Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Linux Legal Problems

Rate this topic


Oakes

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking seriously about switching to Linux eventually. It's low-cost, open-source, and has really cool programs like Mac-on-Linux and Win4Lin that allow you to run other OS's on it. Open-source may be associated with lefties, but I believe capitalism will find the best mixture of open-source and proprietary (and interesting mixtures of the two).

One thing in particular is preventing me from taking the plunge: legal problems. SCO, which I believe owns the Unix operating system, is claiming that Linux contains line-for-line copies of its code. It has created its own "Intellectual Property License" that Linux users may pay for in order to run Linux without infringing on their copyrights; otherwise, SCO says, they are risking a lawsuit.

Anybody have any opinions about the legal situation?

EDIT: BTW, please limit replies to discussion of the legal situation, not the benefits/drawbacks of Linux itself. That's why I put it in this forum section.

Edited by Oakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the legal issue that is holding you back or the moral one?

I'm trying to understand the nature of your concern. Are you mainly concerned that SCO might win its case against IBM and the rest, and that you might be forced the change systems again? Or, is it that you just want to do what's right?

I read some of the documents from the case many months ago but have not followed it closely. My impression is that SCO does not deserve to win its case. If nothing else, it ought to be thrown out on the basis of limitation or estoppel.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the legal issue that is holding you back or the moral one?

That's a good question - I don't think it's either. The case is too complex to judge whether or not it is valid, so there is no point having moral or legal reservations (especially if you're just an end-user, who SCO wouldn't waste their time suing).

I think the overriding reason is that, before I heard of this case, I felt that the mix of open-source and proprietary seen with Linux made it the ideal OS, and perhaps the future of software. After hearing about the case, that potential became uncertain. The uncertainty sort of eliminates the appeal it originally had.

That's why I made this thread - to get opinions on the legalities and figure out if Linux's future is really uncertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been following the case much either, but from my understanding SCO's claims are a bit unfounded, if not silly. Supposedly, the offending lines of code might have once been part of some library or header file that was used in most Linux distributions but they have long since been removed. If you're really interested in reading about everything that has been going in it, check out Groklaw.net - it probably has the best coverage, despite its liberal point of view. When this became news in the open source community, most if not all of the source code for Linux and its supporting files have been checked for any other chances of copyright violations and none were found. Based on that, I would say it's safe to use Linux from both a legal and ethical standpoint.

The case itself though, brought about an interesting issue with the open source model. How does one determine if code in an open source product has not been copied over from a proprietary system or used in violation of its original license? I'm sure the Linux kernel maintainers are very cautious now in this regard, when reviewing changes and updates.

As for SCO, ownership of the UNIX source code is still in dispute with Novell and I'm not sure what has been going on with that. Furthermore, SCO has oddly enough been acting inappropriately in its cooperation with the Court over the SCO vs. IBM case. The company's CEO, David McBride, has also pretty much run it into the ground over the past several years - I'd rather not imagine why he's not been fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case itself though, brought about an interesting issue with the open source model.  How does one determine if code in an open source product has not been copied over from a proprietary system or used in violation of its original license?

Yeah, this is an interesting question. How did Linux users remove UNIX code, when I assume they don't have the code for UNIX?

EDIT: BTW thanks for your post, it was informative.

Edited by Oakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question - I don't think it's either. The case is too complex to judge whether or not it is valid, so there is no point having moral or legal reservations (especially if you're just an end-user, who SCO wouldn't waste their time suing).

Why couldn't it be both? Also, I believe SCO did sue both some companies and individuals. It was probably to make an example of them, but I'm not sure what become of all that either.

How did Linux users remove UNIX code, when I assume they don't have the code for UNIX?

The code in question was quoted in several different legal documents, emails, and presentations. If your Google skills are good, you should be able to easily find the lines somewhere and they only number in a couple of dozen or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story up on Slashdot that was posted today. SCO hired a consultant a few years back to search for the offending code in the Linux kernel. He failed to find anything at all, yet they continued with the lawsuit.

As far as the future of Linux being uncertain, I don't think so. If there actually are copyright violations in the kernel, they could always be removed. I doubt that SCO or any other company could kill Linux like that.

Another alternative though is BSD. I don't know if you've heard of it before but BSD is another UNIX variant and I don't believe the SCO lawsuit applies to it. So if the future of Linux does become unstable because of this type of lawsuit, you could always switch to BSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCO is trying the "extortion" business model and failing at it. They may cause a few headaches and start a few lawsuits but they're messing with the big boys (IBM, Novell) who won't give in easily in court. SCO went after some larger end users precisely because they didn't have the resources to fight back.

My concern with Linux and open-source software in general is the GPL and wackos like Stallman who want all software to be open. Morally and legally there is no reason to not use Linux or FreeBSD. I would guess that more stolen code (what constitutes stolen code is open to some debate) has found its way into closed operating systems where the code cannot be inspected publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking seriously about switching to Linux eventually. It's low-cost, open-source, and has really cool programs like Mac-on-Linux and Win4Lin that allow you to run other OS's on it. Open-source may be associated with lefties, but I believe capitalism will find the best mixture of open-source and proprietary (and interesting mixtures of the two).

One thing in particular is preventing me from taking the plunge: legal problems. SCO, which I believe owns the Unix operating system, is claiming that Linux contains line-for-line copies of its code. It has created its own "Intellectual Property License" that Linux users may pay for in order to run Linux without infringing on their copyrights; otherwise, SCO says, they are risking a lawsuit.

Anybody have any opinions about the legal situation?

EDIT: BTW, please limit replies to discussion of the legal situation, not the benefits/drawbacks of Linux itself. That's why I put it in this forum section.

My view of this is that SCO is trying to up its failing stockquote and/or perhaps find a buyer for its company. Many views this legal situation as a non-situation, and it is also rather interesting that SCO has not even presented the slightest bit of evidence in their favour even though judges has requested it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawsuit now bears no resemblance to the lawsuit as it was originally filed. Now SCO has not produced any evidence of IBM allowing Unix System V code into the Linux kernel, and the judge handling the case has sternly rebuked SCO for having such a shoddy factual foundation.

The case now appears to be addressing (a) IBM's response to SCO 'canceling' the license for IBM's own version of Unix--which was to continue selling AIX licenses and services, and (:huh: SCO is trying to pin the blame for the failure of a prior joint venture on IBM (Project Monterey).

SCO wanted to make this case a trial for the GPL, and the sloppy standards used in putting together the Linux Kernel. It has rested its case on innuendo and stalling tactics, and has neglected staying on top of producing a good server OS--they're hemorrhaging clients because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping the legal issues with Linux do not get too crazy in the next few years, as I intend to develop my own Linux distrubution (TitanOS which will be based on some core, which I do not yet know. It will probably be RPM based so will be similar to some variation of Red Hat.). Of course, at this rate it might not be a good idea to try to do that. ...

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...