Samba Team Points Out SCO's Hypocrisy 612
An anonymous reader noted an article talking about the Samba
Team's Statement to SCO. While Darl McBride blasts the GPL, his company simultaneously announces the use of Samba 3 in their OpenServer product. I'm not sure if it breaks my heart or boils my blood to read this stuff. Probably a little of both.
SCO Resellers (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux and the GPL could potentially provide that life boat, although it's been my experience that the average SCO reseller is neither ncapable of innovation nor independent thought. Cactus is a good example. Their main product, Lone Tar, is nothing that GNU tar and a couple shell scripts (mostly for the "bootable" feature) couldn't replicate. To companies like this, it's still 1993.
Samba team should... (Score:3, Interesting)
For crying out loud already. (Score:2, Interesting)
You'd think after two SCO updates a day eventually it would happen.. but no.. it hasn't.
Heh, this can get funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Samba team suing SCO for copywrite infrigement ?
How SCO is doing financially (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess this is the type of "if-we-are-going-down-we-will-take-with-us-as-man
No shame )-: (Score:2, Interesting)
Integration of Open Source Tools
* Java JDK 1.3.1 and Java runtime
* Graphics, Web, and X-11 libraries
* Samba, Squid, OpenSSL, and OpenSSH
* BIND, FTP, IP Filter, PHP, XML, ASP
* DocView (online documentation system)
* libc from SCO UnixWare 7.1.3
* GNU Compiler Collection, GNU debugger, GNU diff, wget, and CVS
* Mozilla and Netscape Communicator
* UnixWare and OpenServer Development Kit 7.1.3
Entrapment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that entrapment? Do you have to be a law enforcement agency to entrap? If it's not entrapment, could it be considered extortion? Since they sold me the license, are they an accessory to the crime? If we are guilty, arent they too?
I usually have a more level head than this, but I can't hold it back any longer; Fuck you Darl. If your were standing in front of me, I'd bitchslap you myself. Twice.
Re:Samba team should... (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple. More authors who have put their software under the GPL sue SCO for misappropriation of their IP since SCO claims the GPL is invalid. Thus SCO will face a furry similiar to the slashdot effect but with lawsuits.
SCO's view: GPL == Public Domain (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like that college in California that has to shut down the shortcut through its campus every couple years to make sure they don't lose their property, copyrights are only good if someone is "actively trying to enforce them" - when you find a violation you must act. The history of the FSF/GPL community working with GPL violators to bring them in line is going to be the major counter argument (such as the recent work with Linksys to make sure they release the Linux they use). Other people who have worked on an individual basis to bring GPL violators to task would be helpful for the GPL case also.
-antim
NOTE: IANAL, TIJMV (this is just my view)
Re:text of article (Score:5, Interesting)
But isn't it true? It's undeniable that the GPL and Free Software *does* destroy value, but the key is destroying value FOR WHOM. For giant monolithic corporations that require absolute control to inflate their profit margins, free software is an absolute bane to their existence if that's their only business model (Microsoft, proprietary UNIX venders with no other line of income). For those who use Free Software to enhance value, their business model is still safe, they now compete by providing superior packaging (hardware and software support, see IBM, Sun, even SGI these days). You will never see a Free Software company reach the kind of marketcap of a Microsoft: Free Software has pushed software into the "commodity" zone. Software that is ubiquitously cheap, affordable, with high standards of quality (uhm, well, maybe one day (in terms of the overwhelming majority of OSS, anyway.. for every SAMBA, there's probably 10 turds or stillborn children on sourceforge)). It has enhanced the value for the END USER, rather than for the developer/owner/investor. It's a shifting of value, to be more precise, and a lot of people have a problem with that. One, you can measure with your bank account. The other is less tangible.
Personally, I like my money green.
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
We could take up a collection and run a full-page ad in a national newspaper.
They're just handing them to us . . . a theory (Score:3, Interesting)
So, they blast GPL while using GPLed code. They make outrageous claims they don't back up. They show source code comments (with some scrambled) and then a chunk of relatively un-unique code that's been out and about in the world for decades.
