 |
|
DAILY NEWS AND INFORMATION
FOR THE GLOBAL GRID COMMUNITY /
|
Systems/Enterprise:
USENIX ASSOCIATION REFUTES SCO'S
CLAIMS ON LINUX
The following is being issued by Marshall Kirk McKusick, president of the
USENIX Board of Directors:
The SCO Group Inc recently has sued IBM and Novell and launched broad
attacks
on the legality of and the economic justification for so-called open source
licensing, including the free licensing of Linux. As an organization dedicated
to advancing the skills and contributions of computer researchers and
developers, the USENIX Association is compelled to address and refute the
position SCO has taken regarding open source software.
Since 1975, USENIX has brought together the community of engineers, system
administrators, scientists and technicians working on the cutting edge of the
computing world. USENIX was here before SCO. USENIX was here before Linux.
USENIX and its members serve as an unparalleled demonstration that the best
way to support advances in computer programming and to create better computer
programs (and to help the American economy) is by sharing innovations, rather
than keeping them secret or charging large amounts of money for access to
them, as SCO advocates.
SCO argues that open source software, and in particular the General Public
License (GPL), by means of which Linux and many other open source programs are
licensed without charging fees, are "a threat to the U.S. information
technology industry." SCO's own programmers use open source computer software
tools, so it is difficult to explain SCO's position except by noting its
hypocrisy. Many of the most popular computer development tools are available
to programmers worldwide for free through the contributions of the open source
development community. If their developers were to charge substantial fees for
their use or to withdraw them from distribution entirely, commercial
programmers such as SCO and non-commercial programmers alike would be the
worse for it.
SCO specifically argues that open source (free) licensing "undermines our
basic system of intellectual property rights." This assertion lacks any legal
justification and therefore appears to be merely self-serving. Nothing in our
intellectual property laws requires inventors to charge substantial fees for
access or use of their inventions. In fact, the laws of copyright and patents,
which underlie the intellectual property rights that most often protect
computer software programs, give their owners complete discretion in deciding
how large their licensing fees should be, or, indeed, whether to impose fees
at all.
SCO specifically argues that open source software "has the potential to
provide our nation's enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities
that are restricted by U.S. law." Intellectual property law is not the right
place to impose restrictions on the use of computer programs abroad. That's
what our export control laws do. This confusion between intellectual property
licensing and export policy shows how bankrupt SCO's arguments are.
Furthermore, the U.S. export control authorities have acknowledged the
impossibility of restricting the geographical distribution of most computer
software programs. In any event, neither area of law hinges on whether
software programs are licensed for fees or for free, or whether the
innovations are kept secret or are shared.
SCO specifically argues, "Each Open Source installation displaces or pre-
empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected software."
This would only be true if the open source applications are superior or at
least equal to their proprietary counterparts. America has always asserted
that the marketplace is the best regulator. Expensive products stimulate the
introduction of less expensive and better substitutes. Intellectual property
laws do not change that basic principle of capitalism. SCO's desire to be
protected against competition is understandable, particularly if its products
are inferior to those of its open source competitors. But it is unreasonable
to expect that intellectual property laws will shield SCO from the normal
operation of the marketplace.
Intellectual property law has always balanced the need to give inventors
protection from competitors with the need to give society the benefit of their
innovations and to let the marketplace regulate fees through the mechanisms of
supply and demand. Intellectual property laws have never given inventors
absolute protection against the competition of lower-cost substitutes.
Copyright laws, for example, only protect against copying. If substitute
programs are not copies, then they do not infringe, and they are free to
compete with the original programs in the marketplace. Inventors who find they
can't compete against lower-cost or free substitutes are compelled to find
other things to sell.
SCO's claims that open source developers are damaging our system of
intellectual property rights and are threatening the viability of our
technology industry are intellectually dishonest. Indeed, the open source
community's practice of sharing innovations and of making them available for
free clearly stimulates development and invigorates the technology sector.
From the software that controls the majority of the world's web servers to the
software that makes tasks easier on your desktops, open source development has
enhanced the American economy.
Society is better off when consumers have choices and when products compete
with one another on the basis of functionality and price, and inventing is
facilitated when inventors share their ideas. USENIX supports the right of
programmers to choose whether to charge for their programs or to make them
available for free, and we oppose any attempt to change the balance inherent
in our intellectual property laws.
|