Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government Software The Courts Linux News

Linus to SCO: 'Please Grow Up' 1163

Posted by michael
from the no-you-can't-have-any-pudding dept.
brakk writes "From this article at Infoworld, Linus responds to SCO's open letter in a manner reminiscent of patting a child on the head." chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus to SCO: 'Please Grow Up'

Comments Filter:
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:01AM (#6930742) Homepage Journal

    Another relatively uninteresting open letter, however this part of the submission caught my eye:

    chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.
    [from that link]:
    Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.

    That is truly childish. The real assholes at SCO are the suits and money-grubbing lawyers responsible for this charade. A code monkey in the trenches who needs a job to pay the bills isn't necessarily an enemy of open source.

    Guilt by association is a slippery slope, remember Joe McCarthy?
    • by theNote (319197) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:06AM (#6930811)
      I believe this practice may be illegal.

      Any EOE experts to give some clarification?

      I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.
      • by Xerithane (13482) <xerithane@nerdCO ... g minus language> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:14AM (#6930956) Homepage Journal
        I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.

        Companies are only required to keep resumes on file that meet their submission guidelines. If you clearly state, "This is the only way you can send a resume" than you only need to store those that come in that way.

        Any EOE experts to give some clarification?

        I'm not an expert, but I pretend on Slashdot. This is just speculation, so treat it as such.

        From Damage Studio's Point of View they are filtering their applicants based upon previous documented work ethics. You can filter applicants based on past history, without it being discrimination. For example, would the SEC hire someone from the financial department at Enron? Probably not, as they have a history of supporting false claims.

        Same thing. SCO employees are supporting false claims, as well as bogus lawsuits. This is something Damage doesn't want to get involved with, so they are opting to not hire people who have worked for a company who is very well known for doing that.

        Discrimination usually means things you can't help, too. Nobody is forcing anybody to work at SCO.
      • by FileNotFound (85933) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:15AM (#6930962) Homepage Journal
        I am fairly sure that this is legal. Past employment record is something that "shows your ability to perform the job".
        If you were an employee of a company that had conflicting values then it's reasonable to reject you based on that fact. It is already common for companies to not hire employees from their competitors fearling IP leaks and the lawsuits that follow.
        Under that logic it is a perfectly valid concern that a SCO employee might "inevitably" bring some SCO IP into the company and result in SCO filing a lawsuit.

        Does that make it ok to not hire someone just because they worked for SCO? I think it's moraly wrong, baseless and absolutley retarded. But I doubt that it's illegal. But of course IMNAL...

        • by Wylfing (144940) <(brian) (at) (wylfing.net)> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:36AM (#6931257) Homepage Journal
          Under that logic it is a perfectly valid concern that a SCO employee might "inevitably" bring some SCO IP into the company and result in SCO filing a lawsuit.

          Exactly right. As a project manager you can't allow an ex-SCO engineer to code on one of your projects. Do you think it would take one week or two before you were sued for SCO IP in your software? According to SCO, simply being around their sacred code taints everything you do afterward. Well, so it does.

      • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx. b c .ca> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:29AM (#6931152) Journal
        IANAL, but I am something of an expert on employment standards, having been subjected to more than my share of ***hole employers. As such, I've read my regional employment standards act from top to bottom more times than I can count.

        Where I live, disrimination is only illegal when it is done on the basis of race, religion, age, gender or sexual orientation. It is completely legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their past affilliations. I can't see this being any different anywhere else in the world that civil and human rights are protected.

      • by guacamolefoo (577448) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:56AM (#6931584) Homepage Journal
        I believe this practice may be illegal.

        Employees of SCO are not a protected class under any iteration of federal or state civil rights legislation of which I am aware. Discrimination in hiring is not illegal. In fact, it is encouraged. Generally, you want to discriminate against the stupid, lazy, and dishonest. Discriminating against members of protected classes while hiring is illegal, however.