I've started developing a theory here:
Essentially, at some point, they got the idea to take on IBM or Open Source. Maybe it was the result of seeing some similar code. Maybe it was a moment of inspiration. I'm not sure.
But once they comitted to that strategy, they stuck with it. They had people look for similar code, without checking its origins. They looked for ways to re-intepret the GPL and copyright law no matter how ridiculous they sounded.
In short, this is what we want/assume to be true, lets look for evidence for it.
Of course from the outside they look like greedy, unethical dimwits. But by now, comitted to their strategy, they not only don't want to back down, they probably can't . .
Which, is ironic, because at this rate they're being so outrageously stupid that I feel they'll end very badly - as in lost lawsuits, being sued, perhaps even an SEC investigation.
Just thoughts and a theory.
Drop SCO support from Samba (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if they want to, they can just get a GPLed copy from anyone, and be bound by it - the seperate licence thing is only really of any use to someone wanting to incorporate the code into proprietary software, etc.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what the legal rights of the authors of GPL'd software would be if the GPL was rendered invalid?
Any laywers present? Would all that tasty code revert to the public domain? Would ownership fall to the principle authors (good luck determining that gor something like gcc or difflib)?
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, on the face of things this whole deal is just so totally and completely wrong. It's ludicrous. So, what is SCO really up to?
Re:More scarry... (Score:2, Interesting)
1)
They make a plan to sell the stock (beforehand) and
register this with the SEC. This is front loaded as much as possible to get the most $$$. It's registered with the SEC, before anything is done.
2)
They discover SCO code is in the Linux Kernel. But its our IP, so you have to sign this non-disclosure so you can't ever touch LINUX again. Of course anyone involved with Linux won't sign it.
OH NO
SUE IBM --- SUE EVERYONE. HEY WE GOTTA SELL SCO UNIX LICENSES TO ALL LINUX USERS, CAUSE THERE USING OUR IP!
3)
SCO STOCK SOARS YEA, WERE MAKING MONEY AGAIN. And buy the way, all that stock were selling, was per a pre-arranged schedule that has nothing to do with this IP issue.
4)
Judge looks at all the code. When it's put in court, (a year or two later of course), it's discovered that some of the code is actually stolen BSD code, some of the code is IBM/Dynawhowever code, and some of the code was inserted by Caldera.
5)
Opps, Our mistake. Our lawyers said it was a valid IP issue. There bad.
6) SCO goes Chapter 7. Company Officers however, have sold BOATLOADS of stock at outragious profits.
7 SEC investigates. No WrongDueing. The stock selling plan was in place Long before any lawsuit was started. There good Company officers, taken in by a bunch of confused lawyers. McBribe is a honest CEO.
So much for a bunch of stupid stockholders's money.
This is what's going on IMHO.
Favorite Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been teaching myself Analysis, which requires me to have my logic and analytic circuits running at maximum. When I read this quote it hurt my head.
check this link out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:samba team... (Score:5, Interesting)
"At the recent SCO forum, you indicated that you consider the GPL to be damaging to intellectual property. At the same Forum, you announced that you would be shipping Samba 3 with your next release in order to provide a higher level of Windows compatibility. Considering that Samba is licensed to you under the GPL, your arguments against it would actually prevent including such functionality. Do you plan to remove Samba from your coming release if you win your lawsuit on the grounds that the GPL is invalid under Federal copyright law? If so, how do you intend to provide the Windows compatibility that you have announced?"
Re:SCO has no strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Drop SCO support from Samba (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:samba team... (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago Anne had a BBC programme called "Watchdog" where they picked on scummy companies, usually trying to get those companies to honour warranties, refund crappy holidays etc. She's extremely sharp and quick witted. I think she'd wipe the floor with Mr. McBride.
Fight Back: Short SCOX (Score:5, Interesting)
As of right now, short positions on SCOX [yahoo.com] are at 391K, or about 2x daily volume.
Take a stand, go short on 20 shares of SCOX, and put $200 into your pocket today. The downward pressure you create thwarts the efforts of SCO management to inflate the price through non-news press releases.
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) SCO has declared that the GPL is invalid. At a minimum their claims are that the GPL does not permit free redistribution.
