Discussion subscribers, By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of contract. I appears that the GnU General Public License, as part of routine proceedings in the case, is to be examined: http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5098610.html Reaction to this at Slashdot, OSNews and other sites was predictable. Of course, the opportunity for the GnU General Public License to be weighed, measured, and not found wanting is obvious, as much as the potential consequences if it is found wanting. The next logical step is to ask what flow-on effects a ruling in either direction would have - or might have - on other OSI-approved licenses. Not being familiar with U.S. law, I would appreciate any insights on this point. Also, I'm glad to see an increasing use of open source products at the enterprise level in an open manner. It was not so long ago that the attitude was one of hush hush. Cheers, Nathan. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
Hi Nathan, By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of contract. To be picky, Santa Cruz Operation != SCO. Inspite of the apparent connection. There was once a company called Santa Cruz Operation. They sold their OS division to a company called Caldera. Some time later, the Santa Cruz Operation changed its name to Tarantella. Some time after that, Caldera changed its name to SCO. Probably to confuse people. The letters SCO do not stand for anything. Of course, the opportunity for the GnU General Public License to be weighed, measured, and not found wanting is obvious, as much as the potential consequences if it is found wanting. The next logical step is to ask what flow-on effects a ruling in either direction would have - or might have - on other OSI-approved licenses. Not being familiar with U.S. law, I would appreciate any insights on this point. 1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability* of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For example, I don't have a contingency plan in the event of meteor collisions. But the probability of one happening is low enough that I'm not worried. 2) But to address your question anyways... I don't see how a problem with one license can have any effect on another, unless they are very similar. In the event that the GPL is deemed invalid, I would bet that the LGPL would also be deemed invalid, because they have some resemblance. However, the MIT, BSD and X11 licenses would be untouched. They are entirely different. Any grounds under which the GPL is deemed invalid would be very unlikely to apply to any of those. Likewise, I would expect that a positive ruling would give credence to similar licenses, and have no effect on different licenses. The BSD license is very simple. I can't see it ever having a problem. Also, since it's very permisive, I can't imagine anyone being interested in questioning it. Ditto for MIT, X11 and Apache licenses. IANAL, but this is my take on this. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera| OpenPGP KeyID: 9AF77A88 PhD grad student. | Mathematics Dept. | To understand recursion, you must first UMD, College Park | understand recursion. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of contract. To be picky, Santa Cruz Operation != SCO. Inspite of the apparent connection. Thanks for the correction. *looking embarrassed* Substitute The Santa Cruz Operation for The SCO Group - their official name as per http://www.sco.com/company/profile.html. Of course, the opportunity for the GnU General Public License to be weighed, measured, and not found wanting is obvious, as much as the potential consequences if it is found wanting. The next logical step is to ask what flow-on effects a ruling in either direction would have - or might have - on other OSI-approved licenses. Not being familiar with U.S. law, I would appreciate any insights on this point. 1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability* of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For example, I don't have a contingency plan in the event of meteor collisions. But the probability of one happening is low enough that I'm not worried. That is a debatable point. For every claim that the GnU General Public License is bulletproof, I can probably find a counter-claim that, in one user's words, the GPL has holes you could drive a truck through. Who's to say which is correct with genuine authority and independence? 2) But to address your question anyways... I don't see how a problem with one license can have any effect on another, unless they are very similar. In the event that the GPL is deemed invalid, I would bet that the LGPL would also be deemed invalid, because they have some resemblance. However, the MIT, BSD and X11 licenses would be untouched. They are entirely different. Any grounds under which the GPL is deemed invalid would be very unlikely to apply to any of those. Likewise, I would expect that a positive ruling would give credence to similar licenses, and have no effect on different licenses. I agree on that point. Those licenses are very unlike the GPL. But there are many licenses out there, some of them close to the GPL in fashion. Those could also be in the same boat as the LGPL, and claiming that they have nothing to do with the Free Software Foundation might not help down the track; if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, after all... And of course, should the decision go the _other_ way, that being the GPL has not been found wanting, a long-time claimed stumbling block to adoption of GPL'd products would be diminished, or removed entirely. The GPL's near relations would again also benefit. Although this is only a peripheral issue - at least for now - in the proceedings, it could have far-reaching effects. The BSD license is very simple. I can't see it ever having a problem. Also, since it's very permisive, I can't imagine anyone being interested in questioning it. Ditto for MIT, X11 and Apache licenses. I agree on this point, too. Which raises the point that perhaps, were the BSD license used for most open-source projects and were _that_ license the one that IBM was backing, would this whole situation of grander and grander claims by SCO each month or so not have come to pass? For that matter, could the proceedings have moved quicker? IANAL, but this is my take on this. I'm glad you did :-) Cheers, Nathan. