Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday November 06 2016, @11:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-blue-going-for-the-kill dept.

Several years ago Platform Computing (now owned by IBM) released an open source version of LSF (Platform Load Sharing Facility) -- their premier software product. LSF is a workload management platform and job scheduler for distributed HPC environments. In recent years that open source product has begun to flourish, and now IBM is using the DMCA in an attempt to erase all progress made on the project since it was first released. I guess if you can't compete, you call your legal team...

As posted on the OpenLava mailing list:

> Hello all, this is David Bigagli the founder of OpenLava, I am writing
> on behalf of the OpenLava project. As some or most of you might have
> noticed the GPL2 OpenLava project is under attack by the IBM
> corporation. The github software repository have been shut down under
> the US DMCA law and now the OpenLava website www.openlava.org, hosted
> on Amazon S3, which provides the source code to the latest 4.0 and 3.0
> version will be shut down in the next 24 hours unless the source code
> is removed.
>
> IBM claims that the versions of OpenLava starting from 3.0 infringe
> their copyright and that some source code have been stolen from them,
> copied, or otherwise taken from their code base.
>
> I have developed most of the OpenLava code and I have reviewed all
> contributions. All this development was done without access to any
> IBM code. All IBM claims regarding the source code are false and
> fabricated.

Full release from OpenLava is here: http://www.openlava.org/download/download.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by J_Darnley on Sunday November 06 2016, @01:43PM

    by J_Darnley (5679) on Sunday November 06 2016, @01:43PM (#423091)

    > FOSS Friendly IBM is Attempting to Sestroy OpenLava
    > Sestroy

    Honestly!

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by deimios on Sunday November 06 2016, @02:15PM

    by deimios (201) on Sunday November 06 2016, @02:15PM (#423104) Journal

    The professional term is: "If you can't innovate, litigate"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @02:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @02:18PM (#423106)

    Just host it outside USA where the ridiculous piece of shit DMCA does not exist.

    Otherwise IBM better show evidence of the copyright infringement or shut up.

    Some useless manager/laywer just trying to justify their existance is the more likely reason for this.

    • (Score: 1) by GDX on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:46PM

      by GDX (1950) on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:46PM (#423139)

      Some useless manager/laywer just trying to justify their existance is the more likely reason for this.

      - my 2 cents for this, and is this is more common in big and not that big corporations than anyone can think.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:51PM

      by HiThere (866) on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:51PM (#423213)

      While true, that's not much help. Costs of defending yourself against that kind of attack are unreasonably brutal, and even if you win you won't get back the time, effort, and money it cost to defend yourself, but more likely you'll be driven into bankruptcy. If the guy behind this attack isn't immediately canned it will be a blot on the name of IBM forever. And if I don't hear about it, it will be a blot on my image of IBM forever. Even then, if restitution isn't made it will be hard to forgive them....and I don't even know what OpenLava is.

      OTOH, this is just one side of the story. And an adequate public explanation (that I heard and accepted) would also suffice to remove the blot.

      Now this is stated in a very egocentric way, because I see the world through one pair of eyes, as does everyone else. Others will react as they see fit, but I doubt that I'm the only one that will react this way. (Of course most people will ignore this, but the ones IBM needs to consider the most are those who influence purchasing decisions [or leasing]. IBM got a lot of cred with the open source community for the way it handled the SCOX case, this will impair that evaluation.)

      --
      Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 07 2016, @02:56AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 07 2016, @02:56AM (#423374)

        OTOH, this is just one side of the story. And an adequate public explanation (that I heard and accepted) would also suffice to remove the blot.

        DMCA notices are never justified regardless of the situation, so I'm not sure what they could say to make things better. Maybe that they didn't use the DMCA at all? That seems unlikely.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday November 07 2016, @12:42PM

        by driverless (4770) on Monday November 07 2016, @12:42PM (#423457)

        OTOH, this is just one side of the story.

        And that's the critical point. So far the one side has said "IBM is claiming copyright on code they never wrote". This seems pretty implausible, an IBM exec doesn't just wake up one morning and decide "hey, let's shut down $random_oss_project with baseless accusations just for the lulz". I'd like to hear the other side of the story before I spend too much time bitching about IBM. I have no affiliation with IBM, just thinking there's got to be a bit more to this story than the SJW version we're hearing now.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @04:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @04:33PM (#426070)

          I'm wondering if what happened was that an IBM employee nicked some OpenLava code and claimed they wrote it, it was later spotted that the OpenLava code was the same as their code and IBM assumed the copyright infringement happened the other way round.