        Typically impermissible grounds for making hiring decisions include:
        -sex
        -race
        -religion
        -age

        Sexual orientation is a close fifth behind those four biggies. Previous status as an employee of a certain organization may not be impermissible, unless it is seen as a covert method of excluding members of a particular group.

        For instance, stating that you will not hire someone who is a member of the NAACP would probably be impermissible because it smells like subterfuge for keeping out blacks, even though you need not be black to be in the NAACP. Stating that you won't hire members of the NRA, or less policitally, members of Mensa, would probably be ok, although it might seem bizarre.

        In this case, stating that you won't hire SCO employees is probably quite defensible, and perhaps the company in question thinks that it will make them distinguishable from other companies in the market for labor (more "street cred" with GNU/Linux geeks, I guess).

        IMHO, most GNU/Linux geeks recognize that the problem isn't the guys in the cubes -- it's the guys at the top, so not much street cred is to be had here, in all likelihood. It just looks sort of juvenile. Besides, don't we want to encourage any and all talent to leave SCO?

        In any case, it got their "help wanted" site some free pub, which was probably the idea in the first place.

        GF.
    • by whee (36911) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:06AM (#6930826)
      Damage Studios is a San Francisco based Equal Opportunity Employer.
      Doesn't sound that equal to me. I don't know if I'd want to work for a company (Damage Studios) that acted in this manner, anyway.
      • by cdrudge (68377) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:33AM (#6931210) Homepage
        EEO doesn't mean equal opportunity for every person for every trait. EEO means that they can't descriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. Notice past job history isn't one of them. I have the choice to not hire if you worked for SCO, not hire you if you are ugly, and not hire you if you are overweight. Would I be an ass if I did? Yes. Is it illegal, no.

        As someone else stated though, automatically deleting them is probably against the law. All resumes should be kept at least 1 year depending on where the business is located and state law.


        . What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

        * Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
        * the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
        * the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
        * Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
        * Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
        * the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
    • by cindik (650476) <solidusfullstop@nOSPAM.cindik.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:09AM (#6930869) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. Sarah works at SCO. Recent moves spur her to seek other employment. She's unhireable. Why? Because she didn't immeditately quit and beg for quarters on the street until she got a new job? What an insane overreaction.
      • by Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) * on Thursday September 11, 2003 @01:58PM (#6934589) Homepage
        Indeed. Sarah works at SCO. Recent moves spur her to seek other employment. She's unhireable. Why? Because she didn't immeditately quit and beg for quarters on the street until she got a new job? What an insane overreaction.

        That's why they said "any resumes which include the SCO Group after September of 2003 will be immediately deleted" - they're specifically giving SCO employees until the end of the month to quit if they want to be eligible for employment at Damage Studios. That seems fair to me - anyone who is still working at SCO in a month is clearly part of the problem. They've known about SCO's actions for nine months - if they haven't been looking for a new job and preparing to quit, then clearly their ethics do not agree with mine and I don't want to work with them.
    • I 100% agree. It is sad that people will base opinions of regular honda accord driving normal employees on the actions of yacht owning mansion dwelling executives.

      Happens all the time. People gotta eat... Lets be more reasonable here, and remember who we all are...

      Not that I expect anything to change because *I* asked...
    • by mocm (141920) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:11AM (#6930901) Homepage
      Maybe the reason for not hiring former SCO people is the fear of being sued by SCO, when those people contribute to your own software, since SCO seems to have a very wide definition of "derivative work".

      On the other hand, if their motives are to take revenge on SCO, why not automatically hire any programmer (not executive) that will leave SCO immediately.
    • by BFKrew (650321) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:11AM (#6930903)
      I have to agree here.

      What chance does the average coder who works to feed his family and keep a roof over his head have of influencing company executives (who can sakc him) who smell a big pay packet? Get real. Absolutely none at all. Sure, he can leave but if everyone who worked at companies who have undesirable motives, or were pursuing easy money then there'd be no one working!

      chrisd if I were you, I'd get this taken off because you're company just looks petty and rather spiteful. Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job? You don't do yourself, or your company any favours whatsoever. What's next - judge someone on where they worked 5 years ago? God help your current employees with MS experience or if Red Hat etc ever do anything amiss!

