Eric Raymond's Homebrew SCO Poison 754
What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?" writes "Eric S. Raymond responds to Darl McBride's charge that he's drinking IBM's Kool-Aid in SCO's fight against Linux.
The main thrust: Yes, there is an alliance against SCO, but, like the Open Source movement itself, it arises from lots of folks spontaneously striving for a common goal. 'It's beyond me how [you] can have the gall to talk as though we need funding or marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you. IBM couldn't stop us from mobilizing!' "
Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Interesting)
Stronger spectra (Score:5, Interesting)
To use a "software evangelism" analogy, look at all the various religions out there. In any given one, you'll find a bunch of factions/denominations that do not fully agree with one another, and that are of varying size and influence. Does this weaken their movement, overall? No. What it does is broaden the appeal of the religion for people of differing views, and keeps the debate alive internally which is crucial for their vitality.
Having a variety of companies out there that are on the spectrum of non-profit to small-profit to big-profit is no issue at all, as long as none of them can take over the work for the purposes of excluding everyone else.
On a related note, regarding IBM, I'm wondering why they don't take the position of offering legal counsel to (at least some of) the users currently being threatened by SCO. While it's completely understandable that they aren't going to provide complete indemnity (arbitrary claims such as SCO's times millions of deployments could theoretically come to basically infinity dollars), supporting the users who are currently being attacked by SCO would give IBM major karma points with the Open Source community, as well as giving them the opportunity to force SCO into revealing more about their alleged case. And, quite possibly, with the legal bills SCO would rack up defending a countersuit from all the users they've threatened, just implode them before the case ever gets to trial. This would be good for IBM and Open Source.
Protecting open source software.. (Score:5, Interesting)
software - great though the idea is in
principle - there is nothing to stop someone
sneaking in some (C) code, then later standing
up (maybe under a different persona) and sueing
everyone for breach of copyright.
Ok, thats not *exactly* whats happened
here - but you get my drift.
Perhaps some sort of special legal protection
is needed - in the same way charities enjoy
a special status..
Code declared to be "public" must be posted
to special government sanctioned database.
Anyone who thinks and can prove breach of
(C) can apply for their code to be removed from
the database, but will not be able to sue for
copyright breach for anyone using it for the
duration it is posted (plus some nominal period
of, say, 2 months or something like that)
Just my 2 cents..
Re:Stronger spectra (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that would be good for Open Source: it would leave a shadow over the Linux for evermore. Anothe set of lawyer-ghouls could always buy the rights from the deceased SCO and start again. We need to get this to court and settled as fast as possible.
Two possible outcomes:
1. No infringment. Burn, SCO, burn
2. Infringement. The infringing code is dropped fast, and the Linux community rewrites it fast. SCO says this is not possible. I think that that the OS Community - at Warp Factor 10 - could do it in three months. A fine for IBM - which won't kill them. Linux carries on with FUD removed.
What we need is for someone to force SCO to reveal the allegedly infinging code - in public, not under NDA. Cannot someone get a ruling that, since it will have to be disclosed in court, it should be disclosed now?
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:1, Interesting)
Wild Speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
The last paragraph is worded so strongly, especially the bit about fraud and IP theft, you can't help but wonder if some unnamed soul hasn't laid their hands on a copy of SCO's code and found GPL'ed code in it. The Linux personality module comes to mind.
But wait ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Its okay for 'us' to say "Microsoft is the machiavellian lord behind the scenes of the SCO front", but not for SCO to say it about IBM...
I dunno. I think its about time Herd was released.
Now people who signed the NDA are dissapearing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Interesting)
A libel or slander case would be ideal for getting the truth exposed. Not going to happen.
Re:Protecting open source software.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose I posted copyrighted songs on a website. The record labels could not sue the ISP, unless the ISP was unresponsive or negligent. The offending files would be identified and removed. The RIAA might then sue me for putting them there in the first place, but IMHO they'd have a right to do so.
The nature of the copyright infringement in the music example is very similar to the alleged SCO material. Individuals contributing content to a larger body of work are each responsible for their own contributions.
The difference is that SCO is saying, "There's copyrighted stuff somewhere on your ISP. Everyone who's ever seen your website owes us a hundred bucks, or we'll shut it down. Don't worry your pretty little head about the details. Trust us. There's a copyright infringement in there somewhere."
The reason that SCO has not disclosed the nature of offending code is that they know their case would immediately crumble. Any code that they could stake a claim to would be rewritten a few hours after disclosure.
If there is copyrighted code in the kernel, then whomever put it there is legally responsible. If they did it as part of their duties while working at IBM, then IBM may also be culpable. But NOT every person who ever used Linux!!!
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:2, Interesting)
That's easy. There's no real threat, because you presumably don't know who Seth is or where he lives, and you very likely don't have a gang.
If you did have a gang, and you did know who Seth was, it would only be unprotected speach if there wasn't a context that caused the insinuated action to be a legal one. Talking about possible legal proceedings, for example...
