Some Linux Use Violates Sarbanes-Oxley

GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
edited January 2006 in Science & Tech
IT Observer reports that Linux use in publicly-traded companies may be a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, under the grounds that under the Act, companies are required to disclose ownership of intellectual property to shareholders.
The study indicates that dozens of companies are discovered each year to have violated the terms of GPL, and if they are public companies, they are violating Sarbanes-Oxley.

"Linux is a powerful operating system," says Jay Michaelson, an author of the study and Wasabi Systems’ General Counsel. "But if companies violate the license, the consequences can be more severe than they think. If companies are violating the GPL, they don’t have the right to use that software. And if they don’t have the right to use the software, they’re violating federal law if they claim that they do."
Source: IT Observer

Comments

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Can somebody translate? How do companies violate the GPL? And why is it a big deal to violate Sarbanes-Oxley (that thing I've never heard of)?
  • madmatmadmat
    edited January 2006
    More importantly, do Sarbanes and Oxley feel dirty now that they've been violated?
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    Can somebody translate?
    Please. Yes, translate.

    For those of us "sheep" who don't do the "open source" operating systems, the licensing/legal terminology is a bit obscure.
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    After Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, WorldCom.... Congress passed a law to enforce very strict guidelines regarding publicly traded companies. Basically, a company must disclose/ report tons of information, have that info reviewed/ audited to ensure that the financial data is accurate and nothing is being left out.

    One of the provisions mandates that if a company develops something, it must be disclosed to its stockholders and auditors. If a company decides to "save" money, use Linux, and then develops a product using GPL software (say SQL or even an Open Office snap-in)... even though the original GPL software is open source, the company spent resources to develop the software, the software is the "property" of the company but GPL indicates that software using its source code must remain open source....

    See...
    GPL code = Open
    GPL modified code = Free

    Company developed code = company property
    GPL code modified by Company = ???

    Did I explaine it correctly?
Sign In or Register to comment.