          Another explanation is that maybe one of the contributors to the project did take IBM's code and include it in the project. For now I'd take the main author at his word that none of his code is infringing, but how could he be sure that all the contributions aren't?

          Unless the whole project or a large part is infringing, it would certainly have been better if IBM tried to resolve just by getting the infringing part removed by talking to the main author, but at the moment we don't even know that they didn't try.

  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:08PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:08PM (#423125)

    So if this is GPL, surely if you already have a copy there's nothing they can do about you giving it to a "friend"?

    Does anyone know of another copy?

    If only to mess with the DMCA leviathan...

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @03:41PM (#423138)

    The actual GitHub repo is here: https://github.com/openlava/openlava [github.com]

    GitHub actually posts the DMCA notice - which is better than Google et al. would - and provides not just a method but even instructions on how to submit a counter-notice and restore access.

    The author's clearly got more than justified grounds to counter-notice. Furthermore, this appears to be a formal DMCA complaint rather than the back-room bullshit YouTube etc. lets the MAFIAA get away with (for those unaware, Google provides the various *AA an interface to take down literally anything they like, any time, without a formal DMCA complaint; it just disappears immediately and/or you lose all ad revenue with very little recourse). The reason this is important is because, as it's a real DMCA notice, IBM submitted this under penalty of perjury.

    Not only should this guy counter-notice and get his repository restored, but he should get a lawyer to take IBM to court pro bono for perjury (go for punitive damages if possible, as they had to know this was bullshit and were just shitting on the little guy). Heck, the EFF might even do it because there's the possibility for a nice precedent here about DMCA abuse.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:00PM (#423145)

      Yes, he has an absolutely amazing case here.

      It's a real DMCA notice, and they are claiming "includes unauthorized copies of IBM's Software" (it does not).

      Then, in the actual filing, there is also "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this letter is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

      This lawyer committed perjury on behalf of IBM as this is inaccurate. Furthermore, they claim an exclusive right which is factually untrue as OpenLava is based entirely on a GPL release. So, perjury at least twice. Good times.

      Seriously hope this guy runs it past the EFF.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:21PM (#423201)

        If the case involves the source code that was already released under the GPL when IBM acquired the company, then obviously IBM has no case. I'm guessing there's more to it than that, at least in IBM's opinion.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:00PM

        by HiThere (866) on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:00PM (#423215)

        IIUC:
        I didn't actually read the notice, just scanned it, but usually the lawyer is swearing that he is acting in good faith, believes his client, and is authorized to represent the client. The client doesn't swear anything, and the lawyer is allowed to believe his client. So if he is indeed authorized, then no perjury has been committed.

        That's the way I've heard it explained in the past. I'm no lawyer so I can't guarantee that that's the way it would get interpreted, but a quick scan didn't turn up anything contradicting that.

        --
        Put not your faith in princes.
        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:16PM

          by Whoever (4524) on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:16PM (#423217)

          Scanning isn't sufficient.
          1. A clear claim of infringement:

          It recently has come to IBM's attention that a software project titled "openlava" has been uploaded to GitHub, Inc.'s ("GitHub") website and includes unauthorized copies of IBM's Software (the "Infringing Software").

          2. Some weasel words:

          I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner,

          So which is it, Mr/Ms [Private laywer]? The software is infringing (first quote), or you only have a good faith belief that it is infringing (second quote)?

          If any claim of perjury is made, clearly the lawyer will point to the "good faith belief". The real question is, can the lawyer justify a good faith belief? What investigation did he/she do to establish that good faith?

        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday November 06 2016, @08:23PM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday November 06 2016, @08:23PM (#423241) Homepage

          This was my understanding of DMCA notices as well. The entire system is rigged in favor of big media, after all.

          We really need an amendment to the law that a DMCA notice must also include an affidavit from the client swearing on penalty of perjury that infringement has occurred.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 07 2016, @03:04AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 07 2016, @03:04AM (#423377)

            What we need is to get rid of DMCA notices completely, since mandating that websites censor first and ask questions later is unconstitutional.