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:38:57PM +1100, Nathan Kelley wrote: 1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability* of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For example, I don't have a contingency plan in the event of meteor collisions. But the probability of one happening is low enough that I'm not worried. That is a debatable point. For every claim that the GnU General Public License is bulletproof, I can probably find a counter-claim that, in one user's words, the GPL has holes you could drive a truck through. Who's to say which is correct with genuine authority and independence? Well, my point of view (that the GPL is safe) has over 20 years' worth of testing in the form of the fact that not a single GPL violator (and there have been several) has felt that the could win against the GPL in court, and so each one has preferred to settle the issues out of court. If the GPL were weak, it seems likely that people would have taken advantage of that by now. Secondly, the only *expert* opinion I know of (Eben Moglen) is quite confident that the GPL is secure. Now, I wasn't really comparint the probability of the GPL failing with that of a meteor impact. That was just an example. I'm just saying that probabilities should be considered. The point is that not all posibilities are created equal. This is a point that many people seem to miss (I'm not saying you did). But yes, it's also wise to look at as many options as is feasible. I agree on that point. Those licenses are very unlike the GPL. But there are many licenses out there, some of them close to the GPL in fashion. Those could also be in the same boat as the LGPL, and claiming that they have nothing to do with the Free Software Foundation might not help down the track; if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, after all... In an ideal world, association with the FSF shouldn't matter. A license is (should be) valid if it's language is clear and legal. So if the GPL is valid/invalid, I would expect that similar licenses would be likely to be valid/invalid respectively. And of course, should the decision go the _other_ way, that being the GPL has not been found wanting, a long-time claimed stumbling block to adoption of GPL'd products would be diminished, or removed entirely. The GPL's near relations would again also benefit. I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL product because they weren't sure if the license would stand in court. I agree on this point, too. Which raises the point that perhaps, were the BSD license used for most open-source projects and were _that_ license the one that IBM was backing, would this whole situation of grander and grander claims by SCO each month or so not have come to pass? For that matter, could the proceedings have moved quicker? Ah... now I can't help but bring up a conspiracy theory... Why is SCO doing this anyways? Ultimately it's because either they, or their masters (if any) cannot grab GPL'd Linux, steal the great stuff, and break compatibility. You know, embrace, steal, extend and lock-in. The GPL is precisely what makes Linux such a strong competitor. If Linux were BSD then everyone could just grab whatever improvements Linux made and extend them. Linux would be perpetually behind while certain companies get a free ride on the effort of thousands of volunteers. If Linux were BSD there would be no suit, simply because there would be no competition. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera| OpenPGP KeyID: 9AF77A88 PhD grad student. | Mathematics Dept. | To understand recursion, you must first UMD, College Park | understand recursion. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability* of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For example, I don't have a contingency plan in the event of meteor collisions. But the probability of one happening is low enough that I'm not worried. That is a debatable point. For every claim that the GnU General Public License is bulletproof, I can probably find a counter-claim that, in one user's words, the GPL has holes you could drive a truck through. Who's to say which is correct with genuine authority and independence? Well, my point of view (that the GPL is safe) has over 20 years' worth of testing in the form of the fact that not a single GPL violator (and there have been several) has felt that the could win against the GPL in court, and so each one has preferred to settle the issues out of court. If the GPL were weak, it seems likely that people would have taken advantage of that by now. In the past 5 years, products released under the GPL - specifically Linux-distributions and products designed to run on them - have had an increasing amount of enterprise exposure, backing and support. I can attest to a number of enterprises I know of promoting Linux-distributions as a stable and mature platform for business delivery to the corporate executive. Where the money goes, the suits follow. This current suit definitely won't be the last. As worded, the GPL is hardly weak. But, it doesn't have to be to fail in court, since there are many different angles from which it can be challenged. A plaintiff going to court simply to challenge the validity of the GPL isn't likely to happen; after all, what would be the point? Rather, as with the current suit, the GPL comes up incidentally during proceedings. I have no doubt of the FSF's and open-source community's ability to adapt to piecemeal rulings on the GPL, but that does depend on _what_ the rulings are. Which brings me back to my original question. Now, I wasn't really comparint the probability of the GPL failing with that of a meteor impact. That was just an example. I'm just saying that probabilities should be considered. The point is that not all posibilities are created equal. This is a point that many people seem to miss (I'm not saying you did). But yes, it's also wise to look at as many options as is feasible. Exactly! That's why click-wrap and friends have been such a huge deal on this list and on other forums; what if someone wanted to sue for damages?. The likelihood of a volunteer developer or small development business actually being sued into the ground by an enterprise is slim, but no chances are taken. I agree on that point. Those licenses are very unlike the GPL. But there are many licenses out there, some of them close to the GPL in fashion. Those could also be in the same boat as the LGPL, and claiming that they have nothing to do with the Free Software Foundation might not help down the track; if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, after all... In an ideal world, association with the FSF shouldn't matter. A license is (should be) valid if it's language is clear and