      You will get the applicants you deserve.
      • by dissy (172727) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:55AM (#6932523)
        > Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is
        > mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job?

        Your totally missing the point.

        If they are hiring a programmer, working for SCO means you _can't_ do your job.
        You can no longer program for any company in the US (Atleast until SCO is removed from the face of the planet)

        If any company hired a SCO worker, _especially_ an 'average coder', that worker will taint your code the instant he speaks to any of your corders about anything what so ever related to programming, and SCO can(Will) sue for it.

        The SCO execs fucked their workers over big time by doing this. No one else.

        SCO has all but said outright "If you use any code that may be ours, we will sue."

        I say it would be a firable offence to the interviewer if he/she knowingly and willingly hired someone from a company that stated they plan to sue anyone that uses that workers code or knowledge.

        Its fucked up of SCO to do this to all of their workers, but atleast point the blame where it belongs... Not at the companys that simply dont want garenteed lawsuits pressed aginst them, but at SCO for ruining all of their workers futures by doing this.

    • by MuParadigm (687680) <jgabriel66@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:13AM (#6930936) Homepage Journal

      Well, now that there's a new item for Open Letters, here's the extensively revised version of the one I posted a couple days ago. You can also see it on my journal page [slashdot.org].

      A Linux User's Open Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community
      By John Gabriel, NYC, 9/11/03

      "What comes of litigation? Poverty and degradation to any community that will encourage it. Will it build cities, open farms, build railroads, erect telegraph lines and improve a country? It will not; but it will bring any community to ruin." -- Brigham Young, JD 11:259.

      "Contracts are what you use against those with whom you have relationships." -- Darl McBride

      Dear Mr. McBride,

      First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Gabriel. I have been working in the technical field for 15 years, as a Network Administrator, Applications Manager, Network Manager, Sr. Networking Engineer, and now, Freelance Consultant. And, yes, I'm an MCSE.

      My first experiences with Unix occurred in the late 1970's, during school field trips to local colleges. I also did Unix technical support for students while taking a class in Pascal in the late 1980's. My first experience with Linux dates to 1994, when I downloaded whatever Linux kernel was available at that time.

      While I did install it successfully, on a Compaq Deskpro 386/25, I quickly abandoned it as the Deskpro didn't have enough memory to support the X Windows System. Several years later, in 1998, I became a Caldera customer, with a purchase of Caldera OpenLinux Base ver. 1.22, with Linux kernel 2.0.33. I ran into similar problems once more.

      About a year ago, I again became interested in Linux, and now run Linux on my home workstation in a dual-boot configuration with Windows XP.

      About 4-5 months ago, I began following the SCO v. IBM story. I was at first inclined to be open-minded towards SCO's claims. It wouldn't be the first time a small company has had its copyrights violated by a larger vendor, though the violator is usually, in my experience, Microsoft, as exemplified by Caldera's history with DR-DOS.

      However, the more I researched the story and SCO's claims, the more convinced I became that SCO's claims were, well, baseless. Being the type that usually likes to "root for the underdog", I was surprised by my conclusions.

      Anyway, that's enough introduction. What follows is an Open Response to your Open Letter to the Open Source Community. I grant everyone, including you, permission to re-publish it, or quote from it, without restriction, except that my comments be properly attributed to myself. Consider it under a "BSD-style" license if you like.


      Open Letter to the Open Source Community [sco.com]
      By Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group [sco.com]

      1) The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.

      Response to Paragraph 1 of your "Open Letter":

      This is very difficult to respond to, because your analysis of the issues and of the reasons for the Open Source community's anger is, in the words of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "so bad it's not even wrong."

