Comments
yourfanat wrote: I am using another tool for Oracle developers - dbForge Studio for Oracle. This IDE has lots of usefull features, among them: oracle designer, code competion and formatter, query builder, debugger, profiler, erxport/import, reports and many others. The latest version supports Oracle 12C. More information here.
Cloud Computing
Conference & Expo
November 2-4, 2009 NYC
Register Today and SAVE !..

2008 West
DIAMOND SPONSOR:
Data Direct
SOA, WOA and Cloud Computing: The New Frontier for Data Services
PLATINUM SPONSORS:
Red Hat
The Opening of Virtualization
GOLD SPONSORS:
Appsense
User Environment Management – The Third Layer of the Desktop
Cordys
Cloud Computing for Business Agility
EMC
CMIS: A Multi-Vendor Proposal for a Service-Based Content Management Interoperability Standard
Freedom OSS
Practical SOA” Max Yankelevich
Intel
Architecting an Enterprise Service Router (ESR) – A Cost-Effective Way to Scale SOA Across the Enterprise
Sensedia
Return on Assests: Bringing Visibility to your SOA Strategy
Symantec
Managing Hybrid Endpoint Environments
VMWare
Game-Changing Technology for Enterprise Clouds and Applications
Click For 2008 West
Event Webcasts

2008 West
PLATINUM SPONSORS:
Appcelerator
Get ‘Rich’ Quick: Rapid Prototyping for RIA with ZERO Server Code
Keynote Systems
Designing for and Managing Performance in the New Frontier of Rich Internet Applications
GOLD SPONSORS:
ICEsoft
How Can AJAX Improve Homeland Security?
Isomorphic
Beyond Widgets: What a RIA Platform Should Offer
Oracle
REAs: Rich Enterprise Applications
Click For 2008 Event Webcasts
In many cases, the end of the year gives you time to step back and take stock of the last 12 months. This is when many of us take a hard look at what worked and what did not, complete performance reviews, and formulate plans for the coming year. For me, it is all of those things plus a time when I u...
SYS-CON.TV
SCO Attempts to Have GPL Declared Void
"The GPL violates the US Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws," it claims

It may never have been tested before in court, but its day has certainly arrived now: the GPL is about to make its first appearance under the full scrutiny of the US legal system - thanks to an answer by the SCO Group to an IBM court filing that SCO in turn filed at the end of last week.

"The GPL violates the US Constitution," SCO claims, "together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws."

No small charges.

As often in this pre-trial phase, SCO did not see fit to offer any actual details backing up its assertions. But the general thrust of its argument appears to be that under the GPL, mere human beings - American citizens - arrogate to themselves the right to give permission to copy, modify, or redistribute intellectual property, while that kind of regulation of copyright, according to SCO's contention, can and must only be done - per Article 1 Section 8 of the US copyright law - by Congress itself.

A GPL licence permits anyone to see, modify, and distribute a program's underlying source code, as long as the author of the modifications publishes them when distributing the modified version.

"By this reasoning, then," says one commentator, in a post to Slashdot, "SCO will claim it has every right to use GPL code in its proprietary distributions, but on the other hand, can contend that its own code (or code which IBM created under a license which grants SCO ownership of their code) was never intended (by SCO) to be released under GPL nor public domain."

Another comment on Slashdot raises a slightly different perspective: "Why is SCO trying to get GPL code into the public domain?" the author of the post asks. "Could they perhaps be trying to cover their tails in case someone were to uncover GPL code in software THEY have been releasing closed source?

LinuxWorld will seek an insight in due course on the SCO contention from the creator of the GPL himself, Richard Stallman.

About Linux News Desk
SYS-CON's Linux News Desk gathers stories, analysis, and information from around the Linux world and synthesizes them into an easy to digest format for IT/IS managers and other business decision-makers.

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Register | Sign-in

Reader Feedback: Page 1 of 1

The GPL is a commercial licence for software falling under its domain. If the GPL is invalid, so is every other commercial software licence (EULA) in existance, including SCO's own. I wonder what Microsoft, who has helped bankroll SCO's effort, thinks about this latest move.