Who are ESR's "people" (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm glad someone is out there fighting for What's Right, but agreeing with ESR on this topic doesn't automatically make me one of "his people".
Does it?
-sharv
Re:Already Happening... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did AT&T Unix 32V fall into the public domain? The judge said "Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V".
What if SCO's Microsoft-funded strategy is not to FUD Linux, but to revisit that decision and show that 32V did not fall into the public domain, but *became in fact a derivative work of BSD?*
SCO claims to have contracts with IBM that entitle it to incorporate that companies code into its operating systems. We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts. Perhaps SCO really has that right.
Could SCO be trying to show that Linux is also a derivative work of BSD, and thus BSD-licensed (non-GPL encumbered?)
[/troll]
Re:I read this a couple of days ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Linus Torvalds is backing me on this..."
If you don't want him speaking for you, that is easy to solve. Set up a website, write an open letter with your own opinions or proposals, and send a link to
Re:Protecting open source software.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Lucky American fools: you have free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Fools, because too many of you don't know, care, or realize, just how important this right is.
Re:Already Happening... (Score:3, Interesting)
Question, though: If SCO could be forced to GPL Unixware, would we want it? Does it have any advantages at all? Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Red Hat get lawyers fees and damages. (And SCO goes bankrupt.)
News: SCO has started invoicing Linux users (Score:1, Interesting)
or so they claim [commentwire.com].
Re:ESR should stick to coding. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think ESR will be a bit careful about anything that he actually proposes. And that he will
Remember, the community is diverse. Some people follow Linus, some follow ESR. Nobody follows all that closely. Who's your choosen spokesman? Personally I find Linus more emotionally appealing, but I clearly recognize that ESR is a pivotally important character. It's his stand on ideological purity that have safeguarded us many times in the past. Because of his past advocacy, the undermining of the community can't be done through license pollution, but needs to proceed though a FUD campaign, that's been rather unsuccessful. (And we need to be very thankful that IBM has decided that we are safer to play with than MS is. Otherwise we'd be killed by patents. As it is... IBM may just have said "Don't think about it" to certain other parties.)
I didn't take it that way (Score:5, Interesting)
ESR has written some faily provocative material, but I think he's really trying to provoke thought, rather than violence. He's a self-proclaimed "gun nut," but why does that worry anyone? He's never used a weapon on anyone that I'm aware of, and until he shows a proclivity towards unjustifiable lethal violence, it's difficult to justify any sort of sanction. Prior restraint, whether physical or intellectual, is hardly justifiable in this instance. It's also worth remembering that violence is not always the wrong path (here come the pacifist flames), despite what they are teaching in school these days.
For example: his article on "when to shoot a policeman." At first blush, this kind of thing immediately raises my antennae; I used to be an LEO, of the tactical-team variety. If anyone's likely to be a target for killing, it would be a fellow like myself... yet I didn't find the article terribly alarming. He actually argues AGAINST the killing of policemen, except in very extreme circumstances (total breakdown of civil liberties... where the police become a tool of tyranny). Frankly, I'm glad people like ESR feel passionately about their rights, and are willing to defend tham... civil rights are what separates the US from the world of brutal dictatorial regimes. Frankly, if I were a policeman under such conditions, I would give up my badge; I would not be party to gratuitious abrogation of the rights of others... THEIR loss of rights is MY loss of rights. This might come as a surprise to some Slashdotters, but virtually all the cops I've ever known were able to make that intellectual leap.
Most LEOs would never be a part of such wholesale represssion. Such atrocity creates an unholy bond between the masters and their agents, one that binds them to the same fate, usually a bloody one. ESR simply states a willingness to use the "final option" against a repressive, tyrannical government. This discussion may make people, myself included, uncomfortable, but discussions about revolution are hardly comfortable things. Now personally, I would look a bit askance at an individual who considered mass violence, societal upheaval, revolution, and bloodshed comfortable everyday topics... yet some simple intellectual discourse about such things should not be cause for sanction. ESR may be a strange guy, but I respect his intellect, and trust that he knows the difference between philosophical debate and action.
But back to the topic at hand, I actually liked his letter to McBride. Some people will no doubt attack it as juvenile... I thought it was hilarious.
Strictly speaking... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then yes, image effects market value. Apparently this has not hit SCO yet, but it will....believe me.
Are we talking about actual sales?
Then yes, image effects sales. I think this has already hit SCO, which is why sueing is the only way to make money.
Thinking otherwise is to say that the whole PR-business is built on false premises.
$hit! It is, isn't it?
Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine the case that Samba, for instance, was GPL except for SCO, which would have an outrageous licensing fee. Seems like FSF floated that idea already with GCC, didn't they? SCO *has* to use Samba, but can they afford to do development on it themselves?
What if all software packages changed licenses to a "GPL but for SCO" license. That means SCO could only use software up to the license change, and make modifications and improvements themselves. What would their cost be for that? And wouldn't that show other companies that the free software community can't be messed with?
