OK this is geeky, but it's also fucking funny if you've been following the whole
SCO thing, which I've devoted a serious amount of time to over the last six months.
SCO published an
open letter on copyrights on their Web site today, in response to a
position piece written by a Columbia law professor on SCO's claims that the Linux kernel illegally includes code that SCO has rights to.
This is a long and complex case that essentially boils down to this: Linux is a clone of Unix. That means that by analyzing the input and output you get while running the Unix operating system, the Linux crowd has essentially rewritten it. SCO thinks they cheated while doing this, and the Linux folks think SCO is grasping at straws.
People are paying a lot of attention to this case because they think it will be a bellwether on whether or not people in high technology can get away with cloning other technology. I think, at essence the debate is about whether people can own ideas or not. Traditionally, US law has said, you can own a copyright on a string of words, but you can't own rights on the ideas they represent (like the theory of evolution, for example. Darwin could own copyright on
The Origin of Species but, luckily, he couldn't charge Mendel for using his theory of evolution to conduct experiments with beans). In the SCO case, the idea is Unix, which for many people is
more than an operating system. It is certainly more than an assemblage of copyrights.
Anyhow, the case is way more complex than just that, but in the long run I think whether or not people in technology can take a good idea and run with it is what's at stake.
So today I was swapping email with the guy who created Linux, asking him for an on-the-record comment on SCO's latest statement for a
story I was writing. SCO has been trying to portray the Linux crowd as anti-capitalist hippie types who think all IP should be in the public domain. In their paper, SCO criticizes the idea of
Copyleft as an anti-democratic assault on our American freedoms. In reality, it's just a bunch of guidelines for doing a generous thing with the stuff you write. In fact, Linux's software license (which is sometimes called Copyleft) requires copyright to be enforced.
Here's what the US Consitution says about copyright. It gives Congress the right:
To 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;
SCO says the by "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" the authors of the Consitution meant "make money." The copyleft people say no.
This is what Linus said.
Linus Torvalds
12/04/2003 01:23 PM
To: Robert McMillan/NEWS SERVICE/IDG@IDG
cc:
Subject: Re: Fw: AN OPEN LETTER FROM DARL McBRIDE, PRESIDENT & CEO OF SCO
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 Robert_McMillan@idg.com wrote:
>
> So I take it you don't want to eliminate the copyright law? If you did,
> how would the GPL be enforced?
I'm a big believer in copyrights. In fact, of all the IP, copyright IP is
the only one that is expressly designed so that individual people can (and
do) get them without having scads of lawyers on their side. Anything
original you write is automatically copyrighted by you, and indeed, the
GPL itself depends 100% on copyright law.
Calling it "copyleft" is a play on words, which is obviously a concept
that Darl McBride has problems understanding, since humor and wordgames
too aren't directly tied to money (and are thus likely to be considered
unconsitutional by SCO).
It's called copyleft not because it is against copyright law, but because
it is against the notion that copyright law has to always be about money.
The common use of copyright law, after all, is to further yourself
economically. However, last I heard, it still wasn't unconstitutional to
want to further yourself in other ways.
If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably made marriage
unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature
of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the
commercial growth of prostitution. Let's get our priorities straight!
There's a lot of lonely girls out there who don't get paid enough!
Maybe he should be "Darl McPimp", since that "Bride" part is clearly
fundamentally against his belief system.
Linus