However, I do not think Microsoft or GPL has anything to fear. Software licence agreements have held up in court already. However, I am interested to see how much more of SCO's "proof" of IBM's wrongdoing turns out to be GPLed code.

It looks like the behaviour of SCO is becoming more and more irrational, unless there is a hidden agenda.
Do they really think the USA is ruling the world ?
While the lawyers for SCO are filling their pockets the rest of the world is moving ahead. By 3035 China will bypass the USA and be the bigggest economy. Long before that time SCO will have disappeared from the face of the world.

However there may be something else going on. What SCO has to proof is that the 0.0001% of their code in Linux is worth money, while the 99.9999% of code other people contributed is worth nothing. If this is not true, anybody contributing to Linux can start sending invoices as well. This will destroy the extortion business of SCO and is obviously something they like to avoid.

I am starting a new job as IT Manager where their is a SCO box in place. The first course of business will be to replace it with a nice Redhat ES system!

We 'd better don't mention SCO and their products any more before they pass the US congress, They might be copyrighted??

We 'd better don't mention SCO and their products any more before they pass the US congress, They might be copyrighted??

Those attacks (i.e the troyan "you_need_us" attack, then billing Linux corporate users, and now the GPL breaking) sound really M$. I think this because it has more chance to fail, but in the same time it may discourage corporate users that felt in security with open source code. I mean, the risk for SCO is really expensive (public image, court fees), but there is someone else behind.

The message is addressed to corporate users : "you want to use open source, free code, it may not be legally safe ; come back to M$". But this message has no effect or a reactional effect on politic, philosophic open source
users.

The problem as always is citizen against corporations. By chance Linux has many corporate and citizen supporters, and a great public fame. It is too late to break the move.

It is clear that SCO are in deep, or that their lawyers can see they are fools easily parted with their money (or MS money, at it happens). For SCO, there is no way to win this. For MS, it helps to muddy the waters in their attack on Linux (and doesn't exactly promote Unix either).

But to mention that the US Constitution is the top legal tier is exceptionally arrogant. Something us non-American countries are getting used to!

What about the WIPO, which has many statements on copyright and patent issues? I suppose they are treated with the same disdain as the United Nations?

I'll be glad when SCO and its expensive lawyers give up (or lose) on this pathetic process of generating FUD for non-MS companies, products and services.

From what I know, GPL is an international license agreement. Any legal actions taken in the US to uppose GPL, can only have outcomes that only apply to the US. Thus, the rest of the world can keep on using GPL. I find it very arrogant of SCO to claim invalidity of GPL solely based on the US law and constitution.

I have the feeling that this is a proxy war. Otherwise, SCO's actions do not make sense.

How crazy can you get!
You start a case where you accuse on illegal copying of code you published earlier under the GPL.
Next you begin to become aware that your case isn't very strong.
Then you tackle the GPL, hoping that you win the case.
If you are lucky to win, you change the sequence of the years and put 2003 before the year you initiated the case.
Finally when in court in 2004 or so, you try to convince the judge that the GPL had been declared void before you published the code under the GPL, so the copying of your code was therefore illegal.....(to be continued)

If SCO wins on this count, doesn't that effectively invalidate all software licenses as they all grant or restrict (mostly restrict) usage in direct opposition to copyright law? Just my two cents.

If one intends to copy something that some other entity has copyrighted, does that person ask the holder of the copyright or the government for permission? I have seen numerous quoted passages 'reprinted with the permission of "so-and-so" but never has "so-and-so" been uncle sam.

What ramifications will this venture of SCO, if sucessful, have on source quotations, as in a scholarly paper? Does a bibliography (or works cited, im never sure which term is more popular) become a federal document? It would be awfully hard to publish an essay which lists at its end people who should, upon reading it, sue the publisher.

Just wondering how this will work...

You know; that approach just about invalidates every copyright there is, including SCO's own. AFAIK American congress has not directly or indirectly been involved in granting copyright to SCO (or any other company) for software produced or purchased by companies.

To argue that the American congress is the only authority that may grant a copyright is rather self defeatist IMO (as well as rather arrogant), since it follows that SCO's copyrights must largely be invalidated as well by this argument.