      For instance, your own lawsuit against IBM does not allege that "SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into L

    • It would be more effective if they actually HAD any job openings. As it is, it's sorta childish and lame. Nah nah, I won't hire and SCO people, nah nah... I mean even if I *could* hire people I wouldn't hire any SCO people... I mean... I mean... of all the people we aren't hiring because we don't have any openings, SCO people are at the top of the list.

      grow up.
    • by FJ (18034) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:20AM (#6931033)
      This may not be a simple matter of retribution against SCO. Look at it this way:

      I run a business. I hire some people who were formerly employeed by SCO. I release a major new product which brings in millions. What is to stop SCO from taking me to court, saying that the employees I hired from them used SCO IP to improve my product?

      SCO has already shown a willingness to sue based upon shaky grounds. I'd bet if they don't win the IBM lawsuit they will go after someone else next.

      Just the threat of a lawsuit affects stock prices and can have a dramatic impact on a business.

      I'm not saying this is the case here, but it would make me think if I was in charge of hiring people.
    • by ZoneGray (168419) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:33AM (#6931221) Homepage
      More to the point, the company isn't even hiring to begin with. Restated, the page amounts to:

      "We're going to throw away all resumes, but especially those from SCO."

      BTW, note that submitter chrisd is listed on the exec team of damagestudios, along with other former VA/Andover/Sourceforge folks. Basically this is a just a tacky PR ploy, and I guess I fell for it. Looks like they're trying to get some free hits on their site more than anything else. They should just pay for their ads like everybody else.

    • by DataPath (1111) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:35AM (#6931247)
      Well, to use SCO-ish tactics, and breed panic and doubt at SCO, you get a large number of companies to offer a grace period where ex-SCO employees may be hirable at normal salaries, and after that they suffer a $600 a year pay cut per linux license on your premisis.
    • by chrisd (1457) * <chrisd@dibona.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:46PM (#6933385) Homepage
      Actually, we refuse to do business with the Boies lawfirm as well...

      It isn't really Guilt by association if you are part of the problem...I think this is a measured, appropriate response to SCOs attack on free software. Note the date is well after they launched the lawsuit, giving employees time enough to go find new jobs..

      chrisd

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:02AM (#6930749)

    Linus to SCO: "Please Grow Up"

    SCO to Linus: "My OS can beat up your OS. Nyah nyah nyah!"

    • Linus to SCO: "Please Grow Up"

      SCO to Linus: "My OS can beat up your OS. Nyah nyah nyah!"


      Linus to SCO(Rebuttle): Oh yeah, well your a poopy-pants.

      SCO to Linus: Oh yeah, well I'm telling your mommy.
      • by QEDog (610238) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:19AM (#6931022)
        SCO: Mommy! IBM stole my candy!
        Mom: But the candy jar is for everyone everyone... they didn't steal your candy, the candy jar is to share candy. We love to share in this family, don't we?
        SCO: But I want it ALL!
        SCO Lawyers: They have to pay us $700 for each candy they took. And, we declarer sharing candy in the form of public candy jars illegal!
    • by pope1 (40057) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:07AM (#6930841) Homepage
      Darl Retorts:

      My Code is Rubber, your Code is Glue,
      Whatever I Code bounces off me and sticks with you until you pay me my f@!#ing $699 you Finnish Son of a @$#@$!
  • by phunhippy (86447) * <zavoid&gmail,com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:03AM (#6930768) Journal
    All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

    Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission

    Haha.. thanks LINUS!! now i got dr. pepper all over my purty flat screen!!!!
    • by Gibble (514795)
      That's whats so funny about this. If the linux community has this infringed code in it's source, then everyone can see it anyhow. So why would SCO want people to sign an NDA to see code that they allready can see?

      Just point to the infringing code in the linux source...
  • Lottery (Score:3, Funny)

    by lord_paladine (568885) <wdnm91q02@sneakemail.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:03AM (#6930774)
    From the article: "... and now seems to play the U.S. legal system like a lottery."

    SCO scratch off tickets? Now there's an idea!