2) The SAMBA team (amonst many others I imagine) has licensed the code to SCO and all vendors under the GPL. SCO must agree to this license prior to using or redistributing the code.
1 + 2 => SCO has not agreed to the terms of the GPL, and thus cannot resell SAMBA code without making other arrangements with the SAMBA team, at their discretion.
It is true that there is a grey area with anti-competitive behavior, which is why it's very hard to prove. However, if you set a price for a product, and it's the same for everyone, then it's fair, correct? And if someone refuses to pay that price you don't have to sell to them, right?
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:samba team... (Score:3, Interesting)
Samba to charge licensing fees.... (Score:2, Interesting)
They need to do more (Score:2, Interesting)
1. They ought to write a letter to SCO saying they are aware of press reports about SCO's position on the GPL. They should remind SCO, that the only valid license to distribute Samba is the GPL. If SCO does not accept this license or thinks it invalid, it has no right to distribute Samba.
2. They ought to register copyrights ASAP. If SCO try to grab it or break the GPL, then they can sue for statuatory as well as actual damages.
3. What they ought to do is put in LOTS and LOTS of code that guarantees that it will not work on SCO's UNIX platforms. Also take out any special compatibility stuff for SCO UNIX platforms. I'm not talking about sabotage, more like rely on features that ain't in SCO or something - there is no reason or obligation to support SCO's UNIX.
Yes SCO will be able to take it out, and put it in, it being open source, but they will have to do that every time, or go on a private fork with no support.
Yes it hurts SCO users and resellers, but that's the point. The point is to choke off SCO's cash supply. If you don't, they'll keep having the funds to continue with their assault on open source.
Re:samba team... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you're correct that Samba would lose a suit against SCO for violating the GPL, but that's not what they should charge. They should charge that SCO has violated the much more stringent US copyright laws. SCO would have two ways out of this: public humiliation by announcing that they accepted a license they claim they don't believe in or actually trying to defend their disregard for US copyright law.
We're All Being Used as Legal Worker Bees (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't we just ignore them, let IBM squish them hardcore, and laugh at the end? Anybody can come out and make outlandish claims, it's another thing to be able to back them up. I know most people have already moved on from this thread but I'm getting so sick of these daily SCO fears, the heck with SCO, I have better things to read about.
Re:samba team... (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting idea. Perhaps it should be taken further. Perhaps a coallition of Open Source project groups should send SCO a letter demanding that SCO publicly acknowledge it's responsibility with respect to Intellectual Property that belongs to the Open Source community. This letter should further state that failure to do so will lead to a cease and desist from the Open Source community (all members of the coalition), barring SCO from continuing to distribute intellectual property from that community due to it's lack of respect and acknowledgement of the terms of legal redistribution of that property.
Genus or Idiot? (Score:2, Interesting)
One has to wonder if SCO has a hidden agenda. Perhaps wanting to benefit not so much from the lawsuit as from their own brand of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception in this case.) They must know that their course of action is going to lead to the ultimate destruction of SCO. Not that they were any great company to begin with.
Perhaps it's a brilliant plan to boost stock prices long enough for the top insiders to sell their stocks just before SCO crashes headlong into legal reality?
Nah, they ARE just bumbling buffoons who didn't think things through.
Stop bitching about the GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
If I hear one more company complain about how the GPL is "un-American" or "destroys software value" I am going to lose my mind. I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not a life-altering commitment for all man-kind. It's A FUCKING SOFTWARE LICENSE! The developer and/or maintainer of a project decides how they want to license it. If SCO doesn't like the GPL, well, nobody every said they had to use it.
I understand why SCO, Microsoft, and even Sun don't like the GPL. I respect their opinion, but the people who use the GPL are also entitled to their own opinion. If they want to use the GPL, good for them, it's their god given right.
I mean, I personally don't like the way Microsoft licenses their software. But I don't make outrageous claims like it destroys the value of sofware and intellectual property. So it sucks, I deal. If you're developing the software for the purpose of making money, and you feel the GPL is inappropriate for it, well, then by all means, use a better license.
But stop trying to bash Linux users because you don't like the way the programmers license their code. Tough shit. It's good ol' fashioned freedom. Now deal with it.