Linus Speaks Out, Calls SCO 'Cornered Rat' 598
dexterpexter writes "In an interview with Business Week, Linux founder and guardian Linus Torvalds had, in his usual brand of blunt humor, the following to say about SCO: 'They're a cornered rat, and quite frankly, I think they have rabies to boot. I'd rather not get too close to them,' and 'There are literally several levels of SCO being wrong. And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be wrong.'" In the same issue, there's also an interview with Darl McBride where he admits that the company was failing and the Linux-related lawsuits were a last-ditch effort to prevent bankruptcy.
Re:Surprised by Linus (Score:5, Informative)
You read his response here [groklaw.net]
Re:Litigious Bastards! (Score:2, Informative)
no, it is so wrong. (Score:2, Informative)
My god, RMS will be breathing fire at this I bet.. but for god sakes can we just understand that the opensource movement was a derivative of the Freesource movement.. its not allot to ask really.. stop and learn the facts.
1, Linus developed a kernel, a good one.
2, His followers use FREESOURCE apps to make it into what we know as "Linux" but really is GNU+Linux.
3, MOD me down and you prove just how little you know
"Intellectual Property" (Score:5, Informative)
But is the recognition good or bad? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with this is sometimes a few bad apples make the OSS community look like a bunch of crazy lunatics. Take the nice worm that is going around now... CNN already has an article [cnn.com] which pretty much blames the OSS community for the worm. In fact, a quote like this: "Virus experts suggested MyDoom's author was a fan of the Linux open source community..." can be damaging to getting Linux and OSS recognized in a good light.
It is too bad that this has to happen because PHBs do not read message boards or surf
Refreshingly well put.. (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Preposterous, that's BSD (Score:3, Informative)
We came out last summer and put out some code that the Linux community on one hand said, preposterous, that's [Berkeley software]. On the other hand, some people in the Linux community said, hold on, you may have some copyright issues there.... There are 2.5 million servers out there today that have this code in it. When are Linux customers going to clean that stuff up? So that's one issue, Linux is tainted, even by their own admission.
Amazing. "some people in the Linux community said... you may have some copyright issues there..." Um, who, exactly, said this? And he leaps from that to "Linux is tainted, even by their own admission."
"When are Linux customers going to clean that stuff up?" Well, given that this code had already been removed from the Linux 2.5 kernel before SCO showed it in obfuscated form, and given that even the 2.4 kernels have had it removed now too, I'd say it has already been cleaned up.
"There are 2.5 million servers out there today that have this code in it." This code only ever existed in Itanium kernels; are there even 2.5 million Linux Itanium servers in the world? Of the Linux Itanium servers, how many are still running an old kernel with this code in it? (Not many, I should think, since there are some security holes that have been fixed in newer kernels.)
It's like studying a fractal. The more you look at the details of what he's saying, the more wrong stuff you find.
steveha
Re:I think Linus... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stop saying "literally!" (Score:4, Informative)
**Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example "The 300,000 Unionists... will be literally thrown to the wolves." The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean "virtually" or "figuratively"but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.**
anyways I didn't read the Linus's comment.. but 'literally','kirjaimellisesti' in finnish is almost never used in the sense of meaning that you got something in written(well, maybe sometimes, but mostly it's used that something is almost exactly as written), if you had something on paper you would say "minulla on mustaa valkoisella asiasta"(I got black on white about the issue", meaning that you literally have something on paper to back your opinion, which is what darl is saying).
well that was a ramble and didn't mean much beyond that 'literally' is sometimes used like you wouldn't except if it just meant some writing on paper(actually come to think of it 'literally' is sometimes used in english when you would use 'in practice' in finnish).
Now, if you have issues about the incosistency of the english language I'd suggest that you move into some country that has their own language and is sufficiently small that you actually even can say which way of saying something is 'right'. in finland for example there is an instituion that literally has the final say-so in which way of saying something is the officially approved way and should be teached in schools, english has spread too wide for such institution to be possible for it. also modern english is actually a quite young language.