  • childness hiring? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:03AM (#6930777) Homepage Journal
    Come one people only the current top management of SCOX and Canopy are responsible and should be held accountable..

    However, with the laying off of most of the r&d coders is there any one left that is accoutnable in nature?
  • by bishopi (662205) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:05AM (#6930804)
    ......until this is all over, and just desserts are dished up......

    Post-trial Justice [temporal-acuity.net]

    Ian

  • by mpsmps (178373) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:06AM (#6930813)

    chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

    I'd complain about how immature the policy is except that if you read the page, you see that they are not hiring, so SCO employees are ineligible for all zero of the openings they have available.
  • SCO Childish (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:06AM (#6930814)
    They must really believe this. Soon we'll hear zillion infinities lines plus their dads being bigger than our dads. It's *spelled* S C O, but it's pronouned "ass hats". Lawyers have pulses? This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories. [rageagainst.net]
  • Linus!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Spackler (223562) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:06AM (#6930820) Journal
    Dear Linus,

    You were a hero of mine, until this letter. Now, you are a SuperHero! The SuperBestFriends had an opening, but I would say it is now taken.

    -Spack
  • Hiring Policy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:07AM (#6930836)
    "chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable."

    That's capricious and sick. It is not the rank and file who is responsible, it is the brass. To punish people who have done nothing wrong, guilt by association, is cruel and unfair. This would be like throwing an Enron middle-level mananger in prison simply because he/she worked for Enron. SCO isn't Nazi Germany, people!

    • Excellent points (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7.cornell@edu> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:17AM (#6930989) Homepage
      Preventing an SCO employee from jumping ship by denying them a job opportunity *benefits SCO*.

      Although a poster below made a good point - This could be intentional to avoid intellectual property problems. SCO noncompete agreements might likely make their employees ineligible to apply for employment at ChrisD's company in the first place.

      That said, the wording of the statement on ChrisD's website is immature and vengeful.

      More proper wording which I would accept is, "Due to intellectual property issues and conflicts of interest, we regret that we cannot hire former employees of the Santa Cruz Operation at this time."
    • by niko9 (315647) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:35AM (#6931249)
      SCO isn't Nazi Germany, people!

      "Springtime for SCO"
      from Mel Brooks' The Thieving Whore Bastards CEO's

      SCO was having trouble, what a sad, sad story
      Needed a new leader to restore its former glory
      Where oh where was he? Where could that man be?
      We looked around, and then we found, the man for you and me,
      And now it's ...

      Springtime for McBride and SCO,
      Utah is happy and gay.
      We're marching to a faster pace,
      Look out, here comes that smug [computerworld.com] Mcbride face.

      Springtime for McBride and Utah,
      Winter for Linus and Eric S Raymond.
      Springtime for McBride and Utah,
      Come on, Utah, go into your dance ...

      I was born in Salt Lake City, and that is why they call me P Diddy.
      Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the SCO party.

      Springtime for McBride and Utah
      (SCO Unix box beeps twice)
      Goose-step's the new step today
      (SCO Unix box gun fires)
      NDA's falling from the skies again,
      (NDA's falls and explodes)
      Utah is on the rise again

      Springtime for McBride and SCO
      System V are sailing once more
      [woman's voice]: "Well! Talk about bad source!"
      Springtime for Mcbride and SCO
      Means ... that ... soon we'll be going ...
      We've got to be going ...
      You know we'll be going to ... Court!
  • by NormalVisual (565491) * on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:08AM (#6930846)
    I suspect that the reason that Damage is refusing to hire ex-SCO employees is to prevent any possible legal action on SCO's part - I would not put it past SCO to sue a new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets or any number of other things, given their track record. I really don't think it's a political statement at all.
  • Equal Opportunity? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KodaK (5477) <sakodak@noSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:08AM (#6930848) Homepage
    Hey Chrisd,

    You can't seriously claim to be an Equal Opportunity Employer and at the same time reject applicants based on where they used to work. I know there's not a law but come on, that's the spirit of EOE.

