[News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops - Linux ; Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit? ,----[ Quoet ] | Eben Moglen and the troops at the Software Freedom Law Center may want to | read the McAfee annual report more than once. Without this warning there’s a | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

  1. [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

    Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit?

    ,----[ Quoet ]
    | Eben Moglen and the troops at the Software Freedom Law Center may want to
    | read the McAfee annual report more than once. Without this warning there’s a
    | chance Eben may do a spit-take on his morning coffee.
    |
    | McAfee stock is down 20% in the last two months and, it seems, they’re just
    | asking to be sued.
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1864

    Look what happened to SCO after it cursed the GPL.


    Recent:

    McAfee throws some FUD at the GPL

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In its annual report, Windows security software vendor McAfee told its
    | investors that open source software licence terms it vaguely characterised
    | as " ambiguous" might "result in unanticipated obligations regarding our
    | products." *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | That statement says several things. First, it reveals that McAfee does use at
    | least some open source software derived code in its products. Second, it
    | betrays that McAfee has misappropriated that open source software and thus is
    | committing copyright infringement, because it doesn't distribute that open
    | source software derivative source code. Third, by calling its products that *
    | include open source software code "proprietary", McAfee shows that it really
    | doesn't want to shoulder its GPL licence obligations, but instead wants to
    | both have its cake and eat it too. * * *
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...throws-fud-gpl


    Recent:

    McAfee to pay $13.8 million to settle backdating lawsuits

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | McAfee has taken two major steps toward closing the stock-option backdating
    | scandal that has plagued the company for the past two years.
    `----

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20...nfoworld/94209

  2. Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit?
    >
    > ,----[ Quoet ]
    >| Eben Moglen and the troops at the Software Freedom Law Center may want to
    >| read the McAfee annual report more than once. Without this warning there?s a
    >| chance Eben may do a spit-take on his morning coffee.
    >|
    >| McAfee stock is down 20% in the last two months and, it seems, they?re just
    >| asking to be sued.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1864
    >
    > Look what happened to SCO after it cursed the GPL.
    >


    If Vista is not selling well, then McAfee are in trouble. As people
    move to Linux-based solutions, they will not need anti-virus, so McAfee
    will have no long-term future unless they can very quickly change their
    focus.

    They have a great opportunity to employ one or two kernel firewall
    hackers, though, and become experts on /really secure/ linux server
    installations.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  3. Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops


    "[H]omer" wrote:
    >
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
    >
    > > Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit?

    >
    > McAfee are wrong on so many levels it's dazzling!!!
    >
    > First, they are basically saying that although they expect others to
    > honour their copyrights, they don't care about others. Proprietary
    > copyrights should be respected, but FOSS copyrights should not?


    Why don't you download their 10-K and read what they say, [M]oron.

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....920&p=irol-sec

    -----
    Open Source Software

    Despite having conducted the appropriate due diligence prior to the
    consummation of an acquisition, products or technologies acquired by us
    may nonetheless include so-called open source software which was not
    identified during the initial due diligence. Open source software is
    typically licensed for use at no initial charge, but imposes on the user
    of the open source software certain requirements to license to others
    both the open source software as well as the software that relates to,
    or interacts with, the open source software. Our ability to
    commercialize products or technologies incorporating open source
    software or otherwise fully realize the anticipated benefits of any such
    acquisition may be restricted because, among other reasons open source
    license terms may be ambiguous and may result in unanticipated or
    uncertain obligations regarding our products; and it may be difficult
    for us to accurately determine the developers of the open source code
    and whether the acquired software infringes third-party intellectual
    property rights.

    ....

    If we acquire a portion of technology included in our products from
    third parties, our exposure to infringement actions may increase because
    we must rely upon these third parties as to the origin and ownership of
    any software being acquired. Similarly, notwithstanding measures taken
    by our competitors or us to protect our competitors intellectual
    property, exposure to infringement claims increases if we employ or hire
    software engineers previously employed by competitors. Further, to the
    extent we utilize open source software we face risks. For example, the
    scope and requirements of the most common open source software license,
    the GNU General Public License, or GPL, have not been interpreted in a
    court of law. Use of GPL software could subject certain portions of our
    proprietary software to the GPL requirements, which may have adverse
    effects on our sale of the products incorporating any such software.
    Other forms of open source software licensing present license
    compliance risks, which could result in litigation or loss of the right
    to use this software.