legal. So if the GPL is valid/invalid, I would expect that similar licenses would be likely to be valid/invalid respectively. I would hope so too. It's really easy to avoid the whole question of which licenses are valid and enforceable and which licenses are not through tarnishing by association. Unfortunately, that's exactly what some will do. And of course, should the decision go the _other_ way, that being the GPL has not been found wanting, a long-time claimed stumbling block to adoption of GPL'd products would be diminished, or removed entirely. The GPL's near relations would again also benefit. I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL product because they weren't sure if the license would stand in court. It's a point commonly brought up by analysts when handing out advice through c|net, BusinessWeek, InfoWorld, and friends. They don't put stock into the GPL apparently because a high-priced team of lawyers didn't create it. That is, of course, a silly point to make, but they make it anyway. And people listen, including The People Who Matter at any given workplace. I agree on this point, too. Which raises the point that perhaps, were the BSD license used for most open-source projects and were _that_ license the one that IBM was backing, would this whole situation of grander and grander claims by SCO each month or so not have come to pass? For that matter, could the proceedings have moved quicker? Ah... now I can't help but bring up a conspiracy theory... Why is SCO doing this anyways? Ultimately it's because
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:58:09AM +1100, Nathan Kelley wrote: I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL product because they weren't sure if the license would stand in court. It's a point commonly brought up by analysts when handing out advice through c|net, BusinessWeek, InfoWorld, and friends. Are those analysts all called Rob Enderle by any chance? Don't waste your time with him. Before I knew better, I actually thought to engage in discussion with im to see his point of view. He doesn't actually have a degree on either IT or Law, but considers himself an expert in both. He doesn't actually have any backing for his arguments, but that doesn't deter him. In our conversation I made an effort to be polite and I got the distinct impression that he was TRYING to make me mad (by being condescending or misrepresenting what I had said). They don't put stock into the GPL apparently because a high-priced team of lawyers didn't create it. That is, of course, a silly point to make, but they make it anyway. And people listen, including The People Who Matter™ at any given workplace. Sigh... Typical PHB. If Linux were BSD there would be no suit, simply because there would be no competition. I agree wholeheartedly with this point. And there wouldn't be thousands of volunteers if they thought they were providing free labor for others, particularly development houses that then released products only for the Windows platform. Fortunately, we're not in that dimension. I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera| OpenPGP KeyID: 9AF77A88 PhD grad student. | Mathematics Dept. | To understand recursion, you must first UMD, College Park | understand recursion. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
I agree wholeheartedly with this point. And there wouldn't be thousands of volunteers if they thought they were providing free labor for others, particularly development houses that then released products only for the Windows platform. Fortunately, we're not in that dimension. I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects. That generalization may be overly broad. All generalizaions are overly broad. =) Yes, it's a genralization. All that I mean is that the larger projects have a distinct tendenc towards being GPL'd. This is certainly true over-all. Of the largest projects: * Linux * KDE * GNOME * GNU (whooahhh!, that's a large project for you) * OpenOffice.org Only the last is not GPL. And notice that has a lot to do with the fact that it used to be propietary. Even then, OOo is certainly not BSD. Far from it. It is a dual SISSL/LGPL project. The LGPL provides similar protection as the GPL. The SISSL is an interesting license. I certainly like it better than the BSD. Essentially what it says is that you're allowed to make propietary versions, but you must retain compatibility throughout APIs and file formats. So this negates the bulk of the fear over having your work highjacked by a large company from Redmond. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera| OpenPGP KeyID: 9AF77A88 PhD grad student. | Mathematics Dept. | To understand recursion, you must first UMD, College Park | understand recursion. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: That Notorious Suit (Slightly OT)
On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 20:29 Africa/Accra, Daniel Carrera wrote: ... They don't put stock into the GPL apparently because a high-priced team of lawyers didn't create it. That is, of course, a silly point to make, but they make it anyway. And people listen, including The People Who Matter at any given workplace. Sigh... Typical PHB. While it may not have been created by a high-priced team of lawyers, it does have the endorsement of Eben Moglen. Eben Moglen is Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia Law School. He clerked for Judge Edward Weinfeld of the SDNY and Justice Thurgood Marshall (http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/marshall.htm). These are solid credentials (with some nice ooohaaah factor due to Thurgood Marshall). Should be enough to make the PHBs more comfy. If Linux were BSD there would be no suit, simply because there would be no competition. I agree wholeheartedly with this point. And there wouldn't be thousands of volunteers if they thought they were providing free labor for others, particularly development houses that then released products only for the Windows platform. Fortunately, we're not in that dimension. I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects. That generalization may be overly broad. PHP and Apache use (original) BSD style licenses - last I checked Apache had about 2/3 of the web server market share. PHP was installed on slightly over 1/2 of these servers. Perl's Artistic License is BSD-like - it is installed on ~ 1/5th of Apache servers. (See http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/index.html) -- Cheers! Zak Greant MySQL AB Community Advocate -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