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
That's why website owners get cease and desist letters instead of being dragged immediately into court. Someone unintentionally infringing who makes a timely and good faith effort to stop infringing will likely not be liable for any damages at all, and certainly cannot be compelled to purchase a license for a product they are not using.
In other words, if any code even exists, once SCO shows it and it's expunged from the kernel, there's no more infringement. And no reason to buy a license.
To put it even more bluntly, SCO's licensing theory is invented out of whole cloth, and completely without precedent.
Microsoft angle (Score:5, Informative)
THE MICROSOFT FACTOR
But who stands to gain the most from an SCO win? Microsoft. Linux is the primary force standing between Microsoft and domination of the computer world. The software giant is happily fanning customers' fears with an anti-Linux campaign while pumping money into SCO. Even though neither company has disclosed a dollar figure, sources close to SCO say Microsoft has spent more than $12 million on SCO licenses. Microsoft says it needs the licenses because it sells technology that allows its customers to run applications that were designed for Unix, the operating system Linux was modeled on. Critics believe it is just helping SCO finance its lawsuit.
Scary History of SCO / Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Gerald Holmes, yes that Gerald Holmes [freeyellow.com], has provided yet another lucid and in depth analysis of the SCO situation at this excellent site [freeyellow.com].
I highly recommend it.
Me too. I laughed and I cried.
Re:Surprised by Linus (Score:2, Informative)
I know this is _way_ OT, and I expect to be modded as such, but I'm bored at work and want to have a little 'fun'...
Scurvy is not an parasitic infestation or even a disease. It is a condition caused by malnourishment, specifically ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Vitamin C and Scurvy [virginia.edu]
A vitamin C deficiency results in an underhydroxylation of proline and lysine in collagen which results in a lower melting temperature of the resulting collagen fibers which causes a breakdown of the protein collagen needed for connective tissue, bones and dentin, the major portion of teeth. Collagen is a cementing material that binds cells together, and is an essential connective tissue protein in the body. Whenever the body is wounded, collagen glues the separated tissues together to form a scar.
A lack of collagen causes the walls of the body's blood capillaries to break down and hemorrhaging occurs in cells throughout the body. When capillaries lose the "glue" that holds them together, symptoms of scurvy appear.
An affected person becomes weak and has joint pain. Internal hemorrhages cause black-and-blue marks to appear on the skin. At the first visible signs of scurvy, raised red spots appear on the skin around the hair follicles of the legs, buttocks, arms and back.
Man, I can see how "scurvy dogs" were looked at as though they had some disease. Interesting that they eventually figured out the link between citrus and scurvy and started provisioning preserved limes and lemons on British Naval vessels. This is apparently where the epithet "limey" came from.
Re:Does he *really* talk like that? (Score:3, Informative)
Raymond is doing it (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Linus is technically logical (Score:3, Informative)
No, it makes sense in logic, though it's an awful way to put it. He's just stating the final step before the introduction of an inverse proof rule in proving the SCO is wrong. "If you assume that SCO is right then one can still demonstrate that they are wrong."
Remember that if SCO is right about its claims (which include Linux not being legal to distribute and them being able to legally distribute Linux), then they themselves are in violation of many copyrights?
So, let SCORight represent the truth of all of SCO's claims. Then:
1. SCORight => SCOViolatesCopyright. Given
2. SCOViolatesCopyright => ~SCORight. Given
3. SCORight. Assumed.
4. SCOViolatesCopyright. Transitivity(1, 3) | 3
5. ~SCORight. Transitivity(2, 4) | 3
6. ~SCORight. Inverse Proof (3, 5)
He's just talking about step 5. Even if SCO was right, they'd still be wrong. All this means is that the truth of "SCORight" is self-inconconsistent -- Darl has made self-inconsistent claims.