    ....

    Some of our products incorporate software licensed from third parties.
    We must be able to obtain reasonably priced licenses and successfully
    integrate this software with our hardware and other software. In
    addition, some of our products may include open source software. Our
    ability to commercialize products or technologies incorporating open
    source software may be restricted because, among other reasons, open
    source license terms may be ambiguous and may result in unanticipated
    obligations regarding our products.
    -----

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "Plaintiffs copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
    value is impossible to assess"

    -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

  4. Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

    ____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 09 January 2008 13:27 : \____

    > This is almost as bad as that Ashley Highfield numbskull, and
    > his "you can't do an Open Source DRM" crap. Yeah, that's right ... the
    > existence of the source code for encryption software and antivirus
    > software *obviously* compromises that software ... right?
    >
    > Idiots.
    >
    > Why are such people apparently incapable of grasping the simple concept
    > that access to the source does *not* compromise the integrity of the
    > software?


    Many of the people who say this things are not competent with computers. They
    think that writing a document and clicking on teh hotmail is computer skills.
    We're not talking about programmers here.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Reversi for Linux/Win32: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  5. Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

    ____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 09 January 2008 12:31 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit?
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quoet ]
    >>| Eben Moglen and the troops at the Software Freedom Law Center may want to
    >>| read the McAfee annual report more than once. Without this warning there?s
    >>| a chance Eben may do a spit-take on his morning coffee.
    >>|
    >>| McAfee stock is down 20% in the last two months and, it seems, they?re just
    >>| asking to be sued.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1864
    >>
    >> Look what happened to SCO after it cursed the GPL.
    >>

    >
    > If Vista is not selling well, then McAfee are in trouble. As people
    > move to Linux-based solutions, they will not need anti-virus, so McAfee
    > will have no long-term future unless they can very quickly change their
    > focus.
    >
    > They have a great opportunity to employ one or two kernel firewall
    > hackers, though, and become experts on /really secure/ linux server
    > installations.


    Symantec already produces UNIX/Linux security/backup products. I don't think I
    ever come across any from McAfee.

    Symantec is a company I can actually respect. Did you know that Symantec's CEO
    doesn't even use Windows (he recommends that people don't use it)?

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Microsoft's Counter-Supportive Evangelist (MCSE)
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 142 total, 1 running, 141 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  6. Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops


    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    [...]
    > Symantec is a company I can actually respect. Did you know that Symantec's CEO


    http://www.symantec.com/content/en/u...t_and_10-K.pdf

    -----
    Certain of our products are distributed with software licensed by its
    authors or other third parties under socalled open source licenses,
    which may include, by way of example, the GNU General Public License
    (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), the Mozilla Public
    License, the BSD License, and the Apache License. Some of these licenses
    contain requirements that we make available source code for
    modifications or derivative works we create based upon the open source
    software, and that we license such modifications or derivative works
    under the terms of a particular open source license or other license
    granting third parties certain rights of further use. If we combine our
    proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we
    could, under certain of the open source licenses, be required to release
    the source code of our proprietary software. In addition to risks
    related to license requirements, usage of open source software can lead
    to greater risks than use of third party commercial software, as open
    source licensors generally do not provide warranties or controls on
    origin of the software. We have established processes to help alleviate
    these risks, including a review process for screening requests from our
    development organizations for the use of open source, but we cannot be
    sure that all open source is submitted for approval prior to use in our
    products. In addition, many of the risks associated with usage of open
    source cannot be eliminated, and could, if not properly addressed,
    negatively affect our business.
    -----

    regards,
    alexander.

    "Plaintiffs copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
    value is impossible to assess"

    -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.

+ Reply to Thread