            • (Score: 2, Disagree) by TheRaven on Monday November 07 2016, @11:14AM

              by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 07 2016, @11:14AM (#423443) Journal

              The idea behind DMCA notices isn't bad (though Google's implementation is). If I claim something is infringing, I notify the site operator and they take it down immediately. Fine so far and if it is infringing then that was probably better for both parties than taking it to court. If it isn't infringing, then the person who posted it files a counter notice and it's back up and, importantly, the hosting company is now protected. If I still believe that it's infringing, then I must take the person to court.

              Without any similar mechanism, GitHub could be sued for anything that a third party hosts. This is one of the things that the DMCA was intended to fix (it's not a totally bad law, it's only 80% bad). With the safe harbour provision but without an equivalent of DMCA notices, IBM would immediately file a lawsuit against the infringing party and you really don't want to go to court against IBM even if you're right.

              The real problem with DMCA notices is that they're asymmetric. If I file a DMCA notice and the hosting provider doesn't take down the content, then they lose their safe harbour status and become liable for any copyright infringement. If you then file a countersuit and they don't reinstate it, then they retain their safe harbour status, in spite of actively censoring content based on presumptions of copyright infringement. GitHub is pretty good about this: they'll reinstate a project as soon as they get the counter notice. YouTube and other Google things typically won't. The real requirement for being a neutral safe harbour needs to be that you actually are neutral: if someone files a counter notice then you should be required to reinstate the content. If you're not then you're making judgements about the content that you host which ought to legally remove your safe harbour status.

              --
              sudo mod me up
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 07 2016, @12:27PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 07 2016, @12:27PM (#423452)

                The idea behind DMCA notices isn't bad (though Google's implementation is). If I claim something is infringing, I notify the site operator and they take it down immediately.

                That is bad. I don't like copyright at all, but at the very least, they should have to see a judge before censorship is required. As it is, if a website doesn't comply with these censor-first takedown notices, they lose safe harbor status. Instead, we should get rid of the DMCA takedown notices and keep safe harbor.

                Without any similar mechanism, GitHub could be sued for anything that a third party hosts

                No, that's a false dichotomy invented by copyright cultists.

                To begin with, I don't value people being able to conveniently stop others from infringing upon their copyrights above other core principles such as due process, just as I don't value stopping criminals more than I value the 4th amendment. Saying that DMCA takedown notices makes it easier to stop copyright infringement doesn't matter to me; the ends certainly don't justify the means. Requiring due process and still keeping safe harbor would eliminate a grand majority of the malicious censorship and false positives that occur and force copyright thugs to only go after big offenders.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:19PM (#423173)

    I found this blog [teraproc.com] written by the developers of OpenLava.

    Hmm, the part about license sharing and preemption might've stuck in IBM's craw.

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 07 2016, @11:17AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 07 2016, @11:17AM (#423445) Journal
      A number of commercial license servers already have similar features: you can assign different users different priorities and if someone tries to use a license when there isn't a free one they can forcibly revoke a lower-priority user's license. This is useful for things like continuous integration, where you don't want the CI system to be preventing developers from doing pre-commit testing, but you do want it to use all of the available licenses when they're free.
      --
      sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:08PM (#423197)

    I just updated Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] with the news.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:37PM (#423227)

      Why did "In October 2016, OpenLava 4.0 was released." have to be deleted?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @08:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @08:32PM (#423249)

        Good catch. I didn't mean to do that; don't even remember doing it.

        It's back now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @10:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @10:51PM (#423292)

          Thanks, original AC!

  • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday November 07 2016, @06:06AM

    by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Monday November 07 2016, @06:06AM (#423396)

    Here's the 3.1 code and a 3.3 deb file that I put in a new gitlab repo (running on sandstorm).
    Feel free to pull from it but I ask that we only share this link on soylentnews as I'm afraid of how much bandwidth this may end up pulling!

    https://ss.greenant.net/shared/KPWmyg-wNL7lXFpjZutWyfnLyryzJ6aNETbckw-YGrt [greenant.net]

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by wugui on Tuesday November 08 2016, @10:25PM

    by wugui (6402) on Tuesday November 08 2016, @10:25PM (#424271)

    I just found out you can still download openlava rpm and deb files by filling up the form at http://www.teraproc.com/openlava. [teraproc.com]

    Suggest the author hosting it in other places.