Re: [linuxiran] 2.4.22 ?! :)

[Aryan Ameri]

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 12:51, Arash Partow wrote:
> Also I think SCO will have to pay a certain amount to every
> open source developer in the world that writes software under
> the BSD licence because they removed the BSD license from
> certain kernel headers. (according to Robert Cringely).
>
> So all in all the wheel of life continues on turning and everything
> seems to balance out in the end :D


Yes, it is now apparent that they have removed the BSD license from 
UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, and have violated it's license. Yes, they 
are in voilation of the copyright law.

However, the owner of copyright BSD code that they have violated, is the 
univeristy of california, berekely a.l.a

"Copyright Regents of The University of California Berkely"

And as you know, no one can sue a copyright violation suite, other than 
the copyright holder. In this case, it is the regents of the university 
of berkely, which have to stand up, and remind SCO that they are in 
voilation of the BSD license.

And because the university of berkely lost all interests in BSD, it's 
license, and it's relative issues in 1994, so I don't think the 
university will do anything. Sure, the university won the previous 
lawsuite from SCO's ancestor, AT&T (later Novel), but the university 
only reacted after it was sued. All in all, don't expect much from the 
university of berekely.

However, more interesting than the violation of the BSD license, is that 
they have probably also violated GNU GPL. UnixWare and OpenServer have 
a "Linux Compatibility Module" which brings binary compatibility from 
Linux applicaitons to SCO's systems. I bet, that they have used GPL 
code in that module, how else can you achieve binary compatibility?

A former Caldera employee wrote a while back "it was common practice at 
caldera to remove unnecessary copyright licenses from the code". 

So, if they are in fact in violation of GPL, then the FSF won't stand 
still (like the university of berkely) and will fight back. 

Of course, SCO now has claimed that GPL and all other open source 
licenses, are invalid, since (according to SCO's interpretation of 
copyright law) copyright only allows for one backup copy to be made. 
Thus, open source licenses are automaticaly pre-empted by the 
internatinal Bern convention, covering the copyright law. After hearing 
this, IBM and FSF lawyers had a hard time to kepp their face still, and 
not explode with laughter. 

David Biose, was once supposed to be one of the best lawyers in the US. 
It is known that SCO are not currently paying Boise anything, and Biose 
will get a commission of SCO's win, as his wage. After this 
interpretiation of copyright law that Biose has made, I think it will 
be the last case that he will ever handle.

But, who is the loser? In the end of the day, Darl McBride and other SCO 
executives, will laugh their way to bank, and we Linux users are the 
real losers. And M$ is probably really enjoying the FUD that they have 
created, by spending only 6 Million dollars (they paid 6 million to 
SCO, Sun also paid a considerable amount to them). The current FUD that 
SCO has made around Linux, has decreased Linux's pace of development in 
some corporations. SCO is not the loser in the end, because SCO had 
nothing to lose. They rose their stock price by %1500, then the 
executives dumped their stock, and one year from now, SCO will file for 
bankrupcy, and the executives will laugh at our face, and the face of 
those stupid investors who bought their stock when it was at peak.

It's a standard rise-and-dump stock method. 

Oh well, don't let me go into the subject of SCO. it's probably the last 
thing I want toe talk about. (although I do talk about it a lot !!! )

Cheers
-- 
/*  "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those
 who are cold and are not clothed."*/
                --President Eisenhower

Aryan Ameri