    • by horza (87255) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:44AM (#6931390) Homepage
      Office of Equal Employment Opportunity [nih.gov]: Discrimination is defined in civil rights law as unfavorable or unfair treatment of a person or class of persons in comparison to others who are not members of the protected class because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual harassment, sexual orientation or reprisal for opposition to discriminatory practices or participation in the EEO process.

      Federal EEO laws prohibit an employer from discriminating against persons in all aspects of employment, including recruitment, selection, evaluation, promotion, training, compensation, discipline, retention and working conditions, because of their protected status.


      I think the point is that you don't choose your race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual orientation or to be sexually harassed. That is the spirit of EOE. If you choose to prostitute your talents for a morally corrupt company, then that is your choice and you accept the consequences.

      Phillip.
  • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06@eBOYSENmail.com minus berry> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:10AM (#6930884)
    They shifted it in complicated maneuvers to raise the value of sister companies under the Canopy umbrella, allowing their stocks to be pumped and dumped (and allowing the increased value of their stocks to be used in further complicated maneuvers to increase the personal fortunes of Canopy top executives). They also used it to hire really expensive lawyers who have no real conception of IP law but understand the stock value of publicity, publicity, publicity.

    What they didn't do was use it to make good products or a functional business. "Squander" implies they ever intended to try to do either of these.

    By the way, am I the only one who always thinks about Resident Evil's Umbrella Corporation every time he hears the name Canopy?

  • by Dissenter (16782) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:10AM (#6930888)
    and now seems to play the U.S. legal system like a lottery
    Not quite my friend. Somehow I think my Mega Millions ticket has a better chance of winning that SCO getting anything from the community.
  • by Mr. Darl McBride (704524) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:10AM (#6930889)
    Darl here.

    Alright, Linus. The gloves are off.

    We'll now show the most damning evidence yet [qpine.net]. There we have it, we've presented the basis for not hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of derivative code in the Linux kernel.

    Let's see you dig yourself out of this one, wunderkind.

  • Hiring ban (Score:3, Funny)

    by AveryT (148004) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:12AM (#6930924)
    chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

    So they're refusing to consider SCO employees for any of the open positions that they .. oh, they don't actually have any open positions right now.

    Wow, that'll teach them a lesson.
  • Linus Flame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SyntheticTruth (17753) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:13AM (#6930939)
    Linus' letter reminds me of a good example of a flame: biting, yet so intelligently written that you might miss it.

    • by Mr Coffee Cup (182394) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:21AM (#6931981) Journal
      Makes me think of this 'classic flame' I acquired years ago (at least 8), and occasionally consult.. don't remember exactly where I ran across it, but it still ranks as about the funniest flame I've ever seen.
      Because, among the people who read this newsgroup, you are granted the same respect as would be granted, say, your average root fungus. Not only are your language skills highly suspect, not only do you refuse to answer the most basic of questions about your qualifications and/or background, not only are you posting from AOL, you are annoying, your information is often wrong or unsubstantiated, and you have this air of blithe idiocy that makes people with more than eight operating neurons want to put you in a small envelope and mail you back and forth between people in Washington, D.C. until the Post Office finally sticks you in some pile of undelivered mail, where you would then remain until the weight of accumulating mail compresses you into a small lump of peat, at which point you would be ground into mulch and spread over someone's garden, thus gaining in death what you failed to obtain in life; a useful purpose on this planet.
      Have a nice day. :)
  • by Otter (3800) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:13AM (#6930941) Journal
    ...but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

    The real shocker here, of course, is that a Linux advocate spelled "bated breath" correctly for the first time in recorded history.

  • by lar3ry (10905) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:15AM (#6930963)
    SCO doesn't seem to have any employees other than lawyers and mouthpieces at present.

    I doubt that anybody looking for a job in the software field would have SCO from May, 2003 on their resume.
  • Take that! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:15AM (#6930970)
    To paraphrase Kelso from That 70's Show:

    "BUUUUUURRRRRRRNNN!"

