Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Rashkae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As much as I would like to see a slew of copyright infringement claims get filed against SCO, from my reading of the GPL, violations of the license only terminates your right to distribute the software which was violated. AFAIK, the only GPL software who's license SCO has arguably violated, to date, is Linux. Making derogatory comments My question is this: by declaring the GPL as invalid, isn't that non-acceptance of the license, which in turn invalidates your right to distribute all GPL software? (SCO does distribute Samba in its products, while at the same time they have a document on their website declaring the GPL invalid; See: http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/ for details) I believe acceptance of the license is required to distribute GPL products, although IANAL. Michael Brown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAP87nyEfMczxaHdsRAkOSAJ0W08D8ONkgBEJfkIKagvh+qhKS/ACgjv2r t3ioq+o615pJEN5vehaHDBM= =r51q -END PGP SIGNATURE- Actually, didn't SCO make the arguement that any GPL'd software should actually be declared public domain? If that's so, doesn't allowing them to continue using the software under the GPL put the copyright at risk? Jim Shanks -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Jim Shanks wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Rashkae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this: by declaring the GPL as invalid, isn't that non-acceptance of the license, which in turn invalidates your right to distribute all GPL software? (SCO does distribute Samba in its products, while at the same time they have a document on their website declaring the GPL invalid; See: http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/ for details) products, although IANAL. Actually, didn't SCO make the arguement that any GPL'd software should actually be declared public domain? If that's so, doesn't allowing them to continue using the software under the GPL put the copyright at risk? In their site they write (these are not THEIR words !): Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Thi later cite a sentence that want to show they are right. The sentence is about extension of terms, that is how much limited time is excluseve right ! The only things that GPL license differ than a normal copyrighted work are: 1. the license does not expire 2. The license force you to license derived works with the same license. There are the points that SCO try use to show it is illegal. Observations: 1. : Yes, they are right on this point, but -apart that this would apply to any of the computer licenses- this would only have the effect to set a limit on the time it would apply, and since they see right to increase the spanm of tiome this would not be a problem now, and for may years to come [incidentally: each update of programs would shift further later expiring !]. The fact that whitin a certain time it would become PD, as many patents, should not worry much. 2. you have exclusive rights ... isn't ? So exclusive right mean also that you can license with the condition that teh reciver must sublicense only under GPL. Also, the GOL is not mandatory nor exclusive, since you can have dual licensing [see MySQL ] so if you are not happy with GPL you have other ways -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
Actually, didn't SCO make the arguement that any GPL'd software should actually be declared public domain? If that's so, doesn't allowing them to continue using the software under the GPL put the copyright at risk? In their site they write (these are not THEIR words !): Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Thi later cite a sentence that want to show they are right. The sentence is about extension of terms, that is how much limited time is excluseve right ! The only things that GPL license differ than a normal copyrighted work are: 1. the license does not expire 2. The license force you to license derived works with the same license. There are the points that SCO try use to show it is illegal. Observations: 1. : Yes, they are right on this point, but -apart that this would apply to any of the computer licenses- this would only have the effect to set a limit on the time it would apply, and since they see right to increase the spanm of tiome this would not be a problem now, and for may years to come [incidentally: each update of programs would shift further later expiring !]. The fact that whitin a certain time it would become PD, as many patents, should not worry much. Ahem... Many people have a hard time understanding American Constitutional issues... The delegation of authority to Congress: ...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. is NOT an exclusive one. In other words, it does NOT preclude any PRIVATE association from creating their OWN system for protecting the works of authors via contract, which is all the GPL is. It is valid, and any judge with half a brain working at 50% efficiency can see this plain as day - the problem will be finding a judge of this caliber who has ever read the Constitution and studies it's application. Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
Hi Folks, i would be very pleased if you dont spam me with sco brain fuck features. This is a technical samba users help list, why dont you flame this on a private list ? Regards - Original Message - From: Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba? Actually, didn't SCO make the arguement that any GPL'd software should actually be declared public domain? If that's so, doesn't allowing them to continue using the software under the GPL put the copyright at risk? In their site they write (these are not THEIR words !): Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Thi later cite a sentence that want to show they are right. The sentence is about extension of terms, that is how much limited time is excluseve right ! The only things that GPL license differ than a normal copyrighted work are: 1. the license does not expire 2. The license force you to license derived works with the same license. There are the points that SCO try use to show it is illegal. Observations: 1. : Yes, they are right on this point, but -apart that this would apply to any of the computer licenses- this would only have the effect to set a limit on the time it would apply, and since they see right to increase the spanm of tiome this would not be a problem now, and for may years to come [incidentally: each update of programs would shift further later expiring !]. The fact that whitin a certain time it would become PD, as many patents, should not worry much. Ahem... Many people have a hard time understanding American Constitutional issues... The delegation of authority to Congress: ...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. is NOT an exclusive one. In other words, it does NOT preclude any PRIVATE association from creating their OWN system for protecting the works of authors via contract, which is all the GPL is. It is valid, and any judge with half a brain working at 50% efficiency can see this plain as day - the problem will be finding a judge of this caliber who has ever read the Constitution and studies it's application. Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As you all may know Fyodor of nmap fame has terminated SCO's rights to distribute namp with its products. See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html I know this is off-topic, but I am interested in opinions on the subject of SCO using Samba in it's products while they declare the GPL is unconstitutional and invalid. In Darl McBride's recent speech at Harvard Law School, he was asked in the QA period about SCO's use of Samba and the GPL - to which he replied something to the effect (I am paraphrasing here) of Samba doesn't infringe on our IP to our knowledge, so we still contribute (??) to the Samba project and distribute Samba with our products Is this hypocrisy? I welcome opinions of the members of the list. Sorry if this is not the right forum for this, but I am interested in the opinions of the Samba community on this issue. Michael Brown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAP8R5yEfMczxaHdsRApcLAJ94yu7LuXGL9saMm8Gv6J2ne5HWIgCfUuCs LPi5uElkzBbjLUC6TBjIZrE= =rhK9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