To my knowledge, Copyright is an automatic right of ownership by the producer of printed material (or these days software). This right is not granted by anyone explicitely, but is implicit in the fact that the owner/writer also owns the "right to copy" the material. This, as opposed to patents which are indeed granted and enforced by patent law.

It is only just that the owner of a copyright should determine who else may have the right to copy software/material. If the owner chooses to subject that right under the GPL, he explicitely relinquishes the right to determine who will in future copy (or extend) the material.

This is really pathetic. McBride would sue his mother. Losers all of them and anyone who supports them.

Sounds like SCO is grasping at straws, having for all intents and purposes failed to easily pursue their initial money-grab endeavour, it would seem that they are now simply trying to stick it to the people making it hard for them to grab a license fee from anyone using linux. If you can't run the show, get the show cancelled.


Your Feedback
William Richter wrote: The GPL is a commercial licence for software falling under its domain. If the GPL is invalid, so is every other commercial software licence (EULA) in existance, including SCO's own. I wonder what Microsoft, who has helped bankroll SCO's effort, thinks about this latest move. However, I do not think Microsoft or GPL has anything to fear. Software licence agreements have held up in court already. However, I am interested to see how much more of SCO's "proof" of IBM's wrongdoing turns out to be GPLed code.
John Zoetebier wrote: It looks like the behaviour of SCO is becoming more and more irrational, unless there is a hidden agenda. Do they really think the USA is ruling the world ? While the lawyers for SCO are filling their pockets the rest of the world is moving ahead. By 3035 China will bypass the USA and be the bigggest economy. Long before that time SCO will have disappeared from the face of the world. However there may be something else going on. What SCO has to proof is that the 0.0001% of their code in Linux is worth money, while the 99.9999% of code other people contributed is worth nothing. If this is not true, anybody contributing to Linux can start sending invoices as well. This will destroy the extortion business of SCO and is obviously something they like to avoid.
Ed Martin wrote: I am starting a new job as IT Manager where their is a SCO box in place. The first course of business will be to replace it with a nice Redhat ES system!
Roel Eiting wrote: We 'd better don't mention SCO and their products any more before they pass the US congress, They might be copyrighted??
Roel Eiting wrote: We 'd better don't mention SCO and their products any more before they pass the US congress, They might be copyrighted??
Thibault Le Paul wrote: Those attacks (i.e the troyan "you_need_us" attack, then billing Linux corporate users, and now the GPL breaking) sound really M$. I think this because it has more chance to fail, but in the same time it may discourage corporate users that felt in security with open source code. I mean, the risk for SCO is really expensive (public image, court fees), but there is someone else behind. The message is addressed to corporate users : "you want to use open source, free code, it may not be legally safe ; come back to M$". But this message has no effect or a reactional effect on politic, philosophic open source users. The problem as always is citizen against corporations. By chance Linux has many corporate and citizen supporters, and a great public fame. It is too late to break the move.
John Rutter wrote: It is clear that SCO are in deep, or that their lawyers can see they are fools easily parted with their money (or MS money, at it happens). For SCO, there is no way to win this. For MS, it helps to muddy the waters in their attack on Linux (and doesn't exactly promote Unix either). But to mention that the US Constitution is the top legal tier is exceptionally arrogant. Something us non-American countries are getting used to! What about the WIPO, which has many statements on copyright and patent issues? I suppose they are treated with the same disdain as the United Nations? I'll be glad when SCO and its expensive lawyers give up (or lose) on this pathetic process of generating FUD for non-MS companies, products and services.
Roald wrote: From what I know, GPL is an international license agreement. Any legal actions taken in the US to uppose GPL, can only have outcomes that only apply to the US. Thus, the rest of the world can keep on using GPL. I find it very arrogant of SCO to claim invalidity of GPL solely based on the US law and constitution.
May M$ go to hell wrote: I have the feeling that this is a proxy war. Otherwise, SCO's actions do not make sense.