    Sorry, I just got caught up in the wicked burn. Linus is awesome, what can I say? He certainly has a way with words. I laughed so hard after reading that.
  • by puzzled (12525) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:15AM (#6930977) Journal


    And their first task will be going through the SCO customer list in my geographic area and whacking each and every SCO system they can locate.

    You have to view it from their perspective - years, some times decades of hard work, stock in the company trapped by trading rules, and scam artists from Canopy making it all just a sick joke.

    If you really want to jab SCO, find a job for *every* person there who does real work, and do it quick.

  • Karma whoring ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Etyenne (4915) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:18AM (#6930998)
    Just the Torvald's letter ... hilarious !

    ---
    Dear Darl,

    Thank you so much for your letter.

    We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.

    However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.

    Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

    All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

    Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,

    Yours truly,

    Linus Torvalds
  • Not a troll but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by targo (409974) <targo_t@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:19AM (#6931024) Homepage
    Which one is worse, the fool or the fool that follows him?
    I find the attention/flames that everybody is giving to SCO highly surprising, as a result it is hard for bystanders to differentiate between the opponents. It would be much more mature of Linus and Co to either ignore the whole matter or respond professionally, instead of playing the same game.
  • Linus's Letter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@earthshod[ ].uk ['.co' in gap]> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:32AM (#6931189)
    It takes a special kind of genius to be able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as they end up thinking you wished them a pleasant journey. Linus has done well to keep his cool while all this has been going down. I wonder what pills he's been taking?

    As for Damage Studios' policy, I think it is mostly just for show. But they have got every right to refuse ex-SCO employees, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There are things I, personally, would far rather be on the dole than do. As long as you have a head on your shoulders, a hand on each arm {and, absit omen you should ever have to use it, a hole in your arse}, there is no reason why you should be going short.
  • by BeemerBoy (24030) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:34AM (#6931232) Homepage
    Bill Gates is tired of being the most despised human being in IT, so he put up Darl as the new "Whipping Boy." It seems to be working! :-P

  • by Morglum (662310) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:39AM (#6931304) Journal
    For a non-native English speaker, Linus needs to be given credit for the subtle zinger at the end: "Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,". Nice double meaning on that last word there!
  • by djh101010 (656795) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:48AM (#6931439) Homepage Journal
    This might not be (just) about being against SCOs ethics - given Darl's track record, there might be a very real possibility that if someone hires one of "his" people, he could come after that company and somehow claim that they have stolen "his" property (the intellectual property inside that person's head).

    Problem with SCO is that since nothing they're doing makes sense, predicting future moves is equally difficult.
  • good day for SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frovingslosh (582462) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:51AM (#6931492)
    chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireabl

    Wow, that must really concern management at SCO, that they don't have to wory about employees leaving and going somewhere else because no one will hire them. Even is this were true, it actually would be great news for top management. Between that and Linus's response being a lame "grow up" while they watch company stock go through the roof and some chumps actually paying them and they must really be having a good day today.

  • The Main Point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fanatic (86657) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:39AM (#6932255)
    From Linus's letter:
    All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

    This is so beautiful because it so totally destroys SCO's "reason" for not disclosing the infringing code: the argument that they can't disclose it becauses it's proprietary (even though, by their own statements, it's already in the publicly available kernel source code).

    Characteristically, Linus curts stright to the crux of the matter.

  • by Garion911 (10618) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:47AM (#6932387) Homepage
    Bottom of chrisd's link:

    (C) Copyright 2002-2403 Damage Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.
  • by cyberassasin (4943) <bmfrank@nOspAm.gmail.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:50AM (#6932430) Homepage
    The policy of not hiring SCO employees is actually somewhat inteligent, and I would be surprised if other companies did not follow suit....

    Bear with me for a moment....

    By hiring a SCO employee, and knowing SCO's current mindset (sue for money), I would not be surprised if you got a knock on the door six months down the road from SCO counsel asking for a code audit, thinking that the former employee must have given your company some IP knowledge due to past experience at SCO....