As much as I would like to see a slew of copyright infringement claims get filed against SCO, from my reading of the GPL, violations of the license only terminates your right to distribute the software which was violated. AFAIK, the only GPL software who's license SCO has arguably violated, to date, is Linux. Making derogatory comments about the GPL to the press does not violate the terms of the license. On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:28:09PM -0800, Michael Brown wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As you all may know Fyodor of nmap fame has terminated SCO's rights to distribute namp with its products. See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html I know this is off-topic, but I am interested in opinions on the subject of SCO using Samba in it's products while they declare the GPL is unconstitutional and invalid. In Darl McBride's recent speech at Harvard Law School, he was asked in the QA period about SCO's use of Samba and the GPL - to which he replied something to the effect (I am paraphrasing here) of Samba doesn't infringe on our IP to our knowledge, so we still contribute (??) to the Samba project and distribute Samba with our products Is this hypocrisy? I welcome opinions of the members of the list. Sorry if this is not the right forum for this, but I am interested in the opinions of the Samba community on this issue. Michael Brown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAP8R5yEfMczxaHdsRApcLAJ94yu7LuXGL9saMm8Gv6J2ne5HWIgCfUuCs LPi5uElkzBbjLUC6TBjIZrE= =rhK9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
Michael Brown wrote: As you all may know Fyodor of nmap fame has terminated SCO's rights to distribute namp with its products. See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html Fyodor, whose Nmap (network mapper) security scanner is extremely popular among geeks and even featured in the latest film of the Matrix series Where in Matrix: Revolutions in nmap used? I'm going to have to watch that movie a little closer. -- Andrew Gaffney Network Administrator Skyline Aeronautics, LLC. 636-357-1548 -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
I'd have to rally behind Michael on this topic, I think this is where the opensource community needs to show is stance and protest in a non-vandalistic way. I personally was confused how some script kiddies felt that writing e-mail viruses that attacked SCOs website would do anything more than give the OpenSource community a bad name. This is where we as GNU citizens need to show our support for Linux, even if that isn't our OS of choice. I'm personally a FreeBSD geek. If SCO throws an enough money at this case and wins, that makes OpenSource lose value and vulnerable to many other lawsuits for someone that feels OpenSource prevents them from making money. Cough Cough M$. My 2 cents -Aaron Collins hellfire at fastq dot com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Brown Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As you all may know Fyodor of nmap fame has terminated SCO's rights to distribute namp with its products. See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html I know this is off-topic, but I am interested in opinions on the subject of SCO using Samba in it's products while they declare the GPL is unconstitutional and invalid. In Darl McBride's recent speech at Harvard Law School, he was asked in the QA period about SCO's use of Samba and the GPL - to which he replied something to the effect (I am paraphrasing here) of Samba doesn't infringe on our IP to our knowledge, so we still contribute (??) to the Samba project and distribute Samba with our products Is this hypocrisy? I welcome opinions of the members of the list. Sorry if this is not the right forum for this, but I am interested in the opinions of the Samba community on this issue. Michael Brown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAP8R5yEfMczxaHdsRApcLAJ94yu7LuXGL9saMm8Gv6J2ne5HWIgCfUuCs LPi5uElkzBbjLUC6TBjIZrE= =rhK9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Rashkae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As much as I would like to see a slew of copyright infringement claims get filed against SCO, from my reading of the GPL, violations of the license only terminates your right to distribute the software which was violated. AFAIK, the only GPL software who's license SCO has arguably violated, to date, is Linux. Making derogatory comments My question is this: by declaring the GPL as invalid, isn't that non-acceptance of the license, which in turn invalidates your right to distribute all GPL software? (SCO does distribute Samba in its products, while at the same time they have a document on their website declaring the GPL invalid; See: http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/ for details) I believe acceptance of the license is required to distribute GPL products, although IANAL. Michael Brown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAP87nyEfMczxaHdsRAkOSAJ0W08D8ONkgBEJfkIKagvh+qhKS/ACgjv2r t3ioq+o615pJEN5vehaHDBM= =r51q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] [OT] Fyodor terminates SCO nmap rights -- how about Samba?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:51 -0500 Rashkae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As much as I would like to see a slew of copyright infringement claims get filed against SCO, from my reading of the GPL, violations of the license only terminates your right to distribute the software which was violated. AFAIK, the only GPL software who's license SCO has arguably violated, to date, is Linux. Making derogatory comments My question is this: by declaring the GPL as invalid, isn't that non-acceptance of the license, which in turn invalidates your right to distribute all GPL software? (SCO does distribute Samba in its products, while at the same time they have a document on their website declaring the GPL invalid; See: http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/ for details) I believe acceptance of the license is required to distribute GPL products, although IANAL. Michael Brown I am not sure it is. I think they mean that because the GPL is invalid then it has no legal binding what so ever. That is why (in their minds) they can continue to use GPL code. However if that is the case, then the code would be protected under normal copyright laws. I think that SCO sees this problem and will probably claim that the intent of the people releasing code under GPL is that the code would be public domain and thus free to use even for SCO. Or they simply ignore the copyright law as each copyright holder must them selfs proceed legally (and make proof that they are indeed the copyright holder) for SCO to stop using their code. Of course I am just rambling as I know very little of US laws. ~S -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