Dunno, but the FSF floating that idea makes me think thats perhaps what ESR is referring to.
Why does the press keep lying about Novell? (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO sued IBM in March, claiming that the Armonk, N.Y., company had inappropriately contributed code to the Linux operating system in violation of a Unix licensing contract that IBM had signed with AT&T but that had later been transferred to SCO. In May, Novell claimed that it, and not IBM, had the rights to the Unix source code -- a claim it later retracted.
Novell never retracted their claim to own the UNIX license. What happened was when Novell pointed out publicly that they owned the license to UNIX and SCO had been asking them to sell it to them, SCO produced an addendum to the contract which they said transferred the license. Novell pointed out that their copy of the contract never contained that addendum, but has not said anything since. Later SCO published the quoted sentence almost verbatim in a press release (IIRC it was a quote from Darl McBride) and the press has been plagiarizing it ever since.
I would be willing to bet hat the Novell lawyers are feverishly tryingto figure out the following:
1) in this wacky world of law, can "double secret" addendums be considered legal?
2) How far does the Judge's imagination need to stratch for this?
3) Does the contract say itself anything about addendums?
4) Where did this addendum come from?
5) Can they punish SCO legally for fabricating the addendum?
Re:ESR should stick to coding. (Score:3, Interesting)
At least ESR isn't likely to start burning heretics.
Re:Microsoft gameplan (no, not the Xbox) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably at about the same time Dr. Elders was fired as surgeon general for her comments on masturbation [alligator.org].
I think we have strayed from the teachings of Devo:
When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to whip it
whip it good
When a good time turns around
You must whip it
You will never live it down
Unless you whip it
No one gets their way
Until they whip it
I say whip it
Whip it good
Re:Lucky American fools: you have free speech (Score:2, Interesting)
arrested? that's nothing!
try going to any London pub and giving an honest opinion about northern Ireland.
Re:Lucky American fools: you have free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
As an astute /. reader will realize, this is a lie... it never happened.
assault (because someone was offended)
This is not assault, and no one has ever been convicted of assault due to being "offended". Threats of force by word or gesture ("I'll punch your lights out", shaking a fist in someone's face, etc), if they are reasonably believable, can constitute assault. Not otherwise.
There was a case a few years ago that actually tested the principle that truth was a legal defence against libel
This gets tested all the time, in all sorts of places. So what?
before you trot out the 1982 patriated constitution, with it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, look up "notwithstanding clause". Which has been used twice by Canadian governments in 21 years... once by Quebec on Bill 101 (the French-language law) and once by Saskatchewan on a labour bill. That's it. It's no more a limit on rights and freedoms than the the time lag in getting a court to rule on constitutionality.
Canadians fall into two camps: rats who pervert democracy via rule of the largest mob, or sheep, who are too tired or scared to fight back.
So I'm either a rat or a sheep, am I? I stand up for my civil liberties, thanks, and thank heaven that I am in a country where these - and my human rights - are protected.
I can understand you are upset with living in Canada (apparently for political reasons) and want to move... why aren't you able to emigrate? What's holding you back?
I am seriously considering giving my son up for adoption so he can return to the U.S.
Oh. Right. You're totally off your freaking rocker. My mistake.
Re:they held a press conference for analysts (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is that many analysyts are not worth a sack of S___. They don't understand all of the issues - they're just trying to make a quick buck for their company and investors. The sad truth is that once something is reported as news on Marketwatch or CNBC or Bloomberg, it no longer matters whether the information is accurate or correct - the stocks move.
Movement in the stock market is not driven by facts, technology, or capabilities -- it's driven by speculation and opinions.
The stock market is just a game who's rules change as fast as the technology the traders use does.
Re:Lucky American fools: you have free speech (Score:1, Interesting)
What a lying asshole you are. You're why much of the world hates Americans - even though I would guess you are just immature, and not even American.
You've "seen" people get arrested for trespassing after getting the wrong coffee or whatever? Bullshit. Not even close to reality. Never happened. Ever. Not without extenuating circumstances you're not telling us.
TROLL. You're wasting our time, but more importantly, *moron*, you only have one life to live, and you're wasting it being totally unproductive, and spreading lies in order to attempt to deceive the gullible newbies here on
And btw, moron, the Canadian equivalent is "Life, Liberty, and the Security of the Person." Look it up.
In Conclusion, you don't know jack shit.
HTH. HAND.
Re:More independent thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
It's also unusual for shorting to have much of an effect, because it's usually too small a volume.
As an aside, SCO's market cap is currently about $200M, so if they were to win $1B against IBM, wrange Red Hat into a deal and get SCOsource off the ground, say their market cap went up to $2B - doesn't that mean the market thinks they've got about a 10% chance of winning that much.
Sounds overpriced to me, I'd give them a 1-3% chance of winning against IBM. If the stock goes much above 15$, I'd definitely consider a punt.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:1, Interesting)
Read it and try to understand it.