    So by not hiring an ex-SCOer, you would be keeping yourself from being exposed to such risks.... not at all unfair.... and good thinking
    • by chrisd (1457) * <chrisd@dibona.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:58PM (#6933587) Homepage
      I should point out that other companies are doing it, we're just being public about it. I've heard of other firms explicitly , and perhaps unfairly, doing this as well, without regard for when a person worked there. I mean, take John Terpstra, who worked for caldera before all this, or Ransom Love, both are really, really, good people who are in my mind eminently hireable. They both were gone before may of 03 though, and if not, I'll amend our policy.

      Chrisd

  • Media Response Team (Score:4, Informative)

    by Yog Soggoth (595971) <speralta@isis-soft . c om> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:42PM (#6933320)
    It's absolutely critical that the Open Source Community counter one-sided stories like the one written by Reuters yesterday.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030909/tech_sco_linux_1. ht ml

    I would encourage all /.'ers to write Reuters to get their editors to take a second look at their story:

    Here's what I wrote them. Please feel free to send my letter verbatim, or something similar. The more feedback they get, the less likely they will be to do a one-sided treatment of this in the future.

    To: editors@reuters.com

    I am writing in reference to the September 9 article on SCO's current lawsuit and critique of the Open Source community.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030909/tech_sco_linux_1. ht ml

    Your article failed to provide any response from members of the Open Source community, or to articulate the views of the community, and as such was an entirely one-sided treatment of the topic.

    The author lamely suggested that Open Source leaders were "unavailable for comment" either unaware of, or deliberately ignoring the mountains of responses generated in recent days, weeks, and months regarding the lawsuit, and in particular, and McBride's letters. Given the lopsided nature of the article, I suspect that the author did not try very hard to find responses from the Open Source community regarding SCO's claims.

    In the interest of balance, I would strongly encourage you to write another story articulating the Open Source movement's response to McBride's letter.

    For references in which the Open Source, and other communities, notably the Open Group which holds the UNIX trademark, have responded to SCO's claims in general, and to the particular letter being reported on in yesterday's article please review the following references:

    http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003- 09 -10-016-26-OS-CD-CY
    http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl _eben_moglen_position _paper.pdf
    http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow .html
    http://www.opengroup.org/comm/press/unix-ba ckgroun der.htm
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco.htm l

    Please give the following email addresses to authors doing future research on SCO's claims regarding the Open Source community.

    moglen [at] columbia [dot] edu Eben Moglen
    esr [at] thyrsus [dot] com Eric Raymond
    bruce [at] perens [dot] com Bruce Perens
    rms [at] stallman [dot] org Richard Stallman
    torvalds [at] transmeta [dot] com Linus Torvalds
  • by shish (588640) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @12:55PM (#6933544) Homepage
    "... and now seems to play the U.S. legal system like a lottery."

    SCO's forum 2003 took place in vegas...
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @01:05PM (#6933730) Homepage

    That SCO is so full of bullshit that by repeating and denying any particular version of their fantasy-land claims, we only give credence to them. This is the letter than ESM and Bruce should have written. Short, to the point, and utterly dismissive.

    But it could be even better. I hope that from now on, if open/free advocates decide to bite Darl's trolling, that they restrain themselves to just saying "Identify the infringing source," and not one word more. Unless it's "fuckwad".

  • by WebMasterJoe (253077) <joe&joestoner,com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @02:55PM (#6935358) Homepage Journal
    Here's my plan:
    1. Write a song about Linux, and include some source code in the lyrics.
    2. Build up enough interest in it so that some record label offers a deal. Major labels only, please.
    3. Play the hell out of the song. Get all of Slashdot to buy multiple copies, get it preinstalled on Linux distros, etc.
    4. Profit!!! (but we're not done yet)
    5. Tell SCO that the second verse contains System V code.
    Things will just, well, work themselves out. On there own. Easy.

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...