Cesare wrote: How crazy can you get! You start a case where you accuse on illegal copying of code you published earlier under the GPL. Next you begin to become aware that your case isn't very strong. Then you tackle the GPL, hoping that you win the case. If you are lucky to win, you change the sequence of the years and put 2003 before the year you initiated the case. Finally when in court in 2004 or so, you try to convince the judge that the GPL had been declared void before you published the code under the GPL, so the copying of your code was therefore illegal.....(to be continued)
Chuck wrote: If SCO wins on this count, doesn't that effectively invalidate all software licenses as they all grant or restrict (mostly restrict) usage in direct opposition to copyright law? Just my two cents.
cale wrote: If one intends to copy something that some other entity has copyrighted, does that person ask the holder of the copyright or the government for permission? I have seen numerous quoted passages 'reprinted with the permission of "so-and-so" but never has "so-and-so" been uncle sam. What ramifications will this venture of SCO, if sucessful, have on source quotations, as in a scholarly paper? Does a bibliography (or works cited, im never sure which term is more popular) become a federal document? It would be awfully hard to publish an essay which lists at its end people who should, upon reading it, sue the publisher. Just wondering how this will work...
Paul Sephton wrote: You know; that approach just about invalidates every copyright there is, including SCO's own. AFAIK American congress has not directly or indirectly been involved in granting copyright to SCO (or any other company) for software produced or purchased by companies. To argue that the American congress is the only authority that may grant a copyright is rather self defeatist IMO (as well as rather arrogant), since it follows that SCO's copyrights must largely be invalidated as well by this argument. To my knowledge, Copyright is an automatic right of ownership by the producer of printed material (or these days software). This right is not granted by anyone explicitely, but is implicit in the fact that the owner/writer also owns the "right to copy" the material. This, as opposed to patents which are indeed granted and enforced by patent law. It is only just that the owner of a cop...
Ed Martin wrote: This is really pathetic. McBride would sue his mother. Losers all of them and anyone who supports them.
Chris Broumley wrote: Sounds like SCO is grasping at straws, having for all intents and purposes failed to easily pursue their initial money-grab endeavour, it would seem that they are now simply trying to stick it to the people making it hard for them to grab a license fee from anyone using linux. If you can't run the show, get the show cancelled.
SOA World Latest Stories
In his session at 20th Cloud Expo, Scott Davis, CTO of Embotics, discussed how automation can provide the dynamic management required to cost-effectively deliver microservices and container solutions at scale. He also discussed how flexible automation is the key to effectively bridging...
Modern software design has fundamentally changed how we manage applications, causing many to turn to containers as the new virtual machine for resource management. As container adoption grows beyond stateless applications to stateful workloads, the need for persistent storage is founda...
SYS-CON Events announced today that DatacenterDynamics has been named “Media Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 18th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 7–9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. DatacenterDynamics is a brand of DCD Group, a global B2B media and publ...
Most DevOps journeys involve several phases of maturity. Research shows that the inflection point where organizations begin to see maximum value is when they implement tight integration deploying their code to their infrastructure. Success at this level is the last barrier to at-will d...
DevOpsSummit New York 2018, colocated with CloudEXPO | DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City. Digital Transformation (DX) is a major focus with the introduction of DXWorldEXPO within the program. Successful transformation requires a laser focus ...
CloudEXPO New York 2018, colocated with DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City and will bring together Cloud Computing, FinTech and Blockchain, Digital Transformation, Big Data, Internet of Things, DevOps, AI, Machine Learning and WebRTC to one l...
Subscribe to the World's Most Powerful Newsletters
Subscribe to Our Rss Feeds & Get Your SYS-CON News Live!
Click to Add our RSS Feeds to the Service of Your Choice:
Google Reader or Homepage Add to My Yahoo! Subscribe with Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online
myFeedster Add to My AOL Subscribe in Rojo Add 'Hugg' to Newsburst from CNET News.com Kinja Digest View Additional SYS-CON Feeds
Publish Your Article! Please send it to editorial(at)sys-con.com!

Advertise on this site! Contact advertising(at)sys-con.com! 201 802-3021


SYS-CON Featured Whitepapers
ADS